Rape in literature (warning may be triggering)

or the Creative Writing topic here

The reason I AM posting this here is because MY 'stop peddling rape myths' alarm bells were ringing when I read this.

I suspect that the OP's discomfort about this piece of writing has nothing to do with her budding feminism. I lived in flat shares with men for several years, at a time when I would not have considered myself to be a feminist. Had any of my flatmates presented me with their rape fantasy, I would have felt such discomfort that I would have promptly found alternative living arrangements.

How can she feel safe sharing her home with a man she now (on some level) knows to be a misogynist? I think she is mistakenly putting her feelings down to her feminism rather than a natural reaction to an obvious red flag.

CareyJones if you are reading this, I suggest reposting it in a different section of the forum, e.g. chat. I would be very surprised if you did not have at least as strong a reaction.

Indeed, maybe he imagines himself humanising the rapist as part of some edgy backlash against Atwood and the like. As you put it so well, this is "about as revolutionary and subversive as playboy"

exactly so the op's friend thinking he's writing an out there dystopic fantasy is bollox because in fact we already live in it.

very late to this thread, but Beachcomber's quoting Twisty's description of patriarchy above has just given me a lightbulb moment. This culture of domination allowed so many institutions with endemic abuse to be accepted e.g. the Magdalene laundries, lunatic asylums....

The culture of domination persists, if not so explicitly as before. We have to find a way to work within it, despite it. It is a dystopic reality.

I do think racism is another biggie though and that women of colour definitely get the double whammy.

I absolutely loved the letter written by a group of black feminists to the organisers of Slutwalk www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=232501930131880

Brilliant piece of writing.

and i guess this is why i am a feminist and focus my energies against patriarchy. to me all the other issues are like fire fighting - what is it they call that when you rush around trying to put little fires out instead of tackling the source?

i agree - and i see financial clout and unethical versions of capitalism as merely an extension or development out of physical brutishness and clout.

Well I have a DH, so that's one right there.

Youth is another one. I often see little boys acting entitled but they are not my children so what is one to do?

I agree with Twisty's description of patriarchy;

Patriarchy, which invisibly persists as the world?s most popular social order, is based on an oppressive paradigm fetishizing dominance and submission. Benefits in this culture of domination are accrued according to a rigid hierarchy at the top of which are rich honky adult males and at the bottom of which are poor female children of color.

If we didn't have patriarchy we wouldn't have dominance and submission, if we didn't have dominance and submission we wouldn't have oppressions.

yep - racism is patriarchal too essentially. it all stems from the same repressive, hierarchy based exploitative system aka patriarchy.

what's my capoeira (god why did you have to remind of the gorgeous brazilian ex ) ermm...

i speak up in family and i don't hang out with misogynists. i'm single so it isn't in my home (though i do have a little boy i'm already having to challenge on entitled attitudes and ridiculous gender assumptions he's picking up 'out there'). i don't work so i'm off the hook there. i'm not sure i have one tbh. i barely see any men and i gently challenge with the schoolgate mums. the headteacher and i are due a run in after i had to listen to him making awful generalising statements about little boys and little girls and their epic differences

i guess in my little cave experience of life these days i don't have one. yesterday i was doing the washing up rushing round like a blue arsed fly after our singing group (because if we don't get out on time the female organiser, who makes zero profit, gets charged more) and some old man came in the kitchen and said, "you couldn't make me a cup of tea whilst you're here could you?". i laughed aloud thinking he was cracking a joke but his dead pan face proved me wrong. at which pointed to the kettle and said something like you look like all limbs are in working order to me. so i guess not even old men get off the hook.

what's your capoeira?

What is your (general you) capoeira?

Gotcha Satan

Hope nobody minds if I quote - makes things easier as a lot has been said.

KRITIQ you said; It would seem then that the difference between sexism and misogyny and between racism and white supremacy is intent - the choice to translate attitudes and privilege into action that harms others? Ergo, all white supremacists are racists but not all racists are not white supremacists, and all misogynists are sexist but not all sexist men are misogynists.

I would disagree with this. I don't think all racists are white supremacists (although they do benefit from white supremacy). However, as I said before, I think all men participate in misogyny, all men are in a culture of male domination. For those familiar with the term, there are no bones to the 'not my Nigel' argument, there is only cognitive dissonance.

I also disagree with the notion of intent/choice as used above. People are not stupid, they know when an action is an entitled or a dominating one or a violent one. The difference is that men as a group believe that they are entitled to behave this way and they have institutionalised and 'socialized' such behaviour to an extent that they believe their own hype and;

a) choose to be blithely oblivious to their subjugating behaviour through a convenient lack of awareness.
b) choose to think it is the natural order.
c) are used to their privilege, and choose to be so unquestioning of their entitlement to exploit women, to an extent that they perceive threats to or questioning of their privilege as oppressive

Patriarchy is a biggie. It is everywhere in everything.

Radical feminists believe that patriarchy is the original system of oppression and that all oppressions are patriarchal.

Intersectionality is patriarchy (in action).

Collusion and 'reflected privilege' are interesting to examine. I have to do a bit of work now though!

feel free to call me satan btw it's an mn christmas pleasure of mine!

I was just coming on to post pretty much what SIAAOS just said.

Will re-read and see if I have anything to add.

(note how slaves were feminised, not seen as men but boys etc)

yep - need to think about it but i think one is directly about exploitation and personal gain and exerting power over. the other (nowadays) may be about fear, ignorance, distaste, prejudice etc and maybe a sense of feeling superior but it does not confer the same direct advantages and gains to the individual. it's not based in profit and exploitation for the modern individual. women can still be kept as slaves in a way and always have been able to be. slavery when it existed was to me, just an extension, of the enslaving of women. it passed but women are still there.

another bit - a racist may be prejudiced because of ignorance, misinformed beliefs, lack of exposure etc but unless a white extremist will not use that to oppress and hurt and try to exploit the subject of their prejudice.

a misogynist knows bettter, he's not ignorant etc as i already said but he wants to directly exploit and abuse and oppress women, often IN THEIR OWN HOME in a sexual, domestic relationship. by watching pornography, perhaps by using prostitutes, etc etc.

a misogynist generally doesn't just distance his subject as a racist might but actively abuses them and profits from their subjugation domestically, sexually, financially etc etc.

i don't think it's that all white people are racist tbh - i think it's that all people are racist/zenophobic etc. though obviously racism takes on a more political and powerful tone when it's directed at a minority or disempowered group than vice versa.

much as a manhater wouldn't be the same politically as a misogynist because of the power dynamic.

a misogynist though - i think for me it comes back to misogyny/sexism/exploitation of women being the first othering and the foundation of all discrimination. from that comes all the rest - if you even hate the other half of your own group just because they have different genitals to you and wish to oppress and hurt them then you are very fundamentally filled with hate imo and utter self centredness, your 'in group' is miniscule and you are likely to hate all others. also look at the fact that a misogynist hates women of all groups, colours, ethnicities, religions etc - it is a totally generalised hatred that knows no racial or belief boundaries you know?

also a racist could be racist through ignorance - not having spent time with that group, not understanding that they share basic humanity etc they can be reformed potentially by being exposed to people of the group they are prejudiced against.

the misogynist came out of the womb of a woman, was 99% of the time raised by a woman/women and has gone to school with women, worked with women, shared every area of their life with women yet hate them and want to abuse them.

there is a distinct difference - not sure i've explained either point well though.

Beachcomber, I just read back to your post said, "Patriarchy is often described, by feminists, as the only system of oppression where the oppressed systematically live with, love and tend to their oppressors. I think this makes a big difference."

I agree that it does make a big difference. But, I am also reminded of suggestions from Black feminists like Audre Lorde, bell hooks and Kimberle Crenshaw that the proximity of some women (e.g. white, middle class, straight, etc.) to privileged men can also offer them a level of "reflected privilege" that other women (e.g. women of colour, working class women, Lesbians, etc.) cannot enjoy.

For example, a wealthy father might pay for a good education for his daughter, perhaps help her set up in business or open a few doors in her chosen field. A well-off husband could pay for domestic help or childcare to enable the woman to continue her studies or develop her career. Of course, she could still be abused by either of them, or other men in her life.

Other women won't have the opportunity to gain any social, economic or political advantage from association with the (less privileged in terms of race, class, wealth, etc.) men in their lives and will also be vulnerable to abuse from them. That's two blows instead of one.

That kind of links to my post above perhaps about both our prejudices (or whatever stronger word it is that isn't coming to mind for me just now) and our privileges being points on a continuum. The same person can be advantaged in some ways but disadvantaged in others. That's where "intersectionality of oppression," comes in I think.

I went back and read Lorde, hooks and others after catching an incidental article by Crenshaw about 15 years ago, looking at intersectionality of race and gender in violence against women. Black feminists get the pressure from feminists (mostly white women) to view patriarchy as the greatest threat and from Black rights activists (mostly Black men) to view institutionalised racism as the greatest thread. The problem is that neither position and neither movement fully reflects the position, perspective and experience of those who are both Black and women.

Anyhoo, apologies again to the OP for drifting waaaaay off the original topic, but I'm certainly finding the direction the thread has taken mighty interesting and thought provoking. Night all.

Back at last and thanks for those replies. I find it all really interesting stuff as well and a great opportunity for piecing ideas together.

I can go for the idea that all white people are racist because this is part of their conditioning within a society that values white people over non-white and because they benefit from white privilege, even when they may not be aware of it or want it.

Similarly, it could be said that all men are sexist because that is part of their conditioning within a society that values men over women and because they benefit form male privilege, even when they may not be aware of it or want it.

It would seem then that the difference between sexism and misogyny and between racism and white supremacy is intent - the choice to translate attitudes and privilege into action that harms others? Ergo, all white supremacists are racists but not all racists are not white supremacists, and all misogynists are sexist but not all sexist men are misogynists.

And, there can be racist people of colour and sexist women who support rather than challenge the mechanisms of their own oppression for what they see as their own individual gain, right? But would they respectively be white supremacists and misogynists if they used the "reflected privilege" (if that's a term!) they gain from "collusion" with their oppressors to harm other people of colour and women?

Now to bring it back in a way to the OP, are there points in which a misogynist or white supremacist can change, can reject their prejudiced, hate-filled attitudes and actions, and while remaining inherently sexist and racist, actively reject their respective privileges and consciously strive to stop or even atone for the harm they have caused others?

the racial equivalent would be slavery? misogynist - slave trader/owner/user in a sense? sorry crashing in and out again.

The equivalent to misogyny would be racial violence or white supremacy or racial oppression.

BOF I think white supremacy and heteronormativity, etc. differ from misogyny.

Patriarchy is often described, by feminists, as the only system of oppression where the oppressed systematically live with, love and tend to their oppressors.

I think this makes a big difference.