I think I can grant your individual points without granting your overall
claim that :
>____________________________
>The sexual approach of rape
>____________________________
>
>(True:rape & sexual harassment are power plays; however
>rape is more a crime of sexual passion than a crime of violence)
>
>
>-"Taking rape from the realm of 'the sexual', placing it in the realm of
>'the violent', allows one to be against it without raising any questions
>about the extent to which the institution of heterosexuality has defined
>force as a normal part of ((hetero)sexual relations)" (MacKinnon 1979,)
>
This is not using the term "sexual" in the same sense that I used it (see
my earlier post on definitions). "Sexual" here means "concerning those
matters between genders" whereas I was using the term to mean a bodily
based desire. I'm sorry but I cannot buy the total Foucaultian-Butlerian
view that all sexuality is socially constructed. Why don't people look at
themselves and see the bodies they have!!! So, your reply here does not
address the point I wqs making (or really just asking a question about).
Further, I find it very difficult to put any reliance on or accept the
words of a person who hae claimed that all heterosexual sex is rape. This,
now I see, makes some sense from a foucaultian standpoint but ignores the
basic facts that we are "sexual" beings: that is, beings with certain
sexual organs and drives. "sexuality" might be socially constructed, I
admit this wholeheartedly; but we still have sex- we still are sexed!
>
>2)Monique Plaza (1980):
>
>it is social sexing which underlies rape;
>
>While it may not be exclusively practiced on women, "rape is sexual
>essentially because it rest on the very social difference between the
>sexes... It is social sexing which is latent in rape. If men rape women,
>it is precisely because they are women in a social sense"; and when a male
>is raped, he too is raped "as a woman"
>
Same comments apply. This only proves my point more, however, because when
we say that when a male is raped he is repaed as a woman, what we mean is
that the person doing the raping is rapiong as a man. But then one must
still answer my previous questions of what differentiates the abuse of
women throughout history from the abuse of jews, barbains, etc.
>- in his characterization of hysterization of women as 1 of the 4 unified
>strategies in the deployment of sexual power/knowledge, Foucault seems not
>to consider that rape could be the primary tool through which women are
>"hysterized".
>
Now this is an intersting insight and I am not sure how to treat it because
I am not sure what you mean by "hysterized." But still, the point I take
it is that throuhg the implicit threat of rape, men exert a certain control
over women which makes them prone to thie hysterization. This agin has
nothing to do with sex but with power.
>-there is a contradiction at the heart of Foucault's modest proposal, a
>contradiction which his analysis of sexuality does not serve to resolve:
>To release "bodies and pleasures" from the legal control of the state, and
>from the relations of power exercised through the technology of sex, is to
>affirm and perpetuate the present social relations which give men rights
>over women's bodies.
I am not sure if I agree here. If men are in control of the state and
government, then releasing sexual bodies and pleasure froms this legal
control at least gives women and others a better chance to combat it in the
battelfield, so to speak. The real problem, though, is to release state
control from the hands of "males": those sexually constructed beings who
are constructed to be aggressive and powerful.
>-The interests of men and women, or of rapists and their victims, are
>exactly opposed in the practices of social reality, and cannot be
>reconciled rhetorically.The blind spot in Foucault's work is precisely his
>unconcern for what de Lauretis calls "the technology of gender" - the
>techniques and discursive strategies by which gender is constructed and
>hence, violence is en-gendered.
>
I would agree with this. It puts a different twist on my earlier questions
about what differentiates rape from other sorts of violence. I was placing
the "blame" so to speak on white people. But it is just as easy to place
it on "aggressive maleness." What I am saying s that there is this group
of people throughout history which has beeen mainly concerned with exerting
power and being aggressive We have in the present age csalled this the
WASP, but this is just a socially constructed name for some embodiment of a
group of charecteristics assoicated with domination.
>4)TONG Rosemarie (1984):
>
>-the aggression of so-called anger rapists and power rapists is directed
>against *female sexuality*. The Anger -Rapist's aggression seeks to hurt
>precisely those parts of a woman's body that distinguish her as a woman.
>The Power-Rapist's aggression seeks to control women in particular.
>For both the choice of the vagina or anus as the object of aggression is
>not accidental but essential.
It seems to me that men find the focus of their "power" in their sexual
organ- the penis. It is no surprise, then, that when a male wants to hurt
someone and exercising power over someone he would do it as much through
his sexual organ as possible, and he would attack the sexual organs of
others becuase he sees it as their locus of power.
>-rape is very much related to this culture's view of women as persons who
>exist to serve male sexual desires & interests no matter the cost to their
>own female sexual desires & interests.
Again this does not serve your point but mine, for you are really
speaking about power and not desire
>
>-since many victims of rape are not subjected to beatings and bruisings, a
>redefinition of rape as assault may have the effect of further trivializing
>it ("penis in vagina didn't hurt"; "he's not trying to kill her, only
>giving her a good time").The harm peculiar to rape is not so much physical
>harm as a type of psychological harm, consisting of fear of death and
>feelings of degradation & humiliation sustained during the rape as well as
>after it. No less devastating.
This analysis of the harm of rape shows again that rape is a form of
exercising power.
>5)Laura HENGWHOLD (1994):
>- The fact that rape victims, unlike the victims of other assault crimes,
>are so disproportionately female, forces one to consider the role of rape
>as structural symptom of gender inequality;
>
Gender inequAlity has nothinf to do with sexual desire but with power.
>-Using Foucault's own enunciative modality: his proposal ignores the
>potential impact of rape as a practice-not just a criminological category-
>on the communicative structures of a male dominated society.
all my above comments can easily be served by this insight. QED
>aha!
>cyuma.
Feeling a little haughty. I still don't think you have proved your point.
Many of your analyses and quotes can be used to support the opposing
opinion. However, what has been shown most emphatically is the
interconnectedness of jurdico-discursive power and dsiplinary power. What
I have tried to point out is that rape is an overt juridical form of power.
What your analysis has helped shown is that it is supported and perhaps
enforced by an underlying discplinary power or bio-power. Rape is the
overt form, but the institution of rape-laws, the distinction between
genders, the obvious male-dominance in society shows that what functions in
the control of people is the threat of being raped and of being treated
like a female, which means, from a socially constructed viewpoint,
powerless, weak, servant. "Males" are socially constructed as aggressive
domineering individuals, while "females" are socially constructed as
powerless individuals. "Males" call women who are not "females" dykes
becuase they do not fall into their socially constructed category of weak
and so are really "males." It also imposes a certain challenge to "males"
to dominate these women since they are stepping out of line.
Again, the question which needs to be answered is why are women throuhgout
all societies "raped"? What distinguishes rape from anti-semitism or
homophobia? Or, is it the case that all soceities treat their women in
this way? What about the mythical Amazon's? OR is war simpoly the version
of "rape" ahgainst other males- rather than attacking their sex organs,
which is not always avoided, they rape the city of its poseessions?
Just as a last thought, perhaps "males" rape women's sex organs- vagina and
anu because there are no other holes. Or perhaps the vagina and the anus
are seen as "natural" the thing closest to nature, and "rape" is simply an
enactment of man's desire to dominate nature.
In any case, I think the above questions need to be answered to have a true
understanding of "rape", but also of "maleness" and "femaleness" and of
power in our societies.
Jeff
JLN
jlnich1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Department of Philosophy
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY. 40509
claim that :
>____________________________
>The sexual approach of rape
>____________________________
>
>(True:rape & sexual harassment are power plays; however
>rape is more a crime of sexual passion than a crime of violence)
>
>
>-"Taking rape from the realm of 'the sexual', placing it in the realm of
>'the violent', allows one to be against it without raising any questions
>about the extent to which the institution of heterosexuality has defined
>force as a normal part of ((hetero)sexual relations)" (MacKinnon 1979,)
>
This is not using the term "sexual" in the same sense that I used it (see
my earlier post on definitions). "Sexual" here means "concerning those
matters between genders" whereas I was using the term to mean a bodily
based desire. I'm sorry but I cannot buy the total Foucaultian-Butlerian
view that all sexuality is socially constructed. Why don't people look at
themselves and see the bodies they have!!! So, your reply here does not
address the point I wqs making (or really just asking a question about).
Further, I find it very difficult to put any reliance on or accept the
words of a person who hae claimed that all heterosexual sex is rape. This,
now I see, makes some sense from a foucaultian standpoint but ignores the
basic facts that we are "sexual" beings: that is, beings with certain
sexual organs and drives. "sexuality" might be socially constructed, I
admit this wholeheartedly; but we still have sex- we still are sexed!
>
>2)Monique Plaza (1980):
>
>it is social sexing which underlies rape;
>
>While it may not be exclusively practiced on women, "rape is sexual
>essentially because it rest on the very social difference between the
>sexes... It is social sexing which is latent in rape. If men rape women,
>it is precisely because they are women in a social sense"; and when a male
>is raped, he too is raped "as a woman"
>
Same comments apply. This only proves my point more, however, because when
we say that when a male is raped he is repaed as a woman, what we mean is
that the person doing the raping is rapiong as a man. But then one must
still answer my previous questions of what differentiates the abuse of
women throughout history from the abuse of jews, barbains, etc.
>- in his characterization of hysterization of women as 1 of the 4 unified
>strategies in the deployment of sexual power/knowledge, Foucault seems not
>to consider that rape could be the primary tool through which women are
>"hysterized".
>
Now this is an intersting insight and I am not sure how to treat it because
I am not sure what you mean by "hysterized." But still, the point I take
it is that throuhg the implicit threat of rape, men exert a certain control
over women which makes them prone to thie hysterization. This agin has
nothing to do with sex but with power.
>-there is a contradiction at the heart of Foucault's modest proposal, a
>contradiction which his analysis of sexuality does not serve to resolve:
>To release "bodies and pleasures" from the legal control of the state, and
>from the relations of power exercised through the technology of sex, is to
>affirm and perpetuate the present social relations which give men rights
>over women's bodies.
I am not sure if I agree here. If men are in control of the state and
government, then releasing sexual bodies and pleasure froms this legal
control at least gives women and others a better chance to combat it in the
battelfield, so to speak. The real problem, though, is to release state
control from the hands of "males": those sexually constructed beings who
are constructed to be aggressive and powerful.
>-The interests of men and women, or of rapists and their victims, are
>exactly opposed in the practices of social reality, and cannot be
>reconciled rhetorically.The blind spot in Foucault's work is precisely his
>unconcern for what de Lauretis calls "the technology of gender" - the
>techniques and discursive strategies by which gender is constructed and
>hence, violence is en-gendered.
>
I would agree with this. It puts a different twist on my earlier questions
about what differentiates rape from other sorts of violence. I was placing
the "blame" so to speak on white people. But it is just as easy to place
it on "aggressive maleness." What I am saying s that there is this group
of people throughout history which has beeen mainly concerned with exerting
power and being aggressive We have in the present age csalled this the
WASP, but this is just a socially constructed name for some embodiment of a
group of charecteristics assoicated with domination.
>4)TONG Rosemarie (1984):
>
>-the aggression of so-called anger rapists and power rapists is directed
>against *female sexuality*. The Anger -Rapist's aggression seeks to hurt
>precisely those parts of a woman's body that distinguish her as a woman.
>The Power-Rapist's aggression seeks to control women in particular.
>For both the choice of the vagina or anus as the object of aggression is
>not accidental but essential.
It seems to me that men find the focus of their "power" in their sexual
organ- the penis. It is no surprise, then, that when a male wants to hurt
someone and exercising power over someone he would do it as much through
his sexual organ as possible, and he would attack the sexual organs of
others becuase he sees it as their locus of power.
>-rape is very much related to this culture's view of women as persons who
>exist to serve male sexual desires & interests no matter the cost to their
>own female sexual desires & interests.
Again this does not serve your point but mine, for you are really
speaking about power and not desire
>
>-since many victims of rape are not subjected to beatings and bruisings, a
>redefinition of rape as assault may have the effect of further trivializing
>it ("penis in vagina didn't hurt"; "he's not trying to kill her, only
>giving her a good time").The harm peculiar to rape is not so much physical
>harm as a type of psychological harm, consisting of fear of death and
>feelings of degradation & humiliation sustained during the rape as well as
>after it. No less devastating.
This analysis of the harm of rape shows again that rape is a form of
exercising power.
>5)Laura HENGWHOLD (1994):
>- The fact that rape victims, unlike the victims of other assault crimes,
>are so disproportionately female, forces one to consider the role of rape
>as structural symptom of gender inequality;
>
Gender inequAlity has nothinf to do with sexual desire but with power.
>-Using Foucault's own enunciative modality: his proposal ignores the
>potential impact of rape as a practice-not just a criminological category-
>on the communicative structures of a male dominated society.
all my above comments can easily be served by this insight. QED
>aha!
>cyuma.
Feeling a little haughty. I still don't think you have proved your point.
Many of your analyses and quotes can be used to support the opposing
opinion. However, what has been shown most emphatically is the
interconnectedness of jurdico-discursive power and dsiplinary power. What
I have tried to point out is that rape is an overt juridical form of power.
What your analysis has helped shown is that it is supported and perhaps
enforced by an underlying discplinary power or bio-power. Rape is the
overt form, but the institution of rape-laws, the distinction between
genders, the obvious male-dominance in society shows that what functions in
the control of people is the threat of being raped and of being treated
like a female, which means, from a socially constructed viewpoint,
powerless, weak, servant. "Males" are socially constructed as aggressive
domineering individuals, while "females" are socially constructed as
powerless individuals. "Males" call women who are not "females" dykes
becuase they do not fall into their socially constructed category of weak
and so are really "males." It also imposes a certain challenge to "males"
to dominate these women since they are stepping out of line.
Again, the question which needs to be answered is why are women throuhgout
all societies "raped"? What distinguishes rape from anti-semitism or
homophobia? Or, is it the case that all soceities treat their women in
this way? What about the mythical Amazon's? OR is war simpoly the version
of "rape" ahgainst other males- rather than attacking their sex organs,
which is not always avoided, they rape the city of its poseessions?
Just as a last thought, perhaps "males" rape women's sex organs- vagina and
anu because there are no other holes. Or perhaps the vagina and the anus
are seen as "natural" the thing closest to nature, and "rape" is simply an
enactment of man's desire to dominate nature.
In any case, I think the above questions need to be answered to have a true
understanding of "rape", but also of "maleness" and "femaleness" and of
power in our societies.
Jeff
JLN
jlnich1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Department of Philosophy
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY. 40509