>perhaps i assumed a knowledge of the feminist analysis of rape on your
>part that i shouldn't have assumed.
>
>[his] comment was a form of sexism that contributes to the constellation
>of habits, practices, and norms that lead to rape in this country. we
>usually call this social dynamic "oppression".
Yeah, rape is socially situated, and, yeah, social norms can nourish the practice.
>[he] judges a girl "slow" because she does not meet his desire for sex.
>however, there is no _objective_ gauge against which one can measure his
>girlfriend's "speed".
There is of course no such objective gauge. The object of your castigation might actually have meant *too slow for his liking* or *slow compared to others in his experience*. Neither of which would necessarily indicate an appropriate or normalised anything.
>but imagine that [he] had said that he was "fast".he could have. there is
>no reason not to.
Other than the fact that there is no objective gauge against which one can measure this.
>however, [he] judges his girlfriend slow, instead of himself as fast.
One's own speed is as sound a gauge as any when it comes to choosing appropriate partners. It's all very well to postulate a structure of oppression. It is not nearly so well, imho, to nail an individual on inconclusive evidence tendentiously read.
>that's what we mean by the normalization of sexist practices, discourses,
>language. the male becomes the normal, against which a woman is gauged
>either fast or slow.
We know what you mean. And I don't say it doesn't happen - indeed, isn't characteristic of our society. I do say you shouldn't summarily besmirch individuals you don't know on ambiguous evidence.
>the acceptance of that kind of attitude--the failure to see anything
>unusual about it other than something Oblate might worry about--is part of
>the confluence of beliefs, ideas, attitudes that constitute gender
>oppression. they work together to provide the seedbed within which rape
>flourishes in our society. that doesn't mean [he] will rape, of course.
It doesn't even mean he's done or thought anything you have so carelessly attributed to him.
>i'm talking about something called structural gender oppression.
No, you're talking about an individual. And effectively fixing to nail an individual to the wall with a blunt lump of *social* theory. Which wouldn't impress careful readers, but might inappropriately affect people's estimations of said individual.
Cheers, Rob.