Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 10, 2015 2:05:35 GMT -5
Mormons consider themselves Christians. Lots of people with very divergent beliefs identify as Christians. If people think the US constitution is interpreted in wacky ways, it has got nothing on the way scripture gets twisted round. Mormons identify as Mormons rather than as Christians precisely because the teachings of Christ aren't the beginning and end of their faith. To the extent that Mormonism comports with Christianity, it's reasonable to say they share Christian beliefs. Feminism very simply is used to describe movements/collections of beliefs/ideologies aimed toward the establishment of equality for women. I agree. The issue between laterbloomer and I is to what extent the less savoury movements/collections of beliefs/ideologies can be called feminism. My view is very broad; hers is very specific. Within the umbrella of feminism, I do believe that there may be some individuals who believe that male-female intercourse is rape, although I think that is a misinterpretation of Dworkin's writing? There are definitely individuals who think everything needs to be controlled or legislated to "correct" imbalances, and that the fallout from the movement that may be damaging to men is unimportant, because women are less privileged. There are individuals who ignore the fact that men are also raped, and treat rape as something that exclusively males inflict upon females, and while there is a definite issue of under reporting of sexual assaults that happen to women, there is a similar under reporting of sexual assaults happening to males, for parallel reasons: basically, no one believes rape victims of either gender. There are individuals who consider violence inflicted upon men to be victory, or some kind of redress for violence inflicted upon women. There are women who think that the only way for men to be feminists is to sit down, shut up, and let the women speak. I found it easier to divorce myself from the concept of feminism than to accept that there are things I find repugnant done/stated/embraced in the name of feminism. I think you're right to point out the existence of all these things and that some (possibly very few; we don't know) feminists are guilty of them. I don't mind laterbloomer's trying to set out a gold standard for feminism that excludes all of these liabilities. I mind her supposition that they aren't a part of what the world defines as third-wave feminism, and I mind that she posits this without any doctrinal basis whatsoever, in defiance of observable reality. As for hypersexualized/liberal society... don't be under the illusion that women were not raped when skirts covered ankles. I imagine that what we now consider to be rape happened as often, if not more often, and that more men would have interviewed as being willing to use force or coercion to obtain sex, etc. Forcing a spouse to have sex = rape, although would not have been considered such, and probably as well: slaves, women of lower class, not of good breeding, not "virtuous"... I enjoy the expectation of control over my body, despite being a hypersexualized hussy who had intercourse prior to marriage, who IS married, a minority, and not particularly classy, so sign me up for liberal society. I've heard the "things were just as bad back then" theory vis a vis sexual indiscretion too many times to count, and not once has anyone been able to provide evidence in support of it. Even historians' most prodigious attempts (QWIPSCBDIHNRC) amount to piecemeal examples of communities or cities run amok along with an avalanche of speculation. If you want to believe that society's focus on chastity, temperance, "prudishness", and sexual restraint were all a tremendous lie and that sexual sins (including rape) were every bit as common as they are today, that's your conspiracy theory to indulge in. Personally I think you're sucking air. Does this mean that "women were not raped when skirts covered ankles"? Of course rape still existed. No doubt it was common in places. But this is an issue of prevalence, not of existence. Moreover, I agree with you that unique social conditions (such as slavery in the US) afforded men certain opportunities that aren't present today. The existence of these opportunities has no bearing on prevalence either. Suffice it to say that the society I want to live in is one where the response to "Would you have sex with an unconscious woman?" from any man you'd care to ask is "But why on Earth wouldn't my wife wake up?"
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Feb 10, 2015 2:52:02 GMT -5
OK, let's go with this.
We can never find out for sure until time travel is invented if say, Victorian men would say outright they would rape women at a rate of greater than 33%. I actually don't know the methodology of the study, so they may have used "weaker" phrasing like "use force" or "coerce" for sex.
However, English common law had that consent was conclusively presumed by a wife to her husband. So under the law, no marital sex was rape, although (most) modern Americans would assume that why, yes, a wife can indeed turn her husband down for sex, and it is not OK for him to threaten or physically force her into having it. I say most because I think marital rape exemptions may still be a thing, at least in some states. I don't think it's a super far extrapolation to assume that while the husbands would never, ever use the term rape to describe what they were doing, the fact that the "right" of men to control whether or not their wives had intercourse with them was a feminist issue in the 19th century kind of leans towards the fact that spouses would indeed use either authority or physical prowess to force the issue, and not in vanishingly rare circumstances. This, even without any extra-marital rape, does not point to the awesomeness of bygone moral standards.
And Mormons call themselves Mormons. They also call themselves Christians:
Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1995-2008), said:
“We are Christians in a very real sense and that is coming to be more and more widely recognized. ..."
I think Anglicans are Christians too, right? And Catholics are Christians? And Protestants are Christians? Lots of flavors of Christian.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 10, 2015 10:17:32 GMT -5
I don't think it's a super far extrapolation to assume that while the husbands would never, ever use the term rape to describe what they were doing, the fact that the "right" of men to control whether or not their wives had intercourse with them was a feminist issue in the 19th century kind of leans towards the fact that spouses would indeed use either authority or physical prowess to force the issue, and not in vanishingly rare circumstances. This, even without any extra-marital rape, does not point to the awesomeness of bygone moral standards. "not in vanishingly rare circumstances", absolutely. However, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, I don't see how it's logical to assume that a full third of men forced themselves on their wives. A man's wife is, after all, his life mate, whom he needs to interact with on a daily basis until death do they part. The married men reading this will no doubt agree with me that keeping one's wife happy is very much in the husband's best interest. And Mormons call themselves Mormons. They also call themselves Christians: Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1995-2008), said: “We are Christians in a very real sense and that is coming to be more and more widely recognized. ..." I think Anglicans are Christians too, right? And Catholics are Christians? And Protestants are Christians? Lots of flavors of Christian. We can take two different views: One is the generalist view, where we posit that all self-identifying Christians are indeed Christians to the extent that their behaviour comports with the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ. The other is a fundamentalist view, where we posit that ultimately an individual either is or isn't a Christian (that is, a true disciple of Christ) and Christ himself will be the ultimate determiner of who is who. Scripture is the standard by which men will be judged. Regardless of which view one takes, it's evident that a lengthy doctrinal standard exists for use in our determination. Feminism lacks such a standard (or at least laterbloomer is unable/unwilling to suggest one), which is why we reject the two situations as analogous.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 10, 2015 10:45:31 GMT -5
::Mormons consider themselves Christians. Lots of people with very divergent beliefs identify as Christians. If people think the US constitution is interpreted in wacky ways, it has got nothing on the way scripture gets twisted round.::
I consider myself President of the United States, that doesn't make it true. (This isn't meant to say that Mormons are or aren't Christians, I'm not touching that one). This IS to say that just because someone considers themselves something doesn't make it true. In some cases the only way to identify is self-identification. In some cases there is absolutely no self-identification necessary (i.e. I consider myself to be 80 inches tall, but I'm actually only 70). In many cases there is an element of self-identification of characteristics, but is not so black and white as the previous two instances (i.e. I can claim to be pro-choice. If everything I actually do is towards the ends of making abortion illegal, then it doesn't really matter that I claim to be pro-choice...I'm clearly not. It's not enough to simply self-identify, you have to actually have the traits of someone in that group).
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Feb 10, 2015 12:10:19 GMT -5
A third of men nowadays don't rape women. In one study, they found a third of men WOULD if they could get away with it. Victorian men COULD get away with it, because there were actual common law exceptions to the definition of rape to exclude rape of a spouse. The existence of exclusions to the definition of rape to make legal instances of...rape, make it unlikely that rape was a rare occurrence. Prostitution wasn't a rare occurrence, and the stigma for extra-marital sex was typically focused on women: See the emphasis on chastity among young women, and very little on that of men.
As for self identification: My husband identifies as Christian. He probably isn't, because he doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ.
Mormons do, as do all the other subtypes I named. Christianity, in the simplest form, can be defined as following the teachings of Jesus, just as Feminism can be defined as an ideology pursuing the equality of women in society. Now, someone can say that you aren't a Christian unless you follow the literal teachings as defined by the King James bible (Anglican?), but there are people who believe who don't follow rules well. I've never read the bible, so I don't know if there are any parts of it that actually say that if you do X, you aren't a Christian. I'm pretty sure that each division of Christianity was pretty adamant bout other divisions "not being real Christians" up until the 20th century: see how Catholics treated Protestants. There really is no reason to have so many different splinters of Christianity unless they had a disagreement with how others handled being Christian. Are there academic papers about what it is to be a Christian? I'm sure there are, as well as papers on how to interpret the bible, which I'm told doesn't always have its lessons handed down as simply as commandments.
There absolutely are subtypes of feminist that are defined this way, and they have similar splintering of ideology. And groups DO say that if you don't do X, you aren't a feminist. And probably academic papers and so forth. Here we go, though: Feminism: an ideology pursuing the equality of women. Someone who agrees with the equality of women, is a feminist. You get flavors by which feminist writer/group's philosophy they follow: sex-positive, radical, separatist...we just have a simpler central tenet than Christians.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 10, 2015 15:22:37 GMT -5
The existence of exclusions to the definition of rape to make legal instances of...rape, make it unlikely that rape was a rare occurrence. There mere existence doesn't allow us to conclude anything of the sort, unless by "rare" you mean "vanishingly rare" as before. The existence of such laws permits us to conclude that spousal rape existed and at some point became a matter set before the courts. It offers no quantifiable insights on the prevalence of spousal rape. I've never read the bible, so I don't know if there are any parts of it that actually say that if you do X, you aren't a Christian. There are indeed a great many parts that make such stipulations. There are just as many parts that lay out absolute requirements for being a Christian. Failure to comply with these requirements can also disqualify a nominal Christian. I agree. The fact that you're referring to the various flavours of feminism as "feminism" puts us on the same side of the argument. They are all branches of a very simple central ideology. Unfortunately that central ideology is so simple in its definition that there's no authoritative basis on which to exclude any of the branches. It's this point where I'm hoping to reach consensus with laterbloomer and Optimist.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Feb 10, 2015 15:45:01 GMT -5
Ah...it's mentioned 3 times in the bible? The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26, after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[...] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26:28, where Herod Agrippa II replied to Paul the Apostle, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4:16, which exhorts believers: "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." I think there's a lot more detail on what you need to do to be saved, right? Doesn't look like the specific term Christian comes up that frequently, though. As far as prevalence of rape: the concern raised by the study is that of people who think it's OK to have sex without consent, not people actually having sex without consent. By rule of law, it was OK to have sex without consent. I'm actually going to wildly guess that there is more rape in the modern era, due to the broadening of the definition of rape to include sex without consent, instead of sex in which an orifice is forcibly penetrated by a penis, except for your wife's orifices. I have no reason to think that marital rape was common, but I think it was more than vanishingly rare, just based on a quick scan of this: scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1484&context=californialawreview If marital rape is a rare, reprehensible thing, there should have been/should be no resistance to ceding legal control over her participation in intercourse to the female spouse, and yet, there was. And it looks like that since 1993, marital rape is a crime in all 50 states! Yay! Although apparently in some states marital rape is differentiated from non-marital rape... Careful if you live in these states, ladies: Ohio, Idaho, Connecticut, Virginia, Oklahoma, Nevada, Maryland, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa and especially South Carolina. ETA: Caution to the men, also. Perhaps less likely to be physically forced, but threatened... Some states are OK with the drugging of your spouse to make them compliant with sex.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 10, 2015 16:48:15 GMT -5
I think in the terms of the "rape study" part of the issue is not the outcome, but the process. When they used the word "rape" the men who agreed dropped off dramatically. Instead, they substituted the word "force" and counted that the same as rape. The problem is that people don't use it the same way as rape in all cases.
If I say my boss "forced" me to work this weekend, I don't mean my boss physically restrained me in my desk. If I say I "forced" my wife to watch a movie, I don't mean that I tied her to the couch and propped her eyelids open. If I say I "forced" my wife to have sex with me, it probably means I nagged her about it until she gave in. People in general use "force" a lot more loosely than they use "rape". Equating one with the other isn't necessarily a 1:1 correlation.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Feb 10, 2015 17:09:36 GMT -5
I think in the terms of the "rape study" part of the issue is not the outcome, but the process. When they used the word "rape" the men who agreed dropped off dramatically. Instead, they substituted the word "force" and counted that the same as rape. The problem is that people don't use it the same way as rape in all cases. If I say my boss "forced" me to work this weekend, I don't mean my boss physically restrained me in my desk. If I say I "forced" my wife to watch a movie, I don't mean that I tied her to the couch and propped her eyelids open. If I say I "forced" my wife to have sex with me, it probably means I nagged her about it until she gave in. People in general use "force" a lot more loosely than they use "rape". Equating one with the other isn't necessarily a 1:1 correlation. I had a feeling it was something like that. I don't think "act on intentions to force a woman to have sexual intercourse" sounds like nagging, though. I don't think the take-away of the study should be that "men are predators", but maybe that education on consent is a good thing.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 10, 2015 18:32:00 GMT -5
If you limit it to the literal use of the word "Christian". But this borders on absurd, given the vast number of scriptures that apply to followers of Christ, imitators of Christ, disciples of Christ, lovers of Christ, persons acceptable to Christ, etc. that clearly refer to the same group of people.
I doubt it was widely seen as a reprehensible thing, but this might just as well be because it was so alien to the common man that he didn't understand it. No doubt many men considered it a form of petty vengeance on behalf of a rebellious wife. This was an era when women were taught from cradle to grave to be submissive to their husbands. Society no doubt regarded women who rebelled against this order in the same way as one regards a child throwing a temper tantrum. That is, they saw it as foolish and unprofitable to all parties that they yield to the demands.
Getting back to the original argument: I would expect legal warfare regardless of the extent of the problem.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Feb 10, 2015 18:54:25 GMT -5
I think there is a reason that divisions of Christianity have different names, as they have differing interpretations of scripture. (Or they have a sequel, as do Mormons.) There may be a portion of scripture that explicitly requires literal interpretation of scripture to be considered Christian (yikes). I think that there's a reason that historically primary religious identification was not with the idea of being "Christian", but with the name of the sect of Christianity.
Most likely it would make things easier if people identifying as feminists dug deep into feminist theory/writings and said "I'm a sex positive liberal feminist." Or "I'm a separatist lesbian feminist". Heaven knows it's easier when people say "I'm a Mormon." or "I'm Catholic." There are lots of "Non-Denominational" Christians now, though, some of which probably meet biblical tests for "Good Christian (TM)" and some of which don't. I imagine lots of people identifying as feminists in the general " for equality for women" frame of the word, without caring deeply enough to learn about feminist theory or be activists.
It actually sounds like they'd be kicked out of feminist parties by hardcore feminists the same way "I kinda believe in God and I was baptized, but never go to church and vaguely thumbed through the bible" types may not be considered Christian by deeply biblical types.
Seems like there's a culturally Christian subtype the same way that some people are culturally Jewish.
Although it was an era where submission to a husband was taught, the resistance to changing the marital rape exclusion came even when progress had been made in other matters of equality: the fact that there's more leeway for non-consensual sex within a marriage even now is a bit off-putting.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 10, 2015 21:21:26 GMT -5
quince: I more or less agree with the entirety of Reply #269. Our views differ on some of the specifics, but the differences are largely summarized in our previous posts. You should go toe-to-toe with laterbloomer when she next visits the thread. Get her to commit to calling herself a "sex positive liberal feminist" (or SPLIF for short).
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Feb 10, 2015 21:41:08 GMT -5
Virgil Showlion I actually think I know more now about both Christianity and feminism than I ever wanted to.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 11, 2015 23:28:53 GMT -5
Reading back through this thread, I have a question for Virgil Showlion. The following quote is from one of your posts: Will you please define what you mean by the bolded phrase? I'm not sure I understand your intent and I don't want to guess.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 12, 2015 0:47:45 GMT -5
Not opening any more cans o' worms. I achieved peace with quince and that is how it shall remain in this thread.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Feb 12, 2015 2:11:08 GMT -5
It's totally the kind of peace that has no one starting clean-up on the minefields, and while the troops are pulled out of enemy territory, we're not decommissioning our battleships.
|
|