Letters to the Editor
-
Anyway Ems
I'm just bored and on a roll tonite. I am sure you are a decent girl in real life.
But I do think you (and other women too) need to begin to realize we men are not monolithic unhurtable tools.
-
Oh, well I thought you had read the links.
Nick Kiddle took these paratroopers home. They were both quite drunk. She said, "too drunk to listen to reason." A condom slipped. A drunk paratrooper wanted to continue to have sex. She convinced him not to. The paratroopers went home.
Later on, at Alas a Blog, She described the experience as a near rape. http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/11/08/my-rape-story/
Amanda Marcotte, who has written for Salon and who is blogrolled at Broadsheet described this as:
Nick Kiddle wrote what is hands-down one of the best posts I’ve ever read on this after a bunch of people piled on to blame her for getting into a situation where she honestly feared for a moment that she was going to be raped. They basically said that if you don’t want to be raped, you’ll have to give in and only be in sexual situations with men that you’ve gone through the tedious dating process with. Well, Nick doesn’t want to do that–she’s just gotten out of a situation where she felt like her boyfriend was controlling and she’s understandably not interested in going there again and she thinks casual sex is the best method for having a sexual life without putting herself in situations where she feels subject to male control. I find it fascinating that rape is being used in her situation as a fallback for the people who think that women should only be able to express their sexuality in relationships, knowing full well that most relationships are male-dominated. It’s a clear-cut case of how sexual violence upholds male dominance, even though most men are not rapists. […]
This is in fact a perfect example of the Katie Roiphe "morning after" argument.
Rebecca Traister, Nick Kiddle, and Amanda Marcotte all agree that Kiddle was almost raped and this was the fault of the drunk paratroopers. Roiphe says no. That Kiddle bears responsibility for bringing home two drunks that were too drunk to listen to reason.
Now, if the situation was reversed, and Kiddle had gotten drunk and was taken home by the paratroopers, AGAIN, Rebecca Traister, Nick Kiddle and Amanda Marcotte would insist that the paratroopers were responsible.
It seems the men are responsible no matter what and that Nick Kiddle never is.
So since this is a dialogue about whether Roiphe is feminist or anti-feminist, whether the Morning After is about women taking responsibility or shucking it, I am asking you,
Was Nick Kiddle almost raped?
Was Nick Kiddle responsible for her actions that night?
(In the exciting epilogue you'll find everything turned on its head, so don't read ahead!)
-
brightstar:
Easy, tiger.
I'm not "you women..." and you're not ten guys.
This is just me talking to you.
You regularly lash out like a cornered rat, only the people you lash out at are not the ones that were poking you with sticks.
Your reactions are disproportionate, and all of your logic is emotional.
Your resentments overwhelm your reason, so none of your arguments stand alone.
By now everyone who talks to you knows this, even if they agree with you.
If you're suggesting that people should show compassion for the crazy guy on the subway brandishing the umbrella, well...OK.
But that doesn't mean we should just sit still and get poked with the umbrella, see?
-
Anonymous #3,749,254,299,568
Ya, I read that stuff.
The Dad, the pregnancy, yada yada.
I just have no interest in "almost" because the facts don't support any conclusions I could stand behind.
Amanda Marcotte might, and I respect that, but I don't see the use in the hypothetical.
I've been "almost raped" a lot.
I've also been almost stabbed, almost hit by cars, and almost poisoned.
I can certainly learn from these experiences: last week, I "almost" hit a guy on a bike.
I drove more carefully, perhaps he biked more carefully.
Maybe not.
I still don't know why I'm supposed to chime in about this person's life.
-
OK boys -
heading out into traffic now.
Try not to get your scrotums in a twist while I' m gone.
-
See?
Your reactions are disproportionate, and all of your logic is emotional.
Your resentments overwhelm your reason, so none of your arguments stand alone.
By now everyone who talks to you knows this, even if they agree with you.
If you're suggesting that people should show compassion for the crazy guy on the subway brandishing the umbrella, well...OK.
But that doesn't mean we should just sit still and get poked with the umbrella, see?
But you see, all of what you just wrote about me could be written by most anyone today about how feminists are perceived to act by most people-- the emotional illogic, the simmering resentments, the disproportionate overreations-- meaning you justify my very position. Good for goose, good for gander.
You also say noone should sit still when being poked by an umbrella, empowering us men to do EXACTLY what I am doing on these boards, which is to lash back at the 'crazies on the train' as you put it.
But I bet you will twist this into something it is not, after all, Norah Vincent said one of the real weaknesses of women is an utter inability to put yourselves into men's shoes and see things from our point of view.
Man, you're easy
-
uncommon observations
Rebecca is in top form here, beginning with her keen observation of Ms. Roiphe’s anxiety. “Internal contradictions”, or a dis-integrated psyche, do not lend themselves to peace of mind. Nor does abdication of self-determination and self-respect, whatever the rewards.
-
I Knew This Was Going To Be A Fun Thread
but I had no idea to expect wringered tits, knotted testes and panty bunches. I must say, Salon letter writers know how to party. The snark knobs go to eleven around here, and it seems the only thing that can get folks fired up more then the intimable Mr. Greenwald is a story about the sexes.
From an outsider's persepective, I see a lot of silly gender hate on both sides in this thread. Women are yada, the patriarchy is yada yada, Men don't yada enough, whatever. Gender issues are clouded with all sorts of assumptions and blanket statements, annoying as they may be. When it degrades into personal attacks, everybody loses the higher ground, though. Again, I'm an outsider here, but as an owner of a teeny tiny discussion forum myself, it's always been my experience that you can get a lot farther in an argument if you can stick to critiquing the post without critiquing the poster. It's not impossible to remain respectful of a person who believes differently than you do.
Enough of that play well with others and don't run with scissors talk, though. Anon, you keep bringing up the Nick Kiddle case, so here's my unasked for opinion. It's another one of those blasted instances of misdirected silly outrage. It's an unusual scenario, for sure, but does it really warrant this much attention? I suppose for writers like Marcotte, Traister and Roiphe - as well as those that vehemently disagree with them - sensationalism is a way to get people to read (and respond, obviously) Anyway, I didn't read the shocking epilogue, so I don't know all the gory details. All I can say is that much like whether or not Paris Hilton wears her underpants or whether or not Roiphe should be allowed to call herself a feminist, this seems like an issue that's more hot air and bull puckey (on both sides) than it is a real news story.
This has been a fun read, indeed. Thanks for all the great, diverse views from all the posters. I really enjoyed reading all of it. *shuffles back into lurker mode*