[ SECRET POST #2650 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2650 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 062 secrets from Secret Submission Post #379.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Possible wank inducer? Still "interesting" though

[(Anonymous)]

Well this maybe cause some wank, but at this point I'm boiling over with thoughts about it I need to talk about it somewhere. So I had to do a reading for one of my writing classes, and most of the material we are working on is serial killers. Our teacher had us read this article here http://gas.sagepub.com/content/3/4/437.abstract (you can get the pdf here and get read it yourself). The article is titled The Sexual Politics of Murder, and to not spoil it, the article is a bit...extreme. To give you a hint at what I'm talking about, the word patriarchy is thrown around a lot in it. That's what I wanted to talk about: Am I over reacting to the thoughts, idea, and tone in this article? To note, my teacher does not appear to be the kind of person to endorse this thinking, I haven't been able to ask her about it, but I'm seriously wondering why she assigned us to read it.

Just want to apologize for any wank this induces, I just REALLY need outside opinions on this.

Re: Possible wank inducer? Still "interesting" though

[(Anonymous)]

I clicked the link and checked out the title/summary etc but did not go further. It does look like a heavily feminist approach. Though use of the word patriarchy is not "extreme" and is a valid term when talking about certain examinations of society. Not sure what you meant when you said that it was extreme or what you're reacting to, exactly.

Also teachers do not only assign articles they agree with. Sometimes it's important to look at all the extremes or sides of a topic and also it's an excellent way to facilitate discussion in the classroom. So just because your teacher assigned this doesn't mean she endorses that kind of thinking.

Re: Possible wank inducer? Still "interesting" though

[(Anonymous)]

Well later on the article is talking about Ted Bundy, and this crops up "After his first escape, the male identification was with Bundy as an outlaw rebel-hero. But subsequently, Bundy did the supremely unmanly thing of getting caught; moreover, at the last moment he confessed to his crimes and manifested fear of death. No longer qualifying as hero, Bundy was now cast into the alternate role of scapegoats"

Then there's a part about Jack the Ripper where it says this, "Patriarchal culture has enshrined "Jack the Ripper" as a mythic hero; he commonly appears as an immortal figure in literature, film, television, jokes, and other cultural products. The function of such mythiciza-tion is twofold: to terrorize women and to empower and inspire men."

And the last sentence of the article says "Vast numbers of women are now suffering and dying from various forms of hate crime worldwide, including neglect, infanticide, genital mutilation, battering, rape, and murder. What men might call "peacetime," researcher Lori Heise (1989) truthfully names a "global war on women."

It all just seems a little off, and the article for the most part didn't start out with these kinds of statements either. I mean, yeah, some of these things have merit, like the last sentence about what's happening to women all over the world, but just the way the author says it seems to me like scare tactics or something.

Re: Possible wank inducer? Still "interesting" though

[(Anonymous)]

That first part about Bundy seems so poorly written. Like something a high-schooler would write in an essay. I see what you're saying now, though, about the overall tone being a little off. It's like it has okay basic points but the way they try and get them across just seems...sensationalist? Immature? Not-quite-right? Idk.

If I were you I'd actually bring this up in class (if it's the type of class that likes these kinds of open discussion on readings). If you can articulate a little better what exactly you feel to be wrong about it, it could lead to a really good discussion.

Re: Possible wank inducer? Still "interesting" though

[(Anonymous)]

I skimmed the article (which, btw, is only available if your institution has a subscription either to sagepub or jstor). To be honest, maybe I've become radicalized, but I'm not really seeing what you find so incendiary about it. Yes, it's from a feminist point of view. Yes, the author uses the word patriarchy. But... there are definitely circumstances where it's legitimate to use the term; it is a valid academic term for describing a legitimate phenomenon. To me, talking about sexualized violence against women and the way that society has tended to respond is one of those times. She is making a point that it is disingenuous to avoid talking about women and the unbalanced power structures of gender in society when talking about sexual violence against women-- it is disingenuous to generalize Ted Bundy and his victims as genderless, when in fact their gender is critical to understanding and talking about his violence. To me, that seems pretty evident. I'm not sure how that's so extreme, or what would make you so upset about the thought that your teacher wants to discuss such things. I mean, also, even if you disagree with the article, it clearly has spurred you to think and made you want to discuss it-- that's reason enough for a teacher to assign something, isn't it?

Re: Possible wank inducer? Still "interesting" though

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, nah, that's not really "extreme". The use of the word patriarchy in and of itself is hardly controversial. It's a VERY common term in sociological literature, as well as the other humanities. The term "patriarchy" is used to refer to a particular way society allocates power.

It's unfortunate that such a basic term has garnered so much controversy and hate. For me, it's like watching people get incensed over people throwing around the word "femur" to refer to a part of the body.

If you want "extreme", try reading stuff by radfems. Some of them like to argue that lesbian relationships are the only way to be a True Feminist because if you're in a relationship with a guy then you're betraying your gender. (You can imagine what they think of bisexual women. Or trans women.)

They're a fun bunch of people.

Re: Possible wank inducer? Still "interesting" though

[(Anonymous)]

Last week on this very community, I pointed out that men are much more likely to be victims of murder than women are. One commenter said that those stats didn't count unless they analyzed how many of those male murder victims were criminals, and thus basically asking for it, unlike any female murder victims.

The way we talk about murder in this society is, in fact, weirdly gendered. It's just also more complicated than people want to admit.

Re: Possible wank inducer? Still "interesting" though

[(Anonymous)]

Well, gang-related murder in particular is a bit different than the murder of bystanders. Like, gang members don't deserve to be murdered, especially with all the complex socio-economic factors involved in many people getting involved with gangs, sometimes at extremely young and impressionable ages, however gang-violence is a relatively... mutual affair? The victims are still victims, of course, but they're not necessarily innocent victims, in a similar way to soldiers who die in a war not being innocent victims.

Now, of course, if a gang member was murdered outside of gang-related violence (like, say, they were murdered by a serial killer), then I would consider them an innocent victim. It's not the fact of being a criminal that makes the situations different, but rather that by becoming a part of a gang in an area where inter-gang violence exists or is likely to exist, you are essentially choosing a side in a conflict, and sometimes wars have casualties.

Also, the methods of dealing with the various types of violence are rather different. I'd say the biggest root of gang violence is, well, the existence of gangs in the first place. If people put more focus on a) alleviating some of the socio-economic factors that drive young people to join gangs, b) rehabilitating gang members, and c) protecting people who wish to leave gangs, then over time the number of gang members and thus the amount of gang violence would likely drop.

Whereas something like spousal murder, which is most likely to be committed by men on women, is likely deeply routed in misogyny and sexism inherent in society, and would need to be addressed by reducing that.

I don't even think there is anything to do about serial killers, though, other than to catch them and never let them out again. Though I think incidents of public mass-murders and bombings could potentially be reduced if the media focused primarily on the victims and let the perpetrators rot in jail in obscurity.