I think need to clarify first what sort of comparison is being made, whether one is really making an apt comparison and what sort of things are bracketed out of our abstractions.
In the article, it's the case of a woman who used child pornography. Something which doesn't necessarily have the same meaning for a woman's sexuality across cultures as say adultery does (even if it was really rape, because the hostility is to the woman's lack of purity). Where whilst there are formally hostile laws for adultery, it's not as if in the west that male violence against women has been non-existent on the basis of adultery as well.
Might consider the history of provocation defense in regards to husbands murdering their wives for example.
https://philpapers.org/archive/WOLPDA-3.pdfExamining the legal defense of provocation provides a useful framework for examining the meaning of provocative dress, since, while the legal defense of provocation is used only in murder cases, this defense involves many ideas that are implicit in the concept of provocative dress. In particular, the basis for the provocation defense is the belief that, in some cases, a person’s wrongful actions can be partially excused or even partially justified because of another person’s provoking behavior. After considering different models of the provocation defense, I conclude this section with a defense of the “warranted excuse” model proposed by Victoria Nourse, in which the defendant’s wrongful behavior is partially excused “when the defendant appeals to the very emotions to which the state appeals to rationalize its own use of violence.”13
...
In most Western countries, the partial defense of provocation is available to defendants who have committed acts of violence “in the heat of passion.”35 In a case of homicide, the provocation defense, if successful, reduces the charge from murder to voluntary manslaughter.36
...
The common law provocation defense has traditionally favored men accused of killing their spouses or sexual partners.43 The quintessential example of a provocation considered sufficient to reduce a charge of murder to one of manslaughter is that of a man catching his wife in adultery and killing her lover.44 Another traditional criterion of the provocation defense—that the defendant acted out of “hot anger”—also “favor[ed] something that men tend to do: act out of sexual jealousy.”45 The belief that the sight of a wife’s adultery is provocation sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter assumes that it is reasonable (or acceptable) that an ordinary, reasonable man confronted with his wife’s adultery would respond with violence. As a result of this gendered interpretation of the provocation defense, for many years female victims of domestic violence who killed their partners were unable to use the provocation defense because such women typically did not kill in the “heat of anger” but rather, for example, while their victims were asleep.46
...
In the common law tradition, the provocation defense is typically interpreted as a partial justification, since provocation is only considered sufficient to reduce a charge from murder to manslaughter in cases where the provoker’s behavior is judged to be unlawful.56 In a partial justification model, it is the victim’s unjust actions that mitigate the defendant’s blameworthiness, rather than the defendant’s emotional state.57 As a result, the victim is viewed as partially deserving of her own fate or “asking for it.”58 But the justification is partial because, since the defendant’s life is not threatened by the victim’s provoking behavior, the defendant’s retaliatory actions are disproportionate to the wrongfulness of the victim’s actions.5
which seems to be an apt comparison to talk of honor killings which are comparable to domestic violence in the west, as people like to exoticize foreigner's violence to women in order to dissociate the violence normative in our own societies, implying that it's inherent to their culture but not ours.
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Feminism-versus-Multiculturalism.pdfCulture is invoked to explain forms of violence against Third World or immigrant women while culture is not similarly invoked to explain forms of violence that affect mainstream Western women. The specific case of dowry and domestic violence murders provides an example of this phenomenon. Dowry murders take place when a new wife is murdered, usually burned to death, in connection to escalating dowry demands. Dowry murders are thought of as a peculiar indicator of the extreme misogyny of India and are frequently confused with sati-the widow immolation supposedlyjustified by Hindu scripture that rarely takes place in contemporary India. Recently an article in The New Yorker about arranged marriages in South Asian communities contained the suggestion that dowry murders are the cultural alternative to Western divorce-a way to exit relationships.2 1 Instead, as some have pointed out, the more appropriate analogy is to equate dowry murders with domestic violence, and specifically, domestic violence murders in the United States.2 2 The philosopher Uma Narayan has calculated that death by domestic violence in the United States is numerically as significant a social problem as dowry murders in India.2 3 But only one is used as a signifier of cultural backwardness: "They burn their women there." As opposed to: "We shoot our women here." Yet domestic violence murders in the U.S. are just as much a part of American culture as dowry death is a part of Indian culture. In the words of Narayan, when "cultural explanations" are given for fatal forms of violence only in the Third World, the effect is to suggest that Third World women suffer "death by culture. ' 24
And I think pants isn't given enough nuance to the views that may prevail, because the view of women being victims of rape is accepted only up to a point, that as long as one is a 'good' woman.
But then regardless of the truth of things, it is common to promote the fear of violence in order to play to control women through fear, where sexual violence in all its degrees serves to terrorize women. It's not that every man is a rapist but that any woman could be raped becomes inscribed upon women's bodies as they maintain the sense that if they live up to the restricted version of a woman who doesn't do those bad things, she won't be subjected to violence.
Historically, violence towards women was couched in classism and racism, it was only coloured and poor men who were thought to hurt women. Which isn't that there aren't such cases, but that there is an ideological that surrounds it regardless of the reality, that frames the problem in a particular way.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/2361And exactly the same goes for the looting in New Orleans: Even if all the reports on violence and rapes had proven to be factually true, the stories circulating about them would still be “pathological” and racist, since what motivated these stories were not facts, but racist prejudices, the satisfaction felt by those who would be able to say: “You see, Blacks really are like that, violent barbarians under the thin layer of civilization!” In other words, we would be dealing with what could be called lying in the guise of truth: Even if what I am saying is factually true, the motives that make me say it are false.
So one should be careful in these matters where one doesn't only engage with things on terms of true or false but also the belief systems that characterize the narrative/meaning of certain facts like violence against women. This gets more complciated but basically one should look into criticzing the way in which problems are framed to see the implications of it regardless of trying to deduce any intentions and one should find that it inevitably imposes restrictions upon women's autonomy. That even the supposedly benevelent don't fundamentally challenge the conditions that are legitimately a threat to women's safety and actively engage in paternalistic authority over women as their parentalism is legitimized by the real or percieved threat of violence. Soon as that violence dissipates and women can have a more substnative autonomy, their legitimacy wanes.
See [url=Beyond Prejudice as Simple Antipathy: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism Across Cultures]https://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/2268/28641/1/glickfiske%20et%20al_jpsp_00.pdf[/url]
The evidence is consistent with the idea that women adopt BS as a form of self-defense when overall levels of sexism in a culture are high. HS and BS work together as a particularly effective method of system maintenance: When men are high in HS, women have a strong incentive to accept BS to gain men's protection, admiration, and affection and as a means of avoiding men's hostility. Faced with hostility from a more powerful group if they choose to reject conventional female roles and rewarded with men's benevolence for conforming to those roles, it is not surprising that many women choose to adopt prescribed roles and the ideology (BS) that supports them (see also Eagly, 1987; Jackman, 1994; Ridgeway, 1992). This is similar to arguments made by Smuts (1996) and Jackman (1994) that the threat of male aggression leads women to seek protection by pair bonding with men. Such effects are ironic, as women are driven to seek protection from members of the very group that threatens or oppresses them, and the greater the threat (i.e., the more men endorse HS), the stronger the incentive to seek male protection (rather than independence).
In the case of child porn and such, things are messy because one would have to establish the beliefs that surround women's sexuality and in particular to children. The awareness that people be fucking kids and doing shit to them and sharing it is pretty recent trend. For a long time, people fucking kids and shit was inconceivable, some even speak of
Freud as feeling pressure from psychiatric community to ignore the evidence of child abuse he discovered by patient reports.
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/special/007/Historical-review-sexual-offence-child-sexual-abuse.pdfIt was only in the late 1960s and particularly the 1970s that sexual violence, including child sexual abuse, emerged as significant social and political issues in Australia and overseas (Scott & Swain 2002). The new focus on child sexual abuse grew particularly out of the feminist women’s rights movement and its advocacy for adult victims/ survivors of rape and other sexual and physical assaults. Feminist groups contradicted historical understandings of child sexual abuse as infrequent acts perpetrated by sexual deviants. They posited that sexual violence was indicative and symptomatic of patriarchal societal attitudes towards women and children and the unequal distribution of power. These groups sought to raise awareness and understanding of sexual violence, and were openly critical of government and criminal justice system responses to victims of violence.
An intutive point could be around certain ideas around female sexual agency, which isn't seen as aggressive and threatening and put in relation to the idea that it's a good thing to be recipient to women's sexual interests.
So for example, hear quite often in the traditional view that when a teacher had sex with a male student, that its a good thing, statements like I wish I fucked my school teacher, and praise. Rather than it being framed at minimum as statutory rape and wrong.
In this, can see the idea that women aren't viewed as sexually threatening and thus womens sexual aggressiveness and violence can often be downplayed because boys have got to always be open to sex, otherwise you're a faggot.
It seems unlikely that this would strictly apply in the case of child pornography because the notion seems hard to stretch to children who are likely younger than a teen. But this I think at least intuitively illustrates how female sexuality isn't necessarily seen as wrong even when it is.
And if people are going to argue that its somehow the result of feminism or feminists, they need to argue how feminists took such an ideological stranglehold which created this outcome. Because from my view, feminism has been coopted by individualized notions that have only adapted to women being workers but hasn't radically challenged gender norms beyond that and only elaborated and remodeled certain characterizations of sexuality and that for economic interest.
But there is likely little doubt that she got a lighter sentence on the basis of being a woman rather than a man.
But I think people should look into ambivalent sexism to see how simultaneously societies harbor both hostile and benevolent attitudes towards women which are complimentary. Without the hostility, there is no legitimacy and basis for the benevolence. But generally, benevolence is to be reserved for 'good' women. As it's a disciplining paradigm so that regardless of people's awareness, they replicate the social conditions that make women afraid from asserting themselves for fear of misogyny.
http://www.katemanne.net/uploads/7/3/8/4/73843037/what_is_misogyny_a_feminist_analysis__2_.pdfHence, I suggest that: Sexism is the species of patriarchal ideology which functions to theoretically justify patriarchal social relations by, e.g., naturalizing and idealizing women‘s subordination and men‘s dominance.
Whereas: Misogyny is the system within a patriarchal order which functions to practically enforce patriarchal social relations by, e.g., directly enacting, as well as policing and upholding women‘s subordination and men‘s dominance.
It's like Althusser's distinction between the Repressive state apparatus and the Ideological state apparatus, it's carrot and stick. You need to romanticize obedience but have methods to put people back in line when they don't work by themselves. This could characterize many social relations of power as it seems true of stabilizing any social order that subjects need to be brought into it so that they don't need to be told what to do, they simply feel driven to follow the rules and others needs to be met with resistance if not active hostility.
[url=Rethinking Rape]https://books.google.com.au/books?id=luEJefxzEMkC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=females+are+morally+responsible+both+for+their+conduct+and+for+the+conduct+of+males&source=bl&ots=76ye0rfQPv&sig=Dfgot5pWr1YgFRSqGejpWdDKIjQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje2bua5e7SAhUHopQKHe5RDb0Q6AEIHTAB#v=onepage&q=females%20are%20morally%20responsible%20both%20for%20their%20conduct%20and%20for%20the%20conduct%20of%20males&f=false[/url]
Let us be exact about this process. In acquiring the bodily habits that render the subject "feminine," habits that are inculcated at a young age and then constantly redefined and maintained, the woman learns to accept her body as dangerous, willful, fragile, and hostile. It constantly poses the possibility of threat, and only persistent vigilance can limit the risk at which it places the woman. The production of such a body reflects and supports a status quo that refuses, in the particular case of sexual assault, to consider the victim innocent until proven guilty; rather, the opposite is assumed.
The threat of rape, then, is a constitutive and sustained moment in the production of the distinctly feminine body. It is the pervasive danger that renders so much public space off-limits, a danger so omnipresent, in fact, that the "safety zone" women attempt to create rarely exceeds the limits of their own limbs and quite often falls far short of that radius. Women consider their flesh not only weak and breakable, but also violable. The truth inscribed on the woman's body is not that, biologically, all men are potential rapists. It is rather that, biologically, all women are potential rape victims. Note, too, that this bodily inscription may take place without the explicit articulation of the concept of "rape" or the actual experience of sexual assault. Girls especially may know that their bodies are inherently dangerous without being clear as to the precise nature of the danger they present. They may only sense that something very bad and very hurtful will befall them should their surveillance falter, and, correspondingly, that all sorts of social opportunities will be open to them should their project of femininity be successful.9"
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4448180&fileOId=4461660Patriarchy is a system of beliefs that fundamentally asserts the supremacy of the male (Brinson, 1992:361). It exist through people’s upholding of the structures without questioning them, because it has become a system of norms (Thomsson, ElvinNowak, 2013:38) that include myths, rules and assumptions which with time are taken for granted (Ibid, 2013:30). Men’s position of dominance is normalized through language (Berrington, Jones, 2002:308) and that process includes a normalizing of male aggression. Sexual violence is constructed as a risk that women can protect themselves against, if acting responsible (Ibid:317). By that, women are socialized into fear of male violence (Ibid:319) and thus become subjects of violence and objects of fear (Marcus, 1992:398), the so called subjection process (Ibid:394). Due to that, women are expected to monitor and restrict their behavior (Berrington, Jones, 2002:317) and even hinder their movements in an attempt to ensure the safety of their bodies (Edwards et al, 2011:767). Dr. Eileen Berrington and Dr. Helen Jones, mean that the relationship between the patriarchal construction of the society and the existence of male violence can be understood as part of a system of power (Berrington, Jones, 2002:308).
Rape myths exist in symbiosis with cultural stereotypes of “ideal” behavior for women and men (Brinson, 1992:361). Questioning the behavior of the woman before the rape is the same thing as saying that something she did provoked a man to rape her. By talking about being in the “wrong” place, wearing the “wrong” clothes and acting in the “wrong” way presupposes that there is a right way for women to behave (Ibid:362). These “norms of femininity” as Berrington and Jones chose to call them, describe the cultural attributes and expectations assigned to women (Berrington, Jones, 2002:309). The horror of rape is not that it steals something from women, but that it makes women into things to be taken (Marcus, 1992:399). The production of a norm of behavior is a form of power that regulate, control and normalize and aim to produce docile and useful bodies (Henderson, 2013:238).This creates an assumption that that women can, when behaving correct and responsible, avoid the violence of men (Berrington, Jones, 2002:307). Henderson claims that historically women have been told to avoid rape by restricting their choices, movements and behavior (Henderson, 2013:233).
https://aifs.gov.au/publications/conceptual-understandings-and-prevalence-sexual-harassment-and-street-harassmHowever, all of these forms of sexual harassment are interconnected, regardless of intent or the way they are experienced by the recipient, as "the remarks serve multiple functions of social control" (Kissling, 1991, p. 455). Kissling denoted this harassment as a form of "sexual terrorism", which serves to remind women of their status as sexual objects, and "of their vulnerability to these and other violations" (p. 455). It is here that the interconnections between sexual harassment and more severe forms of sexual violence are most apparent. Firstly, sexual harassment functions as a reminder to women of the threat or possibility of something "more serious" occurring, therefore rendering women as sexually vulnerable (Crouch, 2009; Kissling, 1991; Laniya, 2005; Macmillan et al., 2000; Tuerkheimer, 1997). Secondly, both sexual harassment and sexual violence remove women's sexual and bodily autonomy (MacKinnon, 1979), curtail women's behaviour, and are used to threaten, intimidate, and harm women.
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2439&context=facpubhe willingness of courts to perpetuate the notion of the male uncontrollable urge through the guise of protectionism obfuscates the real sexism involved. The decisions discussed in this article merely serve to maintain male power. They expect women to operate around men in a limited role and within the male-defined system. The notion of an uncontrollable urge, which is provoked by women, excuses men for their behavior and reinforces the social and political tendency to blame the victim. 184 It perpetuates the idea that men's violence against women is inevitable and thereby plays upon women's fear for their own physical safety. 185 The perceived threat of rape, and of invoking the male urge, functions much like a protection racket in which men protect their women from the abuse of other men. 80 Mae West once said, "Every man I meet wants to protect me. Can't figure out what from."187
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics
- By Rancid
- By wat0n
- By QatzelOk