Carthage

« Nitwit, dictionary, me. | Main | The Book »

November 19, 2002

There is, apparently, also a midterm I will not really study for. But that's unrelated.

He finds out she's having an affair with another man. He crashes his plane, in which she is a passenger, into her lover, intending to kill everyone.

or

He finds out she's having an affair with another woman. He shakes her and threatens her and allows her to catch on fire and be horribly burned.

or

His heretofore pliant new wife talks back. He slaps her and calls her names and, quite improbably in light of this evidence, declares in a lustful about-face that he likes his women "spunky."

or

He finds out his fiancee still loves her ex-boyfriend. He forces her to marry him and attempts to kill her boyfriend.

or

A woman whose hero boyfriend has been distracted is discovered by the villain. He calls her "sweetheart" and suggests that she be given to his most physically repulsive henchman as a kind of sexual sundae.

or

A woman talks back to a man/a woman behaves out of the common way/a woman is found by a man to be alone on a street/in a bar/in her home. He rapes her.

or
or
or

I watched Fire last night. It made me so tired. And I don't watch this stuff if I can help it. What about the rest of you, I wonder, who don't have my hyper-sensibilities and have seen legions of women being raped and beaten and murdered, how can any of you walk around in a world with men and not be afraid all the time and not believe you are just a potential victim all the time and not be waiting always for the creepy violins to start or the scream-drowning bassline? Even though you know in your brain it's not a realistic portrayal still how can you not have this beaten into your bones like a genetic code? There are things I would never say or do around a man because if you push a man too far he will beat you up I have been taught it is so and I am big into self-preservation. There are ways I will never lead my life, things I will never say, places where I will never be alone, places where I will never be in company, men I will never be with around other men because they are the wrong man and they can get you for the company you keep as much as anything else, there are clothes I will never wear there are words I won't use there are places I will run through and places I will move through at an effacing-walk there are a thousand rules I will follow that I have intuited and never been told.

Posted by didofoot at November 19, 2002 05:12 PM

Comments

what is it with you and the lesbian movies lately?

Posted by: hollowman at November 19, 2002 06:49 PM

i hear you. not the lesbian movie comment, the part where kristen is real and honest.

Posted by: erica at November 19, 2002 10:56 PM

sorry if my previous comment was unduly irreverent. i tend to read more irony into things than i ought.

i can certainly understand what kristen is saying on some level, but i obviously can't fully understand because i've never experienced it. but burning flashes of honesty like this help lummoxes like me understand what goes on a little bit more.

good luck on the midterm.

Posted by: holohan at November 20, 2002 12:16 AM

ha ha funnyman gropes for a risque reaction to his own complicity as male either for or against and comes out dancing awkwardly on fence and looking jerklike, but no offense, mister; this shit culture of ours loves to slice up the cunt-hole that spawned it so all i can think is, we cunts got to keep writing until the story gets good.

Posted by: and you can bet i can grip a pen in my at November 20, 2002 12:19 AM

oops, sorry. you called yourself a lummox. clearly there was no need for me to do it, too

Posted by: apology girl at November 20, 2002 12:21 AM

hmm... sure would be cool if irony and bullshitting were the topping used to spice up a healthy portion of realness, but all to often seems the other way around these parts. Props for pushing in the right direction.

And on content, not structure : I'm sorry that me and my kind either do what we do or make you all think we're going to. I'm going to be doing not enough now by personally avoiding violence against women or men.

In the future I'm going to avoid commenting on posts at 3:20 in the morning on my birthday. Ugh.

Posted by: gene at November 20, 2002 03:20 AM

waitaminute. to what extent am i being insulted here, and by whom? i'm so confused.

anyway, yeah, i won't be violent against women. men are open season. at least the ones who are smaller than i am.

i'll also limit my groping to the traditional variety. and my fence dancing will be limited to the defence of necessity.

this is my promise to you.

i'm al gore. and i want to be your president.

Posted by: holohangeles at November 20, 2002 08:11 AM

holland-lamb: humor is never lummoxy. and much needed in this, my hunger-and-midterm-stress-induced post.

ladies: thanks for the support. I thought for sure I would get lots of girls writing in to say 'wtf? you are on crack and I walk where I want to.'

lad: happy birthday, my best nonviolentest friend.

Posted by: didofoot at November 20, 2002 08:28 AM

girl, i am with you. i feel all of that as well. you are not alone. and that kind of sucks in a way.

Posted by: tracy at November 20, 2002 09:59 AM

oh dear, here's where i get all political.
(first, while i understand the fears, i am hoping against hope that they are not debilitating - women have to make some choices with safety in mind, but really, so do men).

what is it about our culture that accepts the violent treatment of women in the media? perhaps it is just our acceptance of violence in general.

we do seem to accept portrayals of extreme violence against women, whereas if a dog was treated as violently in the media we might actually protest.

Stop this acceptance now! Just don't patronize the movies with extreme violence. Unless, of course, the violence is for "art's" sake ( who IS Art?).And unless, of course, you just get off on it.

Posted by: eydie at November 20, 2002 12:39 PM

i agree that safety choices are made by everyone, except the guy who played the mafia hitman in _Mulholland Drive_ and other 800 pound gorillas. excellent point. the trick is to mold your safety choices around your life rather than vice versa.

secondly, as for the violence against a dog comment, i think there's a valid point here. but i think another thing that's often missed is that we're appalled by, say, a gassed al qaeda puppy, not merely because we value the puppy's life, but because the puppy us literally powerless and unable to defend itself in any way. and while women (and men, for that matter) are in many ways and in many situations unable to provide for their own safety, there's a certain degree of agency on the part of humans that makes us less sympathetic to them than to animals in violent situations. i'm not talking about blaming the victim, i'm just saying that humans are in a general sense better equipped to handle violent situations.

whew. lunch time.

Posted by: again with the holohan at November 20, 2002 01:46 PM

violence against women is a social norm that we all grew up with. we accept it because we think it's in the nature of a man to be violent. even men think this is their nature.

except holohan and gene I guess. good job boys.

Posted by: didofoot at November 20, 2002 01:48 PM

violence against women is not a social norm that i grew up with.

and i think it's just as much in the nature of the woman to be violent.

Posted by: michele at November 20, 2002 02:08 PM

*hint hint* stay away from michele boys *hint hint*

Posted by: brian at November 20, 2002 02:21 PM

I guess I meant images of it. since you're used to seeing it on tv and in films and stuff, right? and even though you don't think it's right, it's still not shocking in the way that it would be shocking to see a woman beating the shit out of someone for the same reasons the men do (in media).

do you really think it's in anyone's nature to be violent? I think that's something we infer because we're so used to seeing violence.

Posted by: didofoot at November 20, 2002 02:22 PM

I do think that sometimes violence is in a particular person's nature, but I don't approve of the gender generalizations.

I've known a few people who very obviously had violence hard-wired in (whether this was nature or nurture is irrelevant at this point), but I can't say that is the truth for either gender as a whole, or even a majority of either gender.

Posted by: brian at November 20, 2002 02:26 PM

I just think it's tacitly assumed that men have a breaking point after which they become violent and women either don't have a violence-point or else it's way way later. Also I think men's breaking point is assumed to be sometimes triggered by things not done to them directly, ie crimes committed against a girlfriend, whereas this is not usually assumed about women. (Except where a woman and her children are concerned.)

for an example of society's reaction to a woman who snaps, check out matt's page at http://www.cementhorizon.com/ifoughtthelaw

Posted by: didofoot at November 20, 2002 02:31 PM

i think it is in the nature of human beings to be violent, because in general we are selfish individuals, and selfishness leads to desire and desire thwarted leads to violence. and although some people are better at being selfless, it's not a matter (in my opinion) of gender that determines who's going to snap first.

and i think you're being contradictory there about the men and girlfriends if you're going to then immediately say, well except women and their children, which is in essence the same thing. people protect the things that they consider "theirs" whether it be a significant other or a child or a pet or furniture for all i care.

once you slapped a certain sean brown (yeah i'm throwing that in your face still now, because after all i'm not going to allow you to grow as a person) when you snapped and it was sudden and unexpected. and violent. i've hit males before when i got really mad. but i've never been hit before by a male. well except gene. so there goes your nonviolent gene theory too i guess. but it proves my point that everyone is violent. even you and me. and even gene.

Posted by: michele at November 20, 2002 02:41 PM

anger leads to hatred, hatred leads to the dark side, am I right here people?

I think, but am not sure, that considering a child as your own is different than considering a lover your own. I mean, I consider that I have a right to expect the lad to behave a certain way w/re to me, but I don't consider him mine to take care of. Whereas with a child I would.

sean brown was an *accident* dood. I swear before every jury.

Posted by: didofoot at November 20, 2002 02:50 PM

quite an accident the palm of your hand connecting with his face in that loud smack. and we've seen how jurys treat violent women on holohan's page.

well i did put "theirs" in quotes for a reason, even though it's not logical to think of them that way because they are thier own persons, people do still feel protective of thier significants, no matter what the relation is. like, if someone beat the crap out of him, wouldn't you want to do violent things to whoever did it? of course you would. i'm not saying everybody will necessarily act on these impulses, but some of them will. and the same with children. parents will maybe call holy hell down thru the principal at school or something if thier kid gets in a scrape, but they probably aren't going to go over to the other childs house with a shotgun and a mission. but maybe some of them will.

i guess i'm still just saying that not everybody is violent, but some people are and everyone reacts differently to the same situation, but i don't think it has much to do with gender.

Posted by: michele at November 20, 2002 02:59 PM

if ya'll don't start commenting on www.redhott.blogspot.com i'm gonna have to get VIOLENT!!!!

Posted by: tracy at November 20, 2002 03:14 PM

here's what i'm a'thinkin.

1 in 4 women is sexually assaulted at some point in her life. the equivalent is NOT true for men. be it nature or nurture, the reality is that violence against women happens more frequently than violence against men, and the people committing this violence ARE most often men. OF COURSE this does not mean i think matt dude or gene or any of my guy friends are going to flip out and rape me some day, because "men are violent". OF COURSE this does not rule out the possibility that if i steal michele's lingerie/ice cream/boyfriend some day she might haul off and smack me one. but let's be real. violence against women is a problem in our society, and it makes walking by dark alleys alone pretty fucking scary. using examples from our thankfully wonderful and loving group doesn't change that.

Posted by: erica at November 20, 2002 10:20 PM

women are certainly more likely to be sexually assaulted than men are. but i'm not sure it's as obvious that women are more often the victims of violence in general. it may just be that when men are victims of violence it's more often in the context of an evenly matched fight than a unilateral attack. also, men are in general unlikely to be injured by violent attacks to the extent that women are, so violence against women is in some ways more visible.

also, 1 in 4 women being raped doesn't mean that 1 in 4 men are rapists. i know that's pretty obvious, but the assymetry of statistics can be easily missed. 38% of people know that.

and while were tossing facts around, let me just make a few pre-emptive strikes.

superbowl sunday is NOT associated with an actual rise in domestic violence.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/superbwl.htm

it still may account for 50% of annual guacamole consumption. we're still working on that one.

secondly, the origin of the phrase "rule of thumb" has nothing to do with a law about wife beating.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000512.html

smell things before you eat them.

Posted by: holohan at November 20, 2002 11:11 PM

what's with the new novel comments! Jeez, get a web page for cry'n out loud.

Posted by: tracy at November 21, 2002 08:34 AM

yeah!

oh, wait. that was directed in part at me. damn.

Posted by: holohan at November 21, 2002 09:03 AM

erica makes a fine point. but i am curious as to whether that 1 in 4 statistic counts only violent sexual assault of if it also counts sexual harrassment in the workplace or something. because that could seriously skew that demographic.

and as to dark alleys, it's just as likely that if someone is in there he could be a rapist OR a mugger. and muggers aren't going to care what gender you are when they call a hold-up. i mean even though i don't want to get raped obviously, at least it's something i could survive rather than being shot. so i have to say my fear when walking around by myself late and in the dark is more for my life than for my vagina. but at the same time i think i could die in a car accident too and that doesn't stop me from getting in the car, it just keeps me cautious. i like what someone (holohan) said above about not living your life by your fear, but living it on your own terms while remaining aware of the fear.

Posted by: michele at November 21, 2002 09:21 AM

mich says, "i don't think it has much to do with gender."

i love you michele, but you're ignorant. men may or may not be more-violent because they are biologically male, BUT, they ARE more violent because of the gender role they've been assigned, and they ARE more violent. period! 95% of domestic violence, gay or straight, is perpetrated by men. [and, that 1 in 4 stat, is Reported Rapes. most rape, because commited by a husband or a date, goes un-reported.]

by gender role here, i mean, we tell boys to be football players and soldiers and U.S. presidents and pro wrestlers, and then we complain when they turn out aggressive! stupid stupid. it isn't their fault any more than it is their moms'... which means Barbara Bush is just a little bit responsible for our impending war. cookie-baking hobag.

more evidence that it's about Roles, not Sex (hm i would like some rolls *and* some sex, please): Lesbian Relationships have an Equally High Incidence of Abuse. that means, in the absence of male genitalia, women will Act Like A Dick.

Posted by: stats are boring, no more stats please at November 21, 2002 01:26 PM

clarification: i am dipping my toe into the waters of nature-v-nurture and individual-responsibility-v-cultural-imperative,
by saying barbara bush is part-responsible for war. of course, doubleyew is the central perp, and when we jail mass murderers, we don't jail their mommas, too.

but i'm just saying, ladies, you've got a hand in this, which means you can change it. see previous empowering comment about women writing. and read the book "Consequence," wherein author Loolwa Khazoom goes around hitting men who harrass her unduly, a very funny third-option to Victimhood and Nonviolence.

but go on with your nonviolent selves, i respect that.

Posted by: K to the T at November 21, 2002 01:36 PM

yes! bang! preach it, sister! when you comprise half of a population you can't completely abdicate responsibility for how its culture turns out. i was trying to get the girlfriend to understand this, but she would have none of it. extremely refreshing to find someone else with this viewpoint.

ahhhhh.

Posted by: holohan at November 21, 2002 02:17 PM

anytime, brother. thanks for fielding the shit-flinging with a cool head.

i mean, not with your head. that's just gross.

Posted by: tall glass o'kickass at November 21, 2002 02:26 PM

The acronym for Act Like A Dick, which Katie mysteriously capitalized, is A.L.A.D.

hmmmmmm......

Posted by: TLA at November 21, 2002 04:08 PM

so no, i have no more stats to throw around, and yes, i should just let this discussion lie, but a couple more teeensy things, just to clarify.

you see, katie makes an excellent point that much violence against women is extrememly INvisible, due to our society's tendency to make the victim feel guilty. and i must point out, michele, that in your example, you called the person in the alley a "he", which may have been unintentional, but makes total sense because i think muggers do tend to be male (do they not? any stats? get i get a witness?)

but maybe by focusing on the alley we are missing the point. because what the original point was, the point that made me need to write a novel (other than the point where i need my own webpage), was that there IS a type of violence which women DO have to worry about more than men. and it is scary, because it's not just in the alleys, it's in our homes. and it's worth talking about, because like kt said, all too often it goes un-talked about. and i was just pretty darn proud of kristen, that's all. ok, i think that's all the peace that needs to be said by me!

Posted by: erica at November 21, 2002 06:43 PM

you know what's funny is that i in fact wrote "s/he" first and then i looked at it for a minute and then said to myself, "michele, what are you doing? if you write that they'll just jump on you and call you worse things than ignorant and go on and on about how the majority of muggers are male, why even bother going there?"

but apparently it wouldn't have mattered what i said because i appear to be in a no win situation here.

Posted by: michele at November 22, 2002 08:44 AM

michele, i believe the going rule these days is to always use "she" no matter what you're talking about. i mean, hey, women are 52% of the population, right? so, i mean STATISTICALLY speaking, you're MUCH MORE LIKELY to be talking about a woman in ANY case, right?

to whit, my civil procedure and law skills professors refer to all hypothetical litigants, lawyers, and judges as "she," and my criminal law professor refers to all hypothetical (bum ba da dummmm) CRIMINALS as "she," even the violent ones.

i'm going to start referring to all hypothetical u.s. presidents as "she." and priests. priests, too.

(by the way, if i were saying this in person i'd be holding up a little sign that said, "WARNING: IRONY.")

Posted by: holohan at November 22, 2002 09:03 AM

maybe your sign should read, "WARNING, I AM AN IRONIC SHE."

Posted by: michele at November 22, 2002 09:06 AM

my first officially-hosted flame-war and I am, dare I say it, proud.

Posted by: didofoot at November 22, 2002 09:07 AM

Post a comment