Slap and tickle?

[sobrique]

So, listening to the radio on the way in this morning, the subject was 'feminism' (0900, "Call yourself a Feminist")

Thing is, it's a term that comes loaded with lots of 'baggage' from the way things were. But it's actually quite a simple notion - that your gender shouldn't matter in the choices in life open to you.

That is all really - whether that's what you wear, where you work, who you have sex with, how you vote or ... well, anything really.

Women and Men alike should be free to choose - even if that choice is 'no different'. There's a lot of fuss made about clothing - dressing 'provocatively' or particularly recently wearing a burkah, and how they're 'feminist statements'. Thing is, they're really not - how you dress isn't important, it's whether you are truly free to make that choice for your own reasons.

Anyway, that wasn't really what I wanted to write about. The thing that really bothered me in the program, was one of the statistics they quoted.
From this survey (PDF) from February 2009.

I was shocked to find that it's actually some 21% (23% of males, 17% of females) who think it might be acceptable (either 'acceptable' or 'acceptable in some circumstances') for "a man to hit or slap his wife or girlfriend in response to her being dressed in sexy or revealing clothes in public?"

Words fail me. They really do. It is NEVER acceptable.

An intimate interpersonal relationship - such as 'boyfriend/girlfriend' ... well, carrys with it a degree of trust. I mean, such a relationship simply cannot exist without it.

To betray that trust is wrong. To have a society that has a significant proportion finding that betrayal 'acceptable' is extremely disturbing.

(As a footnote, I am aware there are people with unusual lifestyles, and who consent to 'things that could include pain'. I don't wish to pass judgement on those people - what is done between mutually consenting adults in privacy is their own business. But that wasn't what this poll was about)

Comments

[queex.livejournal.com]

Amen.

[malal.livejournal.com]

As a rule of thumb violence is only an acceptable response to someone else being violent, and that's only because at that point there aren't many options left....

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Indeed. And even then, only if there's no alternatives (sometimes there are - sometimes it's easier to restrain someone than it is to smack them in the face, that kind of thing).

I'll also accept 'violence' if it's in a mutual consent situation, like doing a martial art. Although, I'm not sure if that actually counts as 'violence' any more at that point.

[malal.livejournal.com]

Well yeah, number one option is Get out of dodge.

Yeah, combat sports are a special case, and I'd like to make more of a distinction. They have rules, and a different goal.

[crashbarrier.livejournal.com]

I dislike the term "femanist" and its coresponding movement, because from what I have seen so far it is not a movement which seeks to remove the burden of sexism in society it seems instead geared more towards denouncing particular Jobs/roles as "stereotypically a female roles and so must not be done by a female and stereotypically male and so must be done by females at all costs". It directly and aggresively pits Females in a direct competition with Males. Rather than working on the idea that people should do what they are good at regardless of their gender.

As for physical violence in relationships. It is never acceptable to resort to physical violence unless you are in a situation where you are being faced with violence towards yourself.

It is certainly not acceptable to strike someone just because they are wearing clothes that you don't like.. thats just preposterous.


I would never include fetish lifestyles in "violent" because fetish scene involves a high degree of trust and an extremely intimate relationships which is not there in Violence situations.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Well, feminism does take a bit of a bad rap in that sense. I rather think that's more media distortion than actuality - at least, assuming the principles outlined on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism) are correct:
"Feminism is the belief that women should have equal political, social, sexual, intellectual and economic rights to men."

That's a premise I agree with entirely. The rest of the baggage ... well, maybe not so much.

So yes, I'd agree - I don't see it as 'competition' as much as 'symbiosis'. I'm of the opinion that - well, much like the various different immigrant cultures out there - that with diversity comes strength - exploit the mutual synergies, and something better comes out of it.

Basically, I don't really think 'equal' should necessarily mean 'identical'.

[malal.livejournal.com]

I'm just a little wary because I've seen too many instances when people say "equal" but mean & push for it to be "better than".

Positive discrimination comes to mind...

[crashbarrier.livejournal.com]

Basically, I don't really think 'equal' should necessarily mean 'identical'.

I am with you on that, Ability is ability. the person can do it. and so it should be nurtured. being denied something for something so unfeasbly arbitrary as "you are a girl/boy" is heartbreaking for the recipient of this advice. And if you want to be a bit more cold in your logic, it diminishes the social skills pool which means you loose expertise.

very bad. very bad indeed.

[phlebas.livejournal.com]

I'm less shocked than suspicious of the polling data.

[kal-357.livejournal.com]

I know, personally I believe that violence against anybody is unacceptable but then you play that against recent speeches from the Home Secretary on the subject of Domestic violence

"Violence against women and girls is unacceptable in any form."

This was in response to statistic which stated two-thirds of deaths reesulting from Domestic Violence are women.

Might be just me being sensitive but it sends a clear message that Domestic Violence against men doesn't matter.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Well, I'd be inclined to agree. The 'against women and girls' is redundant in that sentence as far as I'm concerned. The only time it's acceptable to hit someone is a) it's somewhere where they're consented, such as a boxing ring, or b) they're coming at you with a machete.

Matters not who it is, but it's more a concern when it's someone who you've the close ties to, where it's an abuse of 'power' of some kind.