The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by MacAllister:

Hiya, Jim -

Yep. The Post table in the db was pretty hosed. We're rebuilding stuff, and hope to be up again shortly.

...

I think one of those houses was mine.

*G*

Merry Christmas, Nielsen Haydens, and ML.

I was early to the Clinton rally in Seattle, and the lack of screening at the doors was remarkable from the beginning. They simply opened the doors and let everyone in, in a sort of big rush. It was noteworthy to me, in that I was standing less than ten feet from Clinton on a couple of occasions, and everyone there was dressed for a cold night on the waterfront - bulky coats, sweaters, etc.

My Obama-supporter friends are pretty much fatalistically convinced that he'll secure the nomination, but be assassinated before he ever takes office.

I'm not sure if that's just a case of mentally preparing for the worst, even while we all hope for the best. It's that thing you see in people who've nearly had all the hope beat out of them: "Maybe it really will be different this time, but I'll just brace myself to get hit again, just in case."

I'm in similar connectivity hell on the west coast. Today is the first reasonably connected day all week.

Now, if only I could get rid of that little facial tic I've developed as a result . . .

Spent most of the morning down at the local mission helping with prep.

Home now, drinking wine, and making cheesy risotto with broccoli and sausage, (thanks to Kate Salter) -- to go with a roasted turkey breast.

And a very Happy Thanksgiving, PHN, TNH, Jim, and Debra, and to all of you.

*sigh*

I keep trying to post comments on BB. I'm registered. I just keep getting redirected to some weird page with what looks like a comments log.

Ah, well. I shall try again tomorrow or so.

The same advice works oddly well for traffic stops, IME.

A recent conversation I had with a nice officer in a tiny little town in the middle of the night:

"Do you know why I stopped you?"

"Errr, was it driving ten miles an hour over the speed limit, running that four way stop back there, or the U-turn in the middle of the street? And I'm so very glad to see you -- is there a gas station here with credit card pumps?"

No ticket, happily.
And he led me to the local gas station (a tiny Cenex on a back street that I'd never have found on my own...)

I wish quite fiercely I was there with y'all. :) But I'm glad you're having a wonderful time!

Greg's decidedly one of the good guys, and yes. What Bruce said. He's one of ours.

WooHOO! Congratulations, Teresa, and they're very lucky to have you.

And now itz in my brainz, messin' wit my novl rerite.

Also for your general edification:

Today's winning lolbot.

Lee, #795, yes. Exactly so.

We are, after all, talking about a contemporary culture where Phyllis Schaffly feels perfectly comfortable saying there's no such thing as spousal rape. The comments thread following the article is interesting. And chilling.

And, in fact, it took until the late '70s for most states to treat spousal rape as a crime:

Typically, spouses were exempted from the sexual assault laws. For example, until 1993 North Carolina law stated that "a person may not be prosecuted under this article if the victim is the person's legal spouse at the time of the commission of the alleged rape or sexual offense unless the parties are living separate and apart." These laws are traceable to a pronouncement by Michael Hale, who was Chief Justice in England in the 17th century, that a husband cannot be guilty of rape of his wife "for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto the husband which she cannot retract."

Greg at #783:
"And anaea's bit about martial arts training somehow got turned into 'That doesn't solve every situation, women can still get raped, the problem is the rapists'"

It was the implication that men victimize women because women are convinced they're victims, that was the problem. Especially prefaced with words to the effect of "blaming the victim has to stop, BUT..."

In fact, men don't beat, rape, and kill women because women expect to be victims. That's backwards.

If you work a rape or DV hotline for even a little while, you hear over and over again, "I don't know how this happened to me, it never occurred to me that he'd ever, ever [fill in the blank.]"

Women know men are capable of beating, raping, or killing us because we see it happen to our mothers, sisters, friends, or it's happened to us.

Here's the breakdown:

"--85-95% of all domestic violence victims are female.

--Over 500,00 women are stalked by an intimate partner each year.

--5.3 million women are abused each year.

--1,232 women are killed each year by an intimate partner.

--Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women.

--Women are more likely to be attacked by someone they know rather than by a stranger."

AJ at #792, I have much the same experience.

heresiarch #776: You really think that convincing the victims that they are victims, helpless to resist, doesn't play a huge role in enabling abuse? You don't think that the fact that our society always teaches women to blame themselves first doesn't make this a thousand times easier for would-be abusers?

I'm pretty sure that's not what I said. What I said is that it's not good enough to say that women are victims because they think they're victims.

Since you bring it up, though, if we're talking about long-term domestic abuse, of course a specific woman's beliefs about her own power or status are going to affect her situation.

Of far more import in a general sense, however, is the prevailing cultural attitude that women must be "nice" in ways that men aren't expected to. (IMO) That has nothing to do with her view of herself. In fact, a woman who has no incentive or inclination to be "nice" is fairly likely to find herself on the receiving end of overt and direct abuse even more quickly.

A woman with a visible male companion is safer simply by virtue of having an "owner." Whether or not she believes it doesn't change the perceptions of others.

Likewise, the would-be rapist is hardly likely to poll his intended victim for her perceptions regarding her perceived or rejected victim-status in contemporary society. Learning to defend ourselves is practical and helpful -- but it addresses a symptom of the greater problem, it doesn't solve the problem itself.

anaea at #772 said: "I'm not for a second saying that anybody, no matter how much they know, can do, or what weapons they carry, can't wind up in serious trouble. What I am saying is that there's no reason to keep accepting that women are automatically slotted for "serious trouble" in a way men aren't, due to physical weakness.

Look, Anaea --I do disagree with your conclusions, and find your rant profoundly naive (however well-intentioned) and indicative of a serious misunderstanding of the nature of objectification and misogyny. Also, it's rather hard to tell if you actually read anything anyone has said beyond your own pet "women with martial arts GOOD!" agenda.

Physical size and strength are certainly part of why women are much more regularly subjected to physical violence from men, than vice versa--but hardly the whole story -- and women with black belts certainly have been beaten and raped, and will be again. Learning practical self-defense is obviously a good idea but it fails to address the actual problem.

I also find your apparently unconscious use of sexually-loaded words and phrases throughout your rather long comment, ummm, ironic . . . and deeply indicative that you honestly just don't get it.

You then proceed to blame women, yet again: "As a society we do still have a tendency to blame the victims of any crime, especially assaulted women and that has to stop. But women victimize themselves constantly by reinforcing this idea of weakness.

For chrissakes -- we really are going backwards in terms of feminist ideology. I'd wager you're under 25, and my god you're really utterly convinced that women are victimized by men because women think they're victims.

That's just...well...stupid. Sorry, and that's much ruder than I intended to be, but can you even try to think for yourself for god's sake?

You concluded: "I believe what I believe based on my experiences and observations, and while I am always interested in other points of view, I'm not going to be talked out of something I'm grounding in solid personal experience."

Well, then. I'll save my breath, and hope quite sincerely that you don't ever have to learn otherwise. But for god's sake, try not to insult people whose personal experience is very, very different than yours.

PR Vet, you did a really interesting rhetorical thing, here. You've set yourself up to speak for women--and to essentially shout down the women on this thread who dare disagree with you--by telling us what your wife says. According to you.

Your wife is an authority why? Because she's a strong assertive woman. A feminist. A *gasp* dyke (although of course you're very careful to make sure we know she "likes dick.") Again, according to you.

Then, you use your wife--the voiceless, absent, supposed authority--to condescendingly dismiss another poster, an actual woman on this thread trying to have an actual conversation with you, with, "I showed your post to my wife. She laughed. Then she said this has come up a lot in her womens studies courses at the university. Apparently there are some circles of feminist thought . . ."

That very effectively put paid to any assumption of goodwill I could possibly ascribe to you.

Rhetorically effective silencing.

Intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

And if you'd be so kind, don't use the word "dyke" that way. It's ignorant and offensive.

Another Damned Medievalist @ #83 -- Yes, I love it here for so many reasons. The local brews alone are nearly enough to make up for the rain all winter.

This was my first time at Kalamazoo, also -- but I'll certainly return. The company was especially marvelous; it was so very nice to be able to put faces and voices with some of the names I've seen here for so long.

Going home to Seattle is looking rather drab, in comparison.

Ah. And one "Pitch Grinch" has shown up to defend the NYC Pitch and Shop, on Absolute Write. Denies being Kaley, though, and calls anyone who thinks otherwise might be a conspiracy theorist...gosh. Can't be having people thinking that. Probably I should be censoring the cantankerous naysayers.

Bleh.

Heh! Off to order it now! Many thanks.

Comment statistics for MacAllister on the Making Light blog

Total: 91 comments. View all these comments on a single page.