Sexual harassment

I found out that one case I had written on earlier in several postings settled very quickly and quietly after being filed.

I think I see what you mean.

I actually suspect that in some situations the total violent incidents probably DO decrease, but that the rate of violent incidents for WOC as a subgroup increase.

(This is theoretically possible because WOC are a numerical minority. For example, a law that, through whatever result, reduced domestic violence against white women by 50% while increasing domestic violence against black women by 50% would vastly reduce the total number of assaults, and would also reduce the total rate of assaults as measured against all women combined–because there are more white women than black women. And no, I don’t think that’s a good result, I’m just trying to avoid confusion about the math.)

Perhaps bfp will clarify at some point. Does anyone know of a concrete example of this phenomenon?

I could still be wrong about all that; it’s just what I read the argument as meaning.

Mandolin Writes:
April 19th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

I think the idea is that white fminism ends up (I think her argument is intentionally) not freeing all women from violence that’s gender-targetted, but only ending up making white women unacceptable targets, so that the rate of violence doesn’t change, but all the violence is aimed at women of color.

I’m confused.

I have certainly heard the argument that white feminism is a “me first” movement, which selectively addresses and selectively attempts to cure problems germane to white feminists. I get that.

And I have recently read an argument* that white feminists, by using/overusing/trusting in the criminal justice system, are making matters worse for the POC who are, generally, treated like shit by said system (i.e. ‘increasing police presence” may be beneficial if you’re white, and actively a problem if you’re nonwhite.) i get that, though I think it’s a lot more complex and less obvious than the first one.

Systems are complex, so i can grokthe idea of systemic changes having unexpected or unwanted effects, or tradeoffs.

But what I read you saying here–and I may be misreading you entirely–is th concept that white feminism is taking non-systemic aggressors–individual men, i assume, mostly–and transferring their ‘bad acts’ to POC women WITHOUT redicing the total number of violent acts. Am i reading you right?

*a linked article on feministe a while back, don’t recall where

Probably, we are going to read so far in to an advertisement as to say he is probably an asshole about everything so she should divorce? Funny, in your world, if that is how he is about everyting, why did this one thing warrant a discussion with the friend about it as if it was out of character for him? This is a relatively silly thing to be fighting over but the comment about divorce annoyed me. I could assume a WHOLE list of things…like he has been politely begging for her to learn how to make coffee for years and she didnt because she is selfish and incompetent…but that would be just as silly as your assumption

That in feminism’s eyes “dismantling” gendered violence= “shifting” gendered violence.

What is the difference between “dismantling” and “shifting”? Metaphorically, I think I understand what dismantling is - using different tools of theory and practice to deconstruct both theoretical and practical systems of oppression. But what does “shifting” involve? Is that redirecting the target of violence? The metaphor I am thinking of is that a gun is aimed at you, so you reach out and push the barrel away, but it hits another target. Is that right? Or have I got that completely wrong?

I appreciate any enlightenment. Thanks!

That he’s probably like that about everything? That she’s doing him a favor (making his coffee) and he is complaining about it? That he could make his own dam coffee?

After reading those comments on the pigeon issue, all I can say is that England apparently has a MUCH worse problem with excessive use of recreational drugs than I had thought

We have no problem with excessive recreational drug use; that’s how the comments got that way…

Two points to address… first, if that is not the point then what is? He is an “asshole” for being blunt about how horrid his wife’s coffee is and that warrants a divorce. What point did I miss?

Second, unless you are under 18 (varies state to state), legally declared incompetent, or incarcerated (and some places you still can) then you are permitted to marry. Do you have some other situation unique to you? Not being allowed to marry who or what you want is not the same as not being allowed to marry. I want to marry and divorce Bill Gates, it is illegal for me to marry him against his will and because he is already married…darn, I am not allowed to marry.

I could care less about gay marriage (making an assumption here), but this kind of logic drives me nuts. Every society has norms. You want to define them for your entire society and shame on those who want the majority to do that. That is selfish and self absorbed.

Here’s Tom Lehrer singing a song appropriate to the occasion. I actually remembered this from when it came out!

I blogged on sexual harassment in law enforcement. It’s part of a series.

Divorce over coffee? Maybe. Divorce over being a fucking asshole? I’d applaud.

But you know what? She married him, she is putting up with his shit, how is it my business?