>Obviously no girl or woman is safe from the evil that lurks behind
>every zipper, struggling to be free, no matter how tiny it might
>appear at first or second or third or fourth glance. We all know full
>well that in this case little evils get to be big ones all too soon.
honestly, chuck, are you trying to channel the spirit of David Hawkes here or what? what is the point of ridiculing this situation, exaggerating the concerns so as to further contribute to the stereotype? it's quite clear to me that an 11 year old might be easily capable of rape. i have an 11 yr. old.
he matured fairly early and, while regular erections, aren't part of the scene yet. [sorry, i raised a kid who shares these things with me far more than i'd like sometimes.], it is clear to me that an boy much more savvy than my son could rape a girl and, indeed, could fantasize about it.
why must everyone insist that there are malicious vendettas here that can be extended to all feminists and all feminist agendas? why, if it seems that a young man committed rape, is it wrong to prosecute it as rape? [this whole thing about children and sexuality too is rather historically specific, a product of western capitalist development so i wouldn't be so quick to universalize what children are 'essentially' like based on observations]
why are you painting with such broad strokes? what's the motivation other than to dismiss and render laughable and powerless a movement that is certainly not insignificant in terms of the problems it identifies and must work extremely hard to eradicate?
and, since jim wants to 'share' personal information, let me just note that sexual harassment is still quite alive and well, thank you very much. i have been put in those situations far too often ever since i was 14. a man
on this very list has found delight in mailing me links to porn sites, as if somehow he just knew that i was interested or cared. furthermore, i ignored him only to receive a comment some weeks later about s&m. in no way did i "ask" for such behavior. my addressing max as "maxhunkhoney" or 'wojtek' as 'sweetpea' or even talking about sexuality in public does not constitute an open invitation to be sent that sort of crap, does it. why, by virtue of posting to this male dominated space, should i have to deal with that? i'll add, too, that others have found delight in making snide comments about my sig quote. well sorry, buoyz, but that sig quote has a theoretical meaning [women as mediators of 'exchange'] and really very little to do with getting yourself off.
is any of this workplace sex harassment? no. i'd call it, basically, dorkiness on the part of the men who do this, a complete inability to understand appropriate behavior, a lack of common sense and a basically crass attitude toward women who have a brain and a sense of humor. i guess i must be pretty threatening, huh?
so, now you will go off and pout and say 'oh another sex negative feminist.
great.' well no, actually, that's not it. and it's a godamned shame that i even have to bother to explain it to anyone. indeed, i'm not even going to bother. figure it out for yourself, chuck, since you're very capable of reading hegel, i'd imagine that you could take a peek at some texts that have certainly got to be far less challenging.