In the thread below yesterday's post about chivalry , there's some discussion of the notion of "respect." Writing about the apparent victim in the Duke rape case, Mr. Bad writes:
My respect is mine to give to those who earn it, not their's to demand from me as if it is their right to force me to give it to them. And I suspect that many men feel the same way. Thus, because women have learned to act less respectably - and at times outright disrespectful - men (rightly) refuse to give them their respect, and IMO won't do so unless and until women begin to once again earn men's respect.
According to this thesis, strippers and other sex workers don't respect themselves -- and thus are not entitled to expect respect from others.
I'm going to leave aside the rape case itself, and focus on what saddens me about Mr. Bad's argument. What he's saying is not new; I've heard it from both men and women for years now. To many folks, there's something neat and compelling about the notion that respect is reciprocal and must be earned. In theory if not in practice, we are still a culture that despises the notion that anyone is "entitled" to anything merely by virtue of being a person; our ersatz Calvinism is instinctively attracted to the idea that everything -- even the right to be seen as fully and completely human -- is something that we have to work for.
One of my base convictions (the sort that don't change every week) is that this particular attitude is fundamentally wrong, particularly on a spiritual and religious level. Nowhere in Scripture, not even in Proverbs, does it say "Respect those who respect themselves". Scripture is full of examples, however, of folks who make the mistake Mr. Bad makes, of dividing the world into the deserving and the undeserving . Again and again in the Gospel story, the Pharisees are appalled by Jesus' penchant for seeing the "unclean" as full and complete human beings. In particular, Jesus models an important new way for men to relate to the very sort of women who were the first century equivalent of sex workers. In his refusal to condemn the woman caught in adultery, in his tenderness to the five-times-married woman at the well, Jesus shows us a radical standard for ethical behavior towards women whom the rest of society would have described as "not worthy of respect".
Even those who do not embrace Jesus as Lord and Savior are frequently inclined to acknowledge Him as a great moral teacher. It's a pity that one aspect of his moral teaching -- his radical insistence that the "impure", the "dirty", the marginalized are as loved as anyone else -- is so often ignored! I'm quite certain that most Pharisee men would have treated their virginal and demure sisters with the utmost respect even as they prepared to stone to death a woman who had stepped outside of the acceptable moral framework. But Jesus makes it clear that respect and love are not earned -- they are our due as human beings, gifts of God to all of us.
This notion that respect is due to all of us, not merely to those who respect themselves, is not an exclusively Christian one. Indeed, it's a principle that I think most feminists can, should, and often do embrace. From its origins to the present, feminists have critiqued the cultural dichotomies that divide women into "nice girls" and "sluts", into "respectable" and "fallen" women. Feminism insists that women's sexuality not be a barrier to embracing women as full and complete human beings. This doesn't mean that some feminists aren't critical of sex work! I long for a world where sexual behavior is no longer commodified, where no woman feels compelled to sell visual or tactile access to her body in order to feed her children. (Heck, I'd discipline the lacrosse team at Duke merely for having hired a stripper, regardless of whether or not they assaulted her.) But the fact that I find the sex industry to be repugnant doesn't mean I hold those who make their living in that profession with contempt. I can separate the work from the worker -- the former is deserving of my outrage and my sadness, the latter of my respect and my love as my sister. I can separate the two without mental gymnastics; I'd expect most folks to be able to do the same.
When stories like the Duke rape case arouse our passions and our sense of justice, it's easy to lose sight of the notion that respect is not earned. When I read the emails of one member of the Duke lacrosse team, Ryan, who wrote: i plan on killing the bitches as soon as the walk and proceding to cut their skin off while cumming in my Duke issue spandex, I find it momentarily difficult to see this young man as my brother! It disgusts me, it enrages me, it saddens me. He has done much to suggest he is not "worthy" of respect. He doesn't respect women (to put it mildly), so why should he and those like him be deserving of it, particularly from feminists? But Ryan is as much my brother as the victim in this case is my sister. That doesn't mean that I see stripping and rape as morally equivalent, mind you! But it does mean that I don't see respect and compassion as in any way contingent upon other's personal conduct.
I am sorry that some of my fellow feminists have chosen to go after the prep school that Ryan attended. News flash, folks: strippers are people entitled to respect regardless of their profession. White males who go to private schools are also people entitled to respect regardless of their wealth. The fact that she strips for a living doesn't also justify our stripping a woman of her dignity; the fact that they attended elite private schools doesn't allow us to condemn all fortunate young white men. We can get angry at the sex industry for reinforcing negative stereotypes about women; we can get angry at private schools that occasionally reinforce a notion of irresponsibility and privilege. But that doesn't allow us, even in our anger, to return to tired old stereotypes.
Tedious?
You found my sore spot! ;-)
Posted by: Hugo | April 11, 2006 at 08:39 AM
Hi Hugo,
I have never read your blog before, or posted here before. So, I was surprised to find you linking to me in criticism of my comments about the Delbarton School.
By way of introduction, I'm Txfeminist. Have you read my blog? I am a victim advocate for women and children survivors of violence, and I find your comments above problematic.
I have not "gone after" the school. What does that mean, anyway? How is contrasting the school's apparent values with the apparent values of one of it's attendees "going after" the school?
Do I not have a right to make any comments about Ryan McFadyen's background? About how certain aspects of his upbringing might -gasp!- be directly related to his current behaviors and attitudes?
Perhaps you are offended because you think my comments mock Christianity. yes, the school is a Christian school. Do you think they are, therefore, above comment?
What I mock is the complete lack of Christian values which Ryan McFadyen demonstrates. That suggests to me that he either picked up nothing from his time in school, or they simply didn't try very hard to teach him any kind of values. Yet, they say a lot about it on their website.
My point, which you have also apparently missed, is that people like Ryan McFadyen are, to some degree, a product of their environment. Something in his background led him to a sense of entitlement, arrogance, misogyny and a sexual reaction to violence. Do you have a problem with me "going after" that? Do you think I should not look to see where men like this come from?
I don't know, it could be related to growing up in a million dollar home, surrounded by other privileged white boys, with little exposure to other human beings or the experiences of other human beings in the world, being given the best of everything and expecting it. An environment that could actually lead to the extreme othering of human beings, given the right propensities toward it in a person's character?
Come on, Hugo. Don't take pot-shots at me. It's really not a polite way of first introduction, at least.
And furthermore: you can call Ryan your "brother" who deserves your "respect" as much as you want. You can chant all the Christian sound-bites you want. But sayin' isn't doin'. And if Ryan ever had a chance at this woman's respect prior to that vicious, sick email, he has certainly lost it now.
Posted by: Txfeminist | April 11, 2006 at 08:53 AM
Mr Bad, was the deep irony in your first, third and fourth paragraphs intentional?
Posted by: Noumena | April 11, 2006 at 09:02 AM
Hugo, if you can't see the difference between a guy who wants to kill women and the women he wnats to kill, you're just not a feminist. Forget this brotherly love shit.
I'll start embracing rapists and thugs as 'my brothers' when they stop raping my sisters. There is no equality here. The fact is, some people are not worthy of equal respect.
Posted by: ginmar | April 11, 2006 at 09:32 AM
ginmar said: "I'll start embracing rapists and thugs as 'my brothers' when they stop raping my sisters. There is no equality here. The fact is, some people are not worthy of equal respect."
However, according to the news:
DURHAM, N.C. — DNA testing failed to connect any members of the Duke University lacrosse team to the alleged rape of a stripper, attorneys for the athletes said Monday.
Citing DNA test results delivered by the state crime lab to police and prosecutors a few hours earlier, the attorneys said the test results prove their clients did not sexually assault and beat a stripper hired to perform at a March 13 team party.
No charges have been filed in the case.
"There is no DNA evidence that shows she was touched by any of these boys," said Attorney Joe Cheshire, who represents one of the team's captains.
Is ginmar's attitude feminist 'justice' or is 'guilty until proven innocent' more of that "male privilege" I keep hearing about?
It looks to me like this woman deserves a little disrespect for what appears to at the very least be perjury and filing false police reports. And if she's lying about the "rape" who's to say she isn't lying about everything?
Apparently this woman is continuing the behavioral patterns of the past, but somehow I feel that feminists here and elsewhere will still argue that she deserves "respect" for some inexplicable reason. Never mind that she already ruined a coach's career and likely the presumably innocent Lacrosse team members as well. Granted, new evidence could be uncovered but for now it's not looking good for her.
Posted by: Mr. Bad | April 11, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Txfeminist, I was referring to this final line of yours (the one with the picture of women as meat):
"So how come when the boys leave, the inside of their brains look like this?"
That was "boys" in the plural, not just Ryan. How is that not a sweeping generalization?
And let me say that "respect" is not the same as "approval". I can tell someone that what he's done is wrong, without losing sight of his intrinsic value as a human being. I can hate actions, but not people.
Posted by: Hugo | April 11, 2006 at 10:17 AM
And indeed, Txfeminist, I've been "lurking" at your blog for a while, and I like it very much. I just didn't like the broad brush you used on Delbarton.
One of my former students is awaiting trial on rape and murder charges; I am quite confident my words and actions (and PCC's environment) had little to do with his decisions. I suspect Delbarton's involvement in Ryan's email is about the same.
Posted by: Hugo | April 11, 2006 at 10:24 AM
It looks to me like this woman deserves a little disrespect for what appears to at the very least be perjury and filing false police reports. And if she's lying about the "rape" who's to say she isn't lying about everything?
You know, this is exactly the same trap you have just accused others of falling into. Lack of DNA evidence is not proof of perjury.
Hugo, I have a problem with this sentence as well: But Ryan is as much my brother as the victim in this case is my sister. I suspect that what you mean here is brother/sister in the Christian sense, but it appears to be a more general usage. How did you intend it?
Posted by: evil_fizz | April 11, 2006 at 10:37 AM
evil fizz, fair enough to a point, however, I did qualify my statements with "appears to" in the first sentence while the second sentence is clearly speculation on my part. Contrast that with ginmar and others, who appear to be absolutely certain that a rape occurred. I personally think it's preferable to err on the side of 'innocent until proven guilty,' however, at point the weight of evidence should be used to formulate hypotheses, e.g., that the men may have committed rape and that the woman is lying. IMO the weight of evidence shows the latter and does not support the former.
Irregardless of how this turns out, because of feminist lies and propaganda that "women never lie about rape" in cases like this, the men's names have been broadcast far and wide in the MSM while the alleged victim has for the most part been given a pass. Therefore those men are already irreparably damaged by her (who BTW has a very long rap sheet). This sort of thing definitely needs to change.
Posted by: Mr. Bad | April 11, 2006 at 11:16 AM
Hugo, I think you are confusing "respect" with "compassion".
As for my last comment, yes, it was a tad snarky. While I do make a point with the Delbarton post, and a serious one, I did employ a rather satirical tone.
Further, you may want to consider this: "Violence against women occurs most often, Smith says, "in sex-segregated situations where women's voices are absent. ... Furthermore, gang rapes are almost always associated with these types of sex-segregated institutions and are rare in other circumstances."
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/lacrosse/2006-04-07-violence-allegations_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA
Posted by: Txfeminist | April 11, 2006 at 12:00 PM
"situations where women's voices are absent."
being the key phrase there.
Posted by: Txfeminist | April 11, 2006 at 12:01 PM
Folks, I do tend to use "brother" and "sister" in the Christian sense.
I use "respect" literally: re-spectare, roughly translated from Latin as "to see the thing as it is". I mean "respect" in the sense of seeing people as Jesus sees them -- and that of course includes compassion.
Posted by: Hugo | April 11, 2006 at 12:40 PM
It seems like in order to "see the thing as it is", if we are talking about Ryan McFadyen or Delbarton school, for example, then I have to deconstruct, analyse and consider how each operates in the bigger picture. I think schools like the Delbarton school have some problems. (Snobbery, elitism and classism are really only a few of those problems.)
However, I'm not sure that your ex-student at PCC is an adequate comparator, though, because I don't know anything about his/her background, and I know little about the school.
I am wary of comparing apples and oranges. I don't think a generalization can be made that says, student X went to school Y. Then he did some bad things. Student Z went to school W. Then he did some bad things. Both students went to school; therefore it's the school's fault bad things happened. Or, it's not the school's fault in one case, so it's not the school's fault in either.
Clearly, reductionism and problems with correlation/causation are not going to make a case either way.
However, it's worth pointing out that there might be connections between a life of isolation and privilege/entitlement, and an inability to relate, show respect, or have compassion for other human beings outside the range of that person's experience. What other definition of xenophobia is there?
I don't think that examining these things is the same as calling up a stereotype; rather, an attempt to connect the dots.
Honestly, I'm far more concerned by the lack of respect towards women shown by the Ryan McFadyens of the world.
Posted by: Txfeminist | April 11, 2006 at 01:56 PM
That's fair, Txfeminist; my quibble was really with the one line I pointed out. I went to a school not all that different from Delbarton for a while, though it was here on the West Coast and thus perhaps less richly imbued with self-importance. I was kicked out (a story for another blog), but still wince when all those who go to prep schools are seen as elitists with a sense of entitlement. Some end up jerks, others end up with a sense of paternalistic noblesse oblige, others with tremendous reservoirs of compassion.
Posted by: Hugo | April 11, 2006 at 03:51 PM
I agree, to a point. While I hate rapists, I also am not in the "Rip their balls off" camp of punishment. If they are tried and convicted, their punishments should still be rehabilitory as opposed to retributionary (although honestly, I'd prefer pre-emptively not training men to rape). I'm also willing to say that the Duke victim was raped. I'm not assuming she's lying, or that she's hatefully hurting this men. If these boys are proven not guilty (note, they aren't proven "innocent"), it's still not enough to put in a false rape accusation. They may have done it, and there's not enough evidence to convict. Or, she was raped, and it wasn't these men.
Frankly, the fact that Mr. Bad goes to "she's lying and OMG look how this hurts the men involved" makes me not want to be left alone with him.
Posted by: Antigone | April 11, 2006 at 05:50 PM
I'm going to leave aside the rape case itself
Guess not everybody was paying attention.
What's especially bizarre about the mindset you quoted is the way it conflates sexual immorality with 'disrespect'--a woman who is sexually open, or is a sex worker, is not merely behaving badly, but she is behaving in a way that is disrespectful of others by doing so. At the same time, the men who benefit from her behavior (the sex partner, the guy at the bachelor party) are not only free of this taint of 'disrespect', but they are entitled to then turn around and behave disrespectfully to her.
Posted by: mythago | April 11, 2006 at 10:21 PM
Yeah, that part puzzles me no end. How can a sex worker doing her job possibly be disrespectful to the people who hired her?
Posted by: Lynn Gazis-Sax | April 11, 2006 at 11:28 PM
""Yeah, that part puzzles me no end. How can a sex worker doing her job possibly be disrespectful to the people who hired her""
Well, nobody here is claiming that sex worker thats just doing her job is being disrepectful to the people who hired her. The fact is if the sex worker isn't doing her properly(ie: Trying to rip her cilents off, giving poor service)then she is disrepecting them.
Posted by: Beste | April 12, 2006 at 03:25 AM
isolation and privilege/entitlement, and an inability to relate, show respect, or have compassion for other human beings outside the range of that person's experience. What other definition of xenophobia is there?
Would that include a school - or, more properly, a school system - whose subculture includes not associating with the "stuck up" county schools (Isolation), a sense that they are shortchanged by not getting a cut of suburnban taxes for inner city schools (entitlement), where the "Rich kids" concerns are dismissed (Inability to relate - "What problems can they have? They're rich and have everything), dismissal of them (disrespect) as "Preppies," and a sense of smugness and "They got what was coming to them" attitude when the suburban kids get into trouble, demonstrating a lack of compassion?
Or is that "different?"
Posted by: The Gonzman | April 12, 2006 at 05:15 AM
""Yeah, that part puzzles me no end. How can a sex worker doing her job possibly be disrespectful to the people who hired her""
Well, nobody here is claiming that sex worker thats just doing her job is being disrepectful to the people who hired her. The fact is if the sex worker isn't doing her properly(ie: Trying to rip her cilents off, giving poor service)then she is disrepecting them.
If you go back to the earlier thread on this, that seems to be precisely what Mr Bad was arguing. Mythago (I think; apologies if I'm misremembering) and I both called him on this, and he said we were missing the point.
Posted by: Noumena | April 12, 2006 at 06:36 AM
Well, nobody here is claiming that sex worker thats just doing her job is being disrepectful to the people who hired her. The fact is if the sex worker isn't doing her properly(ie: Trying to rip her cilents off, giving poor service)then she is disrepecting them.
Ah. So:
because women have learned to act less respectably - and at times outright disrespectful
means that strippers now give poorer service than they used to, back in the day of Gypsy Rose Lee?
Or perhaps it's the case that women - but only women - have started, over the past few decades, to steal on the job?
Posted by: Lynn Gazis-Sax | April 12, 2006 at 07:16 AM
I understand that you're coming at this from a particular Christian POV at least as much as anything else. I am trying to respect this while acknowledging that my own worldview. metaphysics included is...rather different.
While academically I can get behind the notion that we're all human, after all, that compassion for "humanity" includes me. And my own humanity means that I have a *lot* of feelings here, not all of them rational or "fair." And frankly I have no compunction about feeling like I want to rip the fuckers' balls off. Does that mean I literally would do it, or think the boys shouldn't have their day in court? No. (well, probably, the former).
But I am a fuck of a lot more sympathetic toward the women than I am the men here. And I don't really buy the whole "love the sinner, not the sin" business, I have to say, at least not in practice.
And I am with txfeminist on the fisking of the prep school. Nobody said that all preppies are rapists or all Delbarton students are criminals or anything of that sort. Frankly I'm just not in the mood for "butbutbut the privileged overentitled elite are people too." Especially since the fisking was about examining the attitudes that such schools might be based on. Particularly the whole sublimation of sexuality into "healthier" pursuits like lacrosse, and the question of whether hostile attitudes toward sex and women might in fact be more rampant in all-male environments.
It seems to me that if you really want to be "compassionate" toward the perpetrators here, in any way, you have to start with a sharply critical examination of their background, how they might have got there; and that includes stuff like Delbarton. Otherwise you're right back into "how monstrous and inexplicable, tsk tsk" or even "I don't believe they did it at all, because...I can't." Which helps no one.
Posted by: belledame222 | April 14, 2006 at 05:20 AM
per respect: I certainly believe in *starting* with the premise that we all deserve respect. That is, I approach people in good faith, first. However, if they keep violating that good faith, after a certain point--and it falls far short of seventy times seven--I will lose that respect. And people will have to take certain actions to earn it back, depending on context. In some cases it may not be possible to ever completely repair the damage. It's just how it is. I get the concept of "grace" and the notion that one grants absolution to someone because they need it, not because they deserve it. But I don't think it's my place to grant that. At any rate, unless I am in a place where I feel that i can grant that, I'm not going to do it. Not if it feels inauthentic and harmful to me. Like I said: I'm human too.
Which is not to say "respect" equals "basic human rights," here. I don't think people ever "earn" torture, for instance. But in a way that's as much about not losing our *own* humanity in the process, for me.
But in terms of who gets credibility? Who gets my time and attention and trust? No, it's not unconditional. It's just not.
Posted by: belledame222 | April 14, 2006 at 05:29 AM
As for sweeping stuff about "women" (all 345,654,999,765 of us, especially the one with the goiter) earning men's trust" (which they've/we've broken by "acting dirty" I guess, 'cuz sex workers are dirty)--you know, I kind of don't even want to touch that, 'cuz I'm just thinking, Oh, where to begin.
yeah. It's a bit like touching down on a small, hostile, alien planet, to read stuff like that, for me. I just honestly don't know where to start.
Posted by: belledame222 | April 14, 2006 at 05:32 AM
Noumena said: "If you go back to the earlier thread on this, that seems to be precisely what Mr Bad was arguing. Mythago (I think; apologies if I'm misremembering) and I both called him on this, and he said we were missing the point."
Noumena, et al., I'd love to respond to this post and indeed I tried several times to answer this but found that either Hugo or his surrogate decided to ban me, so I will not be responding to any posts - and indeed will not be posting here any longer - until I'm granted free, unfettered and uncensored access. Also, I noticed that earlier posts of mine have been deleted, apparently not by Hugo but by the person who appears to have been appointed by him to moderate in his absence. Thus, I will no longer participate in this blog until I'm given an apology for being censored and am given the access that I had before.
So until then, Ciao.
Posted by: Mr. Bad | April 14, 2006 at 03:14 PM