Violence! Rape! Agency! The rapiness that comes before

[Sci-2]

@Arthmail: Well, on December 18th I mentioned depictions of violence and specifically mentioned PTSD:

On the larger topic, I do wonder about depictions of violence. I do find long fight scenes tiresome, and even war scenes blur as I read them. At the same time, I have to admit one of the coolest scenes in Scar is when the probability sword is used for the first time and kills multiple people.

Are we less sensitive to veteran PTS because we think we've experienced combat via our entertainment? Does violence in the Wire allow people to write off inner city kids as destined or predisposed to violence?

ETA: Or does violence in the Wire give insight into the psychology of the children in those situations?

I also mentioned Ringil's rape scene on December 21st:

Just so this doesn't come off as personal, I think the same issue exists with Ringil being not only gay, but also a victim of rape and remaining a strong, powerful warrior. I think a lot of people obviously weren't ready for your Richard's book, but I don't think all requests of "should" are equivalent.

Arthmail: "You should not have to bring up the fact that they are good looking, rape should be enough."

Well, we're in agreement here. This has been my point all along, perhaps most clearly stated on December 17th:

Texts describing rape should, in the interest of artistic merit if nothing else, give us the perspective of the person the action is being done to. They should not (<-edit and apologies) be a voiceless hot chick -> as much as I'll hail Bakker as amazing I think the same problem exists in one of his TWP rape scenes, where a victim is described as "lithe" and there's a focus on her nipples.

Do these victims have to be hot? Can't one of them have cellulite on her thighs, in the same way men go bald and have guts?

This post has been brought to you by the Letter K, the Number 5, and the Westeros Search Function.

ETA: Clarifying who I am addressing and their quotes.

Further ETA: Some grammar

[Kalbear]

Would you rather, in the end, not have the issue addressed at all then?

I would certainly rather it not be used in the same way 'getting spanked' is used. Or 'going to prison'.

I also think that while PTSD is significantly bad, it is also significantly less common than rape is. Ideally it'd be great if both were addressed. Tolkien managed to address PTSD in his novels; why not elsewhere? GRRM addresses it too, or at least mentions it and hints at it. Again, this is a false equivalency; why if you dislike the casual, shallow way rape is used does it mean you also cannot dislike violence or that it's a double standard?

Mostly, it's more of your privilege showing. You don't care about rape as an issue but do about PTSD, so therefore if people aren't talking about that it's a Bad Thing, so clearly you're not really caring about anything. Whatever.

[Richard]

Okay, Sciborg2, I don't think this is going to work for you.

So wrong book, right words.

Really? You're going to tell me that "harsh painted beauty and weary...counterfeit patience" and "pretty" mean the same thing? I mean.....really?

Similarly, I can't quite believe that you've picked out a passage with some vague references to make-up, lines and tiredness from the beginning of the chapter the rape takes place in and yet missed the one in the actual paragraph the rape begins in, which says this:

"Snarl had aged well on the proceeds of Liberalisation and the new trade. She still had a bright sheen to hair and eyes, a harsh boned beauty in the face, and curves in all the right places."

As to the questions, I note that you seem to have abandoned answering them more or less as soon as they begin to bite: you shy away from your own answer to Q6 - "Not sure, ideally the same as (5)" which cracks open the door I think we all have inside us a meagre inch - and you run like hell, asking me to answer the question instead. When asked specifically about the discrepancy in the next question, you evade again, and - it seems to me willfully - misunderstand. Since it seems I need to spell this out - Q7 has three parts. Parts 1 and 2 deal with the discrepancy. Part 3 asks you what question the text forces you to confront. You ignore this. And by the time we get to Q9 you've given up addressing the questions at all, and instead you're back to berating me for "missing the point."

I can't see that we'll fare much better with the back end of the quiz, so I really wouldn't bother. What it comes down to is that this text does not do what you want it to, and as soon as it commits that sin, you stop engaging with it. That is, of course, your right as a paying customer - but it ill-becomes you to then come to me and complain that I haven't written the book you would have, and that this is a failing on my part.

btw - a little help with Q8 as requested -

Ringil does not sentence/condemn Snarl to rape - he simply stands aside and lets it happen; as he tells her later, he's been asked to kill her, but no-one said anything about protecting her honour until he did it. The difference between this and a more specific active condemning is significant.

[Sci-2]

@Richard: I think this question of motivations, on what you think I am doing and vice versa, will get us nowhere. Because the way I see it you're doing the same thing. Definitely point out where I'm doing it and I'll make an effort to stop as well.

I understand you're doing some kind of Socratic method thing here with the quiz, but I think if you just state what your thoughts are it'll be quicker. If you really are interested in my opinion, and not hoping to lead me to a conclusion, then it might work better if you don't assume I'm running away from whatever point it is you are trying to make.

As for missing the point, I do think this is the case but admittedly I should have answered the questions once I decided I was going to take the quiz. Apologies, I'll go back and give a genuine answer.

As for missing the passage on the character's description, I do apologize for that. Though I think that saying someone is a "beauty" is equivalent to them being pretty - at least as I was using the term.

As for question 8, I don't find significance in the difference that you do.

[Seli]

Sciborg, it looks to me the difference between you and Richard at this moment is that you see this scene (and the book) as an effect driven action sequence while Richard sees it as a narrative mirror that forces the reader to consider his or her views.

It is in my estimate a similar effect as can be seen in films as Robocop, Starship Troopers, or District 9 which can be seen as action flick or social commentary (or both at the same time).

Usually a discrepancy like this is probably not too much of a problem, but in circumstances like these with topics that we as a society think should not be treated lightly discussions like these will arise.

[Sci-2]

Seli : Excellent point.

Just to be clear, I like Cold Commands with some aesthetic/structural caveats not really related to this scene.

[Arthmail]

I would certainly rather it not be used in the same way 'getting spanked' is used. Or 'going to prison'.

I also think that while PTSD is significantly bad, it is also significantly less common than rape is. Ideally it'd be great if both were addressed. Tolkien managed to address PTSD in his novels; why not elsewhere? GRRM addresses it too, or at least mentions it and hints at it. Again, this is a false equivalency; why if you dislike the casual, shallow way rape is used does it mean you also cannot dislike violence or that it's a double standard?

Mostly, it's more of your privilege showing. You don't care about rape as an issue but do about PTSD, so therefore if people aren't talking about that it's a Bad Thing, so clearly you're not really caring about anything. Whatever.

Fuck off with your privilege. Assuming that i don't care about rape is also something that you can use to pound sand somewhere else. I called some of you out about this focus on a single issue, and why it had to be such a focus over other aspects. PTSD is not an issue for me, i bring it up as an alternative that means less to you, and to which you gloss over in favour of your own objective. And i ask why we should give a shit that this particular aspect of the book was not done to your liking.

It's not a double standard. What i ask is where your outrage is over the violence, or perhaps over the rape of Molly's in GRRM.

But i honestly just do not care enough about this subject anymore. Sci does, he uses a search function and is proud of it. Of course, a few token lines thrown in during the course of his conversation over however many fucking threads and he clearly has addressed all of the issues to satisfaction, instead of just harping on a single issue and throwing out a few slim platitudes along the way.

[Arthmail]

@Arthmail: Well, on December 18th I mentioned depictions of violence and specifically mentioned PTSD:

I also mentioned Ringil's rape scene on December 21st:

Well, we're in agreement here. This has been my point all along, perhaps most clearly stated on December 17th:

This post has been brought to you by the Letter K, the Number 5, and the Westeros Search Function.

ETA: Clarifying who I am addressing and their quotes.

Further ETA: Some grammar

Good for you, you can use the search function to point out that i've forgotten every throw away line you put into your posts over the course of several hundred responses. Mentioning the subject in passing before continuing on does nothing to prove that you actually care about the issue, which for the sake of argument is not something that you have to do. I only brought up violence, and torture, and PTSD, because aside from a few brief mentions of it, the physical harm of knives to flesh and the like does not seem to be much of a concern for you.

And again, this was never the original problem that was brought up. People questioned why you, and others, were so focused on lesbian rape at the beginning. Zombiewife brought up this thread with friends of hers who are lesbians, and they asked what the character being a lesbian has to do with anything. Some of you felt it was poorly done, others did not. Shryke and others asked why an author has to insert your particular problem into their story, and i've addressed several times why the alternatives mentioned do not work, why your notion that its porn level art is complete bullshit, and why most of what you have been saying for this endless thread misses the forest for the trees.

I will say one last time, because i am well and truly done with this subject. Not every book needs to address this issue in a more than passing manner. There is such a broad spectrum of ways it can, and should be addressed.

[Sci-2]

Good for you, you can use the search function to point out that i've forgotten every throw away line you put into your posts over the course of several hundred responses. Mentioning the subject in passing before continuing on does nothing to prove that you actually care about the issue, which for the sake of argument is not something that you have to do.

It doesn't prove that I care, but I thought it addressed your charges that I haven't mentioned it. And if I didn't care, why did I bring it up? What makes my concerns "throw away lines"?

I'd be happy to talk about the issues now, but at the time no one seemed interested.

[Grogsmash]

Mostly, it's more of your privilege showing.

Could you please explain what you mean by "privilege"? Right now it seems you are just throwing it around as a slur against anyone that disagrees with you in any way.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Not that I'm Kal, but:

- http://www.eou.edu/socwelf/lecture/privilege.htm

- "Sociologist Ruth Frankenberg writes that “privilege is the (non) experience of not being slapped in the face.”*

* Frankenberg, Ruth. 1996. “When we are capable of stoppoing we begin to see” in Thompson and Tyagi (eds), Names We Call Home. NY: Routledge. p. 4"

- http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2010/05/rain-and-class-privilege.html

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Knapsack

- http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/02/06/defending-privilege/ (More in the comments than the post itself.)

- Amptoons has compiled a lot of checklists. Here's one

You don't have to agree, of course. On the Amptoons link there's a commenter who seems to agree with solo's long-ago point about semantics: "For a lot of these, I think of them less as privileges, and more as human rights that not everyone is granted in practice yet." However, since many definitions of privilege seem to start with things like "1. a. A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste" I'm not sure they actually disagree when it comes down to it. Many people just tend to associate "privilege" with something revocable, particularly out of sociological context, and work against the concept from there.

[Grogsmash]

So does Kalbear know something about Arthmail that indicates the disagreement is based on his privilege? Does Kalbear know something about Richard that indicates that he only disagrees because it is based on privilege?

Is the argument being used of "you can't discuss rape unless you have been raped"? Is that really what is going on here?

Maybe we should all just lay down our entire backgrounds first before we even bother posting and then Kalbear can point out if we have the background required to discuss something with him.

[Sci-2]

I disagreed with Kalbear on the Tysha-Tyrion scene, and I've never been a victim of sexual assault. So that isn't the case.

[Larry.]

Privilege described, for those who need it spelled out.

One's background does color one's expectations and conceptualizations of events. Geoff Ryman has a new story in his 2011 collection, Paradise Tales, called "K is for Kosovo" that deals with war/rape in a way very, very different from the "oh well, it's war, some just are gonna get raped" subtext. I do recommend the collection and the story.

[Grogsmash]

Maybe I was being too obtuse. I know what "privilege" means, but it is a very broad and loose definition that Kalbear is using as a slur against some people he disagrees with to completely dismiss their arguments. At the least, even if you don't find it ridiculous or insulting, it certainly doesn't move the discussion forward.

If instead he says something like "you don't understand because of X", that is an argument that someone can deal with. How do you defend something nebulous like being called privileged? Are you saying that it is because they are male, white, gay, straight, never been raped, etc? Especially when it is extremely unlikely that Kalbear actually knows about the intimate backgrounds of the people he is using it against.

[Kalbear]

I'm not using it as a slur except against folks who are ignorant of it. If that's the case, Grog, consider yourself slurred.

Here's an example of what's happening from my perspective, Grogsmash: a number of people are talking about something that tends to happen to non-privileged people. Someone comes in and brings up something else that is more applicable to them and can do so because they have the privilege to not have to worry about the first thing, and then demands that Their special snowflake gets covered just as much as the first thing, or else there's a double standard. i see this all the time when racism gets discussed between people of color; a white guy comes in and starts yelling about how there's racism against whites too, and isn't that horrible, blah blah blah.

I don't think Arthmail has a point because his only point is that because we're not talking more about PTSD and are talking about rape then we have a double standard. If you like, I'll approach it with the exact worth it requires: Nuh uh.

So I have no idea if Arthmail is white or straight. I do know Richard is white, male, and professes straightness. Ultimately it doesn't matter because it's still acting as if you have a privilege; in this case it's that your special topic is more important than what's being discussed, and if you happen to not be talking about it something is Seriously Wrong. So in this case, yes, it is more of Arthmail's privilege that is showing. He's showing that he doesn't care about talking about rape in books, he wants to talk about something else, and instead of bringing up what he wants to talk about and talking about it and seeing if anyone's interested (like sciborg did) he instead gets mad at everyone who has this double standard of not caring about his very special important thing. It may very well be that Arthmail is a gay black woman who has been raped, but he is acting and using his privilege as if he's not. He isn't listening; he's dismissing. He isn't relating, he's obfuscating.

Arthmail, if you want to talk about PTSD no one is stopping you. In fact, I'm sure at least sciborg would love to talk about it. So would Larry. I don't know who Molly is but I'm sure others will be happy to talk about that too if you actually want to discuss it. if you only want to use it as proof that we have a singular devotion to the topic of lesbian rape, well, that's your privilege showing up again, and I'd recommend that you not take that course. Also, it's amusing to see you saying that you're not angry; words like 'fuck your privilege' are not what would be typically considered calming.

[Sci-2]

You know, I did once get involved in a nerd rap battle, sadly I never got to use my killer line:

"I have no peers, only contemporaries,

I'm like Mozart and you're like Salieri..."

[Grack21]

SO, to break my rule and drag the forbidden topic back from the dead...

Shryke, did you ever get any opinions from the Outlander fans you know about that particular scene?

[Arthmail]

I'm not using it as a slur except against folks who are ignorant of it. If that's the case, Grog, consider yourself slurred.

Here's an example of what's happening from my perspective, Grogsmash: a number of people are talking about something that tends to happen to non-privileged people. Someone comes in and brings up something else that is more applicable to them and can do so because they have the privilege to not have to worry about the first thing, and then demands that Their special snowflake gets covered just as much as the first thing, or else there's a double standard. i see this all the time when racism gets discussed between people of color; a white guy comes in and starts yelling about how there's racism against whites too, and isn't that horrible, blah blah blah.

I don't think Arthmail has a point because his only point is that because we're not talking more about PTSD and are talking about rape then we have a double standard. If you like, I'll approach it with the exact worth it requires: Nuh uh.

So I have no idea if Arthmail is white or straight. I do know Richard is white, male, and professes straightness. Ultimately it doesn't matter because it's still acting as if you have a privilege; in this case it's that your special topic is more important than what's being discussed, and if you happen to not be talking about it something is Seriously Wrong. So in this case, yes, it is more of Arthmail's privilege that is showing. He's showing that he doesn't care about talking about rape in books, he wants to talk about something else, and instead of bringing up what he wants to talk about and talking about it and seeing if anyone's interested (like sciborg did) he instead gets mad at everyone who has this double standard of not caring about his very special important thing. It may very well be that Arthmail is a gay black woman who has been raped, but he is acting and using his privilege as if he's not. He isn't listening; he's dismissing. He isn't relating, he's obfuscating.

Arthmail, if you want to talk about PTSD no one is stopping you. In fact, I'm sure at least sciborg would love to talk about it. So would Larry. I don't know who Molly is but I'm sure others will be happy to talk about that too if you actually want to discuss it. if you only want to use it as proof that we have a singular devotion to the topic of lesbian rape, well, that's your privilege showing up again, and I'd recommend that you not take that course. Also, it's amusing to see you saying that you're not angry; words like 'fuck your privilege' are not what would be typically considered calming.

I'm back, against my better wishes. I say fuck your privelege because you use it as a blunt instrument, a way to hide from the conversation. Its dishonest. I have, at no point, said that men are not more priveledged, especially white men. My entire argument hinges around the fact that dealing with rape in a more meaningful way, at least according to you, is for you to deal with. I called into question the fact that your argument was based, in the beginning, entirely around the problem of the character being a lesbian, and not that the rape itself was bad. Authors, in my mind, can do as they please when addressing different issues. It is not for you to bludgeon them into it.

Someone comes in and brings up something else that is more applicable to them and can do so because they have the privilege to not have to worry about the first thing, and then demands that Their special snowflake gets covered just as much as the first thing, or else there's a double standard.

I need to address this one last point. This is bullshit, Kalbear, and you know it. I did not bring up PTSD and violence and all of that, until after we had questioned why it should matter that it was lesbian rape and not just rape. Please, there was something of an organic flow to the conversation, don't pretend like there was not. Perhaps, in some sense, you are right - the topic did get derailed by discussions about violence. But i call into question anyone that puts their candle forward as being the most important, especially those that assert that it is an issue that has to be addressed by every author that wants to put it in his book.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Sure, i agree. But it does not mean that someones opinion on the matter is set in stone because they have experienced this problem, and that because they have experienced the problem it invalidates what others think or feel about it. Because in the end, even amongst members of their own group, there will not be a consensus. Besides, writing is as much a thought excercise as it is an attempt to tell a story. Eviscerating Abercrombie, for instance, because of that one point really accomplishes nothing - especially in the way that it was done. Addressing the issue, and looking for better, can only be hoped, not assumed.

No, there will never be a consensus. Or at least not unanimous agreement. Individuals are, well, individual. However, the invalidation goes both ways. Just because someone doesn't find something offensive doesn't mean it isn't. Or rooted in whatever anti-privilege we're talking about. I mean, I'm sure we all know women who "aren't like those other girls" because they laugh along with "the guys" when they tell sexist jokes. However, just because those women aren't personally offended doesn't mean the jokes aren't sexist, or sometimes downright misogynistic.

I think that because this is a newer area for most of us to examine, the lines between offensive and not (or homophobic and not, particularly anti-lesbianism's intersection with misogyny) are not as bright as the lines with some of those more-commonly-noted jokes.

I'm not sure anyone's ever argued that lesbians should never be raped in fiction. Just that the author should think through the ramifications of it, and all real-life context (like raping lesbians to "fix" them), and not just "well, I just wanted to make it worse?" (Besides, as was pointed out, another huge problem is that Terez generally seems to have the same number of brain cells as a box of rocks. Maybe a basket of shrimp. Put this alongside her OTT man-hating -- not just indifference -- and you start getting something that represents a straw-lesbian-feminist-irrational-woman, however unintentional.)