"Give Us The Freedom To Risk Rape"

[Howseitgoin]

Famed feminist Camille Paglia's interesting views on women's freedoms:

"Yes this is probably the most controversial area that I have written about.
From the start, when I became known in the early 1990s, this has been, my views on this subject have been highly inflammatory.

And I am coming to the subject from the point of view of a 1960s women, who, as a student, when I arrived as a freshman, my first year in 1964, the college, rebelled against the strict surveillance by the college administration of the lives of the women students.

This was the period that was called 'in loco parentis', that is, 'in place of the parents'. The college administrations felt that they had the obligation to supervise, to monitor, and protect the women students as they did not the male students.

Hence we had all girl dormitories and all male dormitories. The men could come and go at any hour of the day or night. We women had to sign in at 11 o'clock at night, so that the authorities of the college knew where. And we said, my generation rebelled, and called for an end to this practice. And they said, the world is dangerous, we have an obligation to protect you against rape. And what we said was 'give us the freedom to risk rape. That is true freedom'. That is what the sexual revolution gave to women.

Now, what will women do with the freedom? Feminism should have taken my view and said that 'now, you are an equal of a man and you must protect yourself as a man would. You must see the world as dangerous as a man would.' You must be as defensive and hyper-aware of your surroundings as a man would. Because men too are attacked for all kinds of things. Men too are the victims of crime and so on.

Instead, we've had this process of women calling for protections, a new paternalism, from the government and now from the college administrations again. They want to draw the parent figures back into their sex lives. This to me, is a major major fault of contemporary feminism. There are great responsibilities that come with freedom. And one of them is that you must take responsibility for your own defense."

Seems particularly relevant in terms of today's demand for 'women's private spaces'

Thoughts?

Women have always been free enough to risk rape / be raped, no matter how unfree we are.

I'd like to be protected from rape by a lawful society that punishes rape and makes an example of rapists, rather than victim blame or look for excuses.

"Women have always been free enough to risk rape / be raped, no matter how unfree we are.
I'd like to be protected from rape by a lawful society that punishes rape and makes an example of rapists."

I think the point being made is increased freedoms (post sexual revolution) come with increased risks & whilst it's certainly reasonable to expect societal protections, how far is too far where it becomes counterproductive? That new found freedoms become over taken by an authoritarian state?

She’s not a feminist.

She ‘identifies’ as one.

Increased freedoms come with increased risks?

Bullshit. Wives, slaves, babies, mothers, children, nuns, politicians, sportswoman, lesbians are not more at risk of rape today because they have more freedom than women in the past.

Rapists are more at risk because more women use their freedom to speak out.

The women of my family just climbed out of windows and enjoyed the adventure. Of course in those those days windows opened fully, nowadays it wouldn't be possible.

Let's not forget the ultimate freedom to be raped was conferred on women who married men.

"Rapists are more at risk because more women use their freedom to speak out."

Good point in terms of women being able to take control of risks. But what I'm concerned with is at what point do our attempts at risk management start to chip away at our freedoms?

How do you feel about a culture that demonises men as predators & abusers to the point where they are 'afraid' of women? Not saying there shouldn’t be an understanding that any criminal actions are socially unacceptable & will be met with serious consequences but it kind of defeats the point of women's freedom to have the opposite sex on egg shells to the point they fear being around us.

Some people really do have a high opinion of themselves and their own thought processes.
What is she banging on about "now you are an equal of a man and you must protect yourself as a man would. You must see the world as dangerous as a man would" Of course we protect ourselves and see the world as dangerous, we always have and always will regardless of whether we have legal protections or safety guidelines. Men are at risk, of course they are, but not for the same reasons and mostly aren't attacked in the same way.
Females will never be equal to males in strength. We're supposed to have equal pay but we don't. Be philosophical by all means, but we live in the real world where pontification is meaningless.

These things are so culturally specific. In the British institution I studied at, the college was not in loco parents, it was a community and as a member of the community everyone was subject to the same rules. We didnt have ‘dorms’ either.

I might go looking for the piece you have picked this from. There are writers who like to provoke, Paglia being one of them, but she’s not stupid. Possibly she was very naive as a student, lots of people are.

"These things are so culturally specific. In the British institution I studied at, the college was not in loco parents, it was a community and as a member of the community everyone was subject to the same rules. We didnt have ‘dorms’ either.
I might go looking for the piece you have picked this from. There are writers who like to provoke, Paglia being one of them, but she’s not stupid. Possibly she was very naive as a student, lots of people are."

Her experience being different from many doesn't diminish her point of 'with more freedom comes more responsibility'. Thoughts on that?

What is she banging on about "now you are an equal of a man and you must protect yourself as a man would.

I suspect she means in the case of not wanting to be 'chaperoned' anymore we have to be realistic that we will become bigger targets for abuse & how we handle that might be counterproductive to our quest to be more free.

For Paglia freedom seems to equate to strength, and she promotes strength as literally a virtue. Freedom is the expression of strength. The idea that you, or perhaps particularly men, might subject yourself or themselves to rules willingly in order to be part of a society or a community is anathema to her, if the rules attempt to support the weaker or restrict the stronger.

She’s not the only one to find what looks like a hierarchy of victimhood particularly in academia intensely annoying and in some cases worrying. It doesn’t answer what we do with the fact that without rules, the freedom she describes disappears, I do t know if by ‘defending ourselves’ she means arming ourselves, but given her American perspective it seems likely. That bears no relation to freedom in my perspective.

These are arguments it’s worth having, eg the freedom for a woman to wear hijab versus the idea that wearing hijab implies to men that women who choose not to do so are in some way lesser versus the idea that criticising modesty rules quickly shades into Islamophobia versus… etc etc. But cultural perspectives are real, even if acknowledging your biases as a socially imposed tic is also damaging in a different way.

Your comparison is nonsense…

Paglia argued against being locked down, arguing for choice even if there was risk…

you are clearly taking that and trying to equate it to men demanding to be allowed to add risk to women’s lives by invading their spaces…

the first argues for female autonomy
the second argues against it

to imply that one supports the other is complete tosh!

Oh, it's the successful sexual assault poster again.

How patronising you are OP.

Certainly feminists and women's rights campaigners grapple with the contradictions of 'winning freedoms' within a sexist society. See also work and domestic labour.

I disagree with what La Paglia (or at least with the quotes you've posted, I haven't read the source material and have no idea of the context) that women are seeking paternalistic protection - what is being sought is a social consensus around behaviour using the mechanism of the law and the cjs.

Good point in terms of women being able to take control of risks. But what I'm concerned with is at what point do our attempts at risk management start to chip away at our freedoms?

Go and tell men that their behaviour needs to change rather then berating women but telling men off wouldn't get you a boner, would it?

In Paglia’s original example, if the problem was that women students were at risk of being assaulted by men, wouldn’t it have made much more sense for the college to restrict the movements of the men rather than the women?

Just to remind everyone: all this "argument" from the OP is just to allow men access to women's spaces, there is no concern whatsoever for women and their freedoms.

Anyone who thinks that the OP is trying to argue in good faith needs to read his previous thread and especially his last few posts Women's 'Private Spaces'

How do you feel about a culture that demonises men as predators & abusers to the point where they are 'afraid' of women?

I feel that men as a sex class need to stop being predators or abusers. Or punish those that are predators or abusers sufficiently instead of letting them walk free.

This is a man made problem. Literally.

"For Paglia freedom seems to equate to strength, and she promotes strength as literally a virtue. Freedom is the expression of strength. The idea that you, or perhaps particularly men, might subject yourself or themselves to rules willingly in order to be part of a society or a community is anathema to her, if the rules attempt to support the weaker or restrict the stronger.She’s not the only one to find what looks like a hierarchy of victimhood particularly in academia intensely annoying and in some cases worrying. It doesn’t answer what we do with the fact that without rules, the freedom she describes disappears, I do t know if by ‘defending ourselves’ she means arming ourselves, but given her American perspective it seems likely. That bears no relation to freedom in my perspective."

I agree without rules freedom is diminished but I don't think she was making an argument against laws & she certainly never said so. The example she uses is more about the choice between being 'chaperoned' & safer or not as well as an unrealistic expectation some women have of the world so some of the obligation fair or unfair is upon them:

"These are arguments it’s worth having, eg the freedom for a woman to wear hijab versus the idea that wearing hijab implies to men that women who choose not to do so are in some way lesser versus the idea that criticising modesty rules quickly shades into Islamophobia versus… etc etc. But cultural perspectives are real, even if acknowledging your biases as a socially imposed tic is also damaging in a different way."

Yep she goes on to talk about clothing so I'd be interested to hear what you think:

"Now, secondly, I am saying that communication and sexual communication is far more than words. Sexual communication is by the body. There's a whole series of non-verbal modes by which we communicate. Our interest in sex or our readiness for sex and one of them is dress. So it seems to me that the contemporary woman has not fully thought through the nature of her dress. The way she dresses and how much flesh she exposes, it contains a sexual message. I'm saying to women, expose your body! Do as much as you want! But be ready to defend. Watch out for the dangers of the world. Not just the man who was of your own social class, a man who you recognise and go on a date with and whose language you speak. But also the world out there of the primitive beasts that are still circling, and human nature has all kinds of primitive energies in it which are constrained and trained through civilising power, but many people are psychotics. There are many psychotics. You could have 999 rational men, and there will be the one psychotic. A woman must be prepared to defend herself against the psychotic. Because the one psychotic can kill her. Not just rape her, but kill her. They're out there. Predatory, they're beasts of prey, they're out there, they're like living manifestations of the diabolic, primitive energies still latent in human beings.
It's what movies show us, it's what Psycho shows us, the great masterpiece by Alfred Hitchcock. With Janet Leigh wandering into a motel and getting butchered by a psychotic. The evidence is there of the latent criminality of many apparently mild-mannered individuals etc.
So what I'm arguing for is that feminism seems to me has become almost stupid in denying that sexual dress conveys a sexual message. So again I encourage, I love flamboyant body exposing sexual dress. But this is why I call my feminism drag-queen feminism. Because the drag queens, the old drag queens, they were women of the street. And I call my feminism street-smart feminism as well, they would dress as women, very subject to attack, to assault, and they had to defend themselves, on the street. And they would defend themselves with their fists, they would whip off their high heel, hit people over the head with it and so on, they could be killed.
This kind of pugilistic, Amazonian attitude towards reality is what I'm trying to project. What I don't like about contemporary feminism is all of the energy devoted to protecting the bourgeoise girl. The white upper middle class bourgeoise girl who wants the world to be like her living room.
She's been protected by her parents, she's protected by her university, and she wants to go into the world dressed exactly as she wants, she doesn't want - she doesn't even imagine the danger of the world. She has not been taught the dangers of the world. She expected the entire world to be reduced to the bourgeoise protections that she does not realise are her privileged entitlement. She is arrogant and she has communicated her arrogance to feminism."

I'm getting flashbacks to my student days, many decades ago.

"A proper feminist says this is OK, love, so just relax and get your knickers off."

Nope. Heard it all before. 😂