first i think you should know that i'm a rather critical feminist in the sense that, while i grew up like roiphe did, believing that equality was a given and we were moving toward that (thanks to virginia slims ads), academic feminism was a different animal and i wasn't happy with it. my experience of the world suggested that the more important fight was that against capitalism.
>I don't think that the claim that Roiphe's description of the rape
>hysteria is restricted to one or two elite institutions works. It is a
>natural development from the underlying assumption in much feminist
>literature first that the barrier to women's emancipation is men (or
>'patriarchy') and second that men are inherently violent. With those
>assumptions, it is natural to take the direction that Roiphe describes.
as to the first part, you've got it right.... is there something problematic about that? [please note that not all feminists subscribe to the idea of 'patriarchy']
but more importantly, why is there a necessary "natural" developmental progression from one to the other given that there are a variety of feminisms? i see nothing in the claim that men/patriarchy are a barrier to women's emancipation that would lead to the kinds of 'rape hysteria' that roiphe imagines. [i've taught on 7 diff. campuses and saw nothing of the sort. elite liberal arts institutions were more concerned and sponsored those training programs, whereas working class uni`s didn't invest nearly as much in them. certainly never ever saw sapphire waves of lights glowing in the twilight. [ok, i admit it: i got carried away with an attempt at stylistic flair. i'll try to resist].
and woah nellie! men are inherently violent? who says this? not me, not any feminists i respect or read. of ferpetesake lemme dig out the intro women's studies texts.....
ok. back. well a brief perusal suggests that it's simply not true that there is any agreement on the claim that men are inherently violent. indeed, i'd say that it is a minority position w/in *academic* feminisms. that it might be a popular view bespeaks the ease with which such claims are taken up in bourglib society in general. we are awfully fond of biological explanations for behavior--everything from addiction to the ability to scrub toilets is readily explained in terms of biological differences. most feminists, however, reject such arguments because it consigns women and men to some sort of biological fate:
"are we to believe that [rape statistics] result from the male's ungovernable mating urge..."or must we face up to the conclusion that sexual violence is somehow embedded in the social fabric? if we believe the former, then there's not much to be done about it. if we believe the latter, we must collectively endeavor to change the assumptions and attitudes of our culture...."
anne fausto-sterling "myths of gender" oh, of course, there's plenty more i could cite.
>You will say no doubt that this is anecdotal evidence (sorry to
>introduce real world events),
no apologies needed. indeed, one of the basic slogans of feminism "the personal is political" is about subjecting what are seemingly personal experiences to critical, public, sustained analysis, self- and social-reflection.
but in my three years at the - hardly
>elite - Middlesex Polytechnic, nearly twenty years ago, the women's
>group then campaigned for the same goals as those described in Roiphe's
>book: lighting, chaperones etc. At the same time the women's group
>conducted a violent campaign of intimidation against a lecturer, Peter
>Webb, author of an acclaimed book, Erotic Art, pouring paint over his
>car, shouting down his lectures etc. When Webb refused to be
>intimidated, the Women's Group approached the Tory representatives on
>the college's funding body, the Joint Education Committee, and appealed
>to them to have him sacked - and this at the height of the Tories own
>'Victorian Values' campaign.
i'd like to be able to speak to this, but what can i say? it does seem silliness as you've presented it. can't imagine any feminists i know, respect, have read who'd agree w/ this.
here's a story: a young grad student teaching asst, male, was accused of sex harassment at a place where i worked. problem was, the undergrad accuser merely reported her concerns to other grad student t.a.'s. they reported the info to the dept chair, a man,* who quickly moved to discipline him. he fought back for two reasons. 1] this was hearsay and not actionable 2] she'd simply been uncomfortable because he sat near her during class and once, after running into her off campus, he was in conversation and said "you're very pretty, are you a model" I should note that our young man was 22, not sexually experienced, and surely not experienced at giving women the ole look-see in an inconspicuous way, indeed he often had to run off to the bathroom if you get my drift.
the sex harassment officer, no softie, told him that he had not done anything that could reasonably be construed as s.h.. moreover, a faculty member, well known as an expert witness in sex harassment trials, took his side. he ended up getting booted anyway, but not b/c of the charge. it was all, in the end, about politics.
The NUS here in
>particular has institutionalised the 'anti-harassment' policies through
>the creation of women's officers in every college.
and....? how is this bad?
Characteristically
>the first group to be banned under the new harassment policy was the
>students' Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir.
i'm lacking cultural capital here...?
>Just this week I read that the national NUS women's officer is bringing
>harassment charges against the president of the Student Union. The
>backdrop is that the women's officer is in a Trotskyist party, while the
>President is a mainstream Blairite. So much easier to accuse someone of
>harassment than to defeat their political viewpoint.
and this means....that women are human and fallible and petty too?
>Beyond college life the influence of sex-negative feminists upon the
>social services and the criminal justice system is extensive. The
>'socialist-feminist' Bea Campbell is well-known for her influence on the
>Social Services in the North East which have pioneered the break-up of
>families on spurious abuse charges, lobbied for by Campbell.
well, again, can't speak to anything because i have no details other than your claim that these are spurious. i have problems with some of the policies here in the states but i wouldn't for a minute naturally assume abuse charges are spurious in general, though i'd surely be happy to examine on a case by case basis. furthermore, i tend to see such extremism as resulting from the fetish for bureaucratic expertism rather than any sort of pressure on the part of feminist groups.
>The domestic violence group at University of North London are advisors
>to the Home Office on rape prosecutions. It was they who prompted the
>Home Office here to increase greatly the number of prosecutions taken to
>court. To their dismay the prosecutions increased - but so did the
>acquittals to the same extent, with no increase in convictions (this all
>described in David Rose's book In the Name of the Law). Juries continued
>to insist that the charges should be believable and proven. The proposed
>strategy of the UNL team is to lower the standard of evidence in rape
>cases.
well, hmmm. the infamous almost supreme court justice bork once ruled the following in a proceeding to determine what would be considered evidence in a sex harassment case. no joke: 1] was the woman wearing dangling earrings? 2] was the woman wearing dark patterned stockings 3] when was the last time she had a date. that's the history of how such cases are treated here in the states: the victim's behavior is put on trial as if she somehow invited harassment or rape. ridiculous. same thing happened in NYS only a few years ago. a woman, very drunk, was gang raped in a bar near closing, several witnesses watched. they were all let off the hook primarily because she was judged to be a slut and somehow asking for it.
if a woman is stone cold drunk, then 5 men who have sex with her are raping her. how anyone could doubt that is beyond me. but they do and did. that despite N.O.W. to the rescue with a decent amount of financial and emotional support.
i have no doubt that, were we to put our differing claims to more rigorous empirical testing, then we'd likely find that what you've found are rather isolated incidents that hardly measure up against the systematic oppression and domination of women *as* a group in every aspect of their lives.
we live in a world in which chris matthews interviews germaine greer and has the audacity to say [in an effort to dismiss greer and feminism] "so in my home one person notices that the grass needs cutting and the other person is expected to cut it. i sure don't feel like i have any power in my home." [e.g., this feminism stuff is crap] what a joker that guy is. lord. if i ever wished i had a gun or sledgehammer to direct at a television set, that was the night when i watched that astounding display of idiocy.
kelley