<p>There are an infinite number of possible perspectives, an infinite number of ways of looking at things or at organizing information. If one looks for rape culture, one can find it. If one looks for consumer culture, militarism, imperialism, decadence, parasitism, predatory behavior, or for unjust discrimination based on social class, sex, attractiveness, height, health, skin tone, language spoken, ethnicity, religion, etc…, one can find it. And, if one is honest, one can find some evidence of some of the above in oneself (I am a lifelong atheist, but I always admired the Christians for professing that “We are all sinners”).</p>
<p>Shouldn’t education help a young person understand that there are an infinite number of ways to look at anything and to strive for a healthy balance of perspectives, one that appears to have good prospects for improving the quality of life for oneself and generally for others? </p>
<p>After 3 weeks of BBC headlines of the Nigeria girls, today the international community begins to take action, and the U.S. press begins headlines. Somewhat OT, but the general inattention to these girls as we discuss inattention to sexual assault on U.S. campuses is provocative.</p>
<p>Even further ‘OT’ but I agree that if the plane and sinking ferry garner so much press why not the abduction of 300 school girls? At least they are likely still alive with the possibility that something can be done to save them. However, I just checked CNN and after a brief stint in the news (less than a day) it is back to Monica Lewinsky and Michelle Knight . . . strangely both sex stories but with a more prurient angle. </p>
Fair enough, as long as you are open-minded enough to perceive that there may also be a culture of victimhood that can also be problematic. I don’t think they are mutually exclusive, by the way.</p>
<p>The Monica Lewinsky story is much more applicable to American college students than the Nigerian schoolgirls. She was an intern who thought she was having a love affair. Turns out, she was very blatantly being used to a perform a quick occasional service which was only possible because she was not very perceptive, unfortunately. Now, she doesn’t see herself as a victim, but there was a time when feminists would have told us that any power imbalance creates a victim. Until, Bill Clinton. Then they weirdly went quiet. It’s interesting.</p>
<p>In the broader picture of things, though, whining about a pinch on the bottom at a nightclub being “rape culture” is rather insulting and demeaning to those poor Nigerian schoolgirls, who have a REAL rape culture to be worried about. That’s not to say that pinching bottoms at nightclubs is acceptable, but when you water down things, you run the risk of being so inclusive you lose the horror of the real atrocities.</p>
<p>I disagree with you, Flossy. Lewinsky’s very clear it was consensual, and I believe her. She may have been a victim of the news media, but I don’t think she was a victim of Clinton. </p>
<p>@Flossy - Of course they went quiet. The feminist movement is a liberal political movement, not a movement devoted to the issues of women in general. The feminists prove that all the time when they try to shout down the views of conservative women. To attack Clinton would be attacking their political power base. It is amazing what people accept when they get paid off; feminists are no different.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I absolutely agree it was consensual. because she was an idiot who thought he was in love with her. But, he took advantage of the fact that she was an idiot and he was the president. She was the victim of a power structure which may have included the news media to a certain extent but it originated in the White House. Anyway, the culture in which the Nigerian schoolgirls sadly find themselves is not the same culture that American college students are living in. It’s just not.</p>
<p>It’s possible to think that Lewinsky was a victim of Clinton, and to still think that Clinton was a pretty good president, at least compared with some others. Personally, I blame his misbehavior for Gore’s failure to achieve the presidency. But I am already tired of the idea–which will be pushed on us relentlessly–that anybody supporting Hilary Clinton for president is an apologist for Clinton’s sexual misdeeds. And this will be coming from the “legitimate rape” people.</p>
<p>It is interesting - when I was in college, consensual was never part of the feminist dogma with power mismatches. It was always couched in use of power. In fact, the line used most often was the guy knew better and took advantage of his power position and because of that power differential there was no way it could be consensual. Consensual implies equal decision-taking, and we were told by feminists that is impossible with a huge power differential. </p>
<p>Fast forward to after Clinton and now the consensual term is widely used, as a cover for the same use of power. Quite convenient. However, I do thank Clinton for exposing the fact that women can and do make stupid sexual decisions too. It was not until Clinton did feminists actually acknowledge as much. </p>
<p>Sally, you are correct. My only point was that to keep bringing up the Nigerian school girls as an example of rape culture ignores the fact that American college campuses are generally in the US. A different culture. </p>
<p>awcntdb - I think this is one of those “greater good” situations. Admittedly, I always have trouble with that concept.</p>
<p>“It was always couched in use of power. In fact, the line used most often was the guy knew better and took advantage of his power position and because of that power differential there was no way it could be consensual. Consensual implies equal decision-taking, and we were told by feminists that is impossible with a huge power differential.”</p>
<p>I think there are different definitions of feminist operating here. <em>My</em> brand of feminism isn’t about claiming eternal victimhood. <em>My</em> brand of feminism can celebrate both Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice for being strong accomplished women, who just happen to be of different political persuasions. <em>My</em> brand of feminism says that support of Hillary Clinton is derived from what she stands for and is not a commentary on how she runs her private marriage, which is her business and not mine.</p>
<p>More recent strains of feminism appear to be rooted in claiming eternal victimhood. Which is a shame, as it alienates young women (like our collective daughters) from identifying with the word feminism. </p>
<p>@Pizzagirl - I agree there are different definitions of feminism. However, the brand of feminism that is most vocal and which garners political sway and gets in the media is the one we have to deal with. My wife used to call herself a feminist until she was told her conservative views do not represent women; that was some 25 years ago. </p>
<p>I believe that the majority of feminists are people like Pizzagirl and me. The popular/social media seeks out fringe groups for their shock value: this should not discredit everyone who can be placed under that broad unbrella. Should the existence of the Tea Party discredit the ideas and sentiments of, say, an Olympia Snowe? </p>