It appears that Barbie has found religion. After rebelling with Harley Davidson Barbie and bikini Barbie. There is even an S & M Barbie in all leather and fishnet stockings. Now, however, there is Burka Barbie.
Of course, this could be a surplus GI Joe in a Burka but the covered Barbie is on display with 500 other Barbies at the Salone dei Cinquecento, in Florence, Italy. To complete the image of subjugation for feminists, Burka Barbie will be auctioned off to the highest bidder as part of the fundraiser by Sotheby’s.
For many, the doll teaches girls to accept an obnoxious practice of women covering themselves — a practice common in areas where girls as young as ten are routinely married off. Then again, many Muslims would likely argue that, if Mattel markets kinky Barbie, why shouldn’t it also make Barbies for conservative Islamic families?
Would do you think?
For the picture of Burka Barbie and full story, click here.
Compulsion legally does not equate to not consenting.
To clarify.
No matter what the damn law said, she was a person. With free will.
To clarify:
Property owned by a person is incapable of true choice. My dog is my property, and it is free to make its choices, but so long as I’m its owner, in my presence, the dog’s only real choice is whether to obey or not.
“Property or not, she was a person. As a person, she could have consented even if ordered to comply as property.”
Property or person; not both.
“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every[one] has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.”
“AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.”
Thus the reason I said…
the exercise of power over the inalienable right of self-ownership (viz slavery) is tyranny per se AND THEREFORE the person being treated as property is metaphysically incapable of giving consent to intercourse–thus necessitating the lesser included offense (to slavery/tyranny) of rape.
Property is incapable of choice by definition.
Bob,
Metaphysically. Metaphysically I can’t leave this room. You also deprive Sally of her free will. Tyranny per se? Did that somehow negate choice? Negate desire? Negate the frailties and vagaries of human emotion? Even the choice to love an owner? Property or not, she was a person. As a person, she could have consented even if ordered to comply as property. An order does not an odious task make and some orders through out history have been carried out with gusto by slave and free person alike. Her legal status as property does not change that she was a person. That’s why slavery is illegal now. It’s wrong. None of this addresses her state of mind. If you say rape is a lesser included offense of slavery, I say the defense to the lesser included charge is actual consent.
Now prove she didn’t actually consent.
Without her testimony, you simply can’t.
Buddha: “You say rape. I say prove it.”
Technically, both you and lottakatz are wrong.
Why? Because you’re both attempting to predicate non-existence.
Lottakatz is correct in that slaves were considered property; not people. The 3/5th’s compromise didn’t make slaves 3/5ths of a person, it was simply a method of apportionment in the house of representatives. Yet this also entails the lack of something called a person in lieu of a piece of property.
Accordingly, on the one hand, one cannot rape a piece of property. And according to the fugitive slave clause, said piece of property can’t even escape to another state if only to be declared a person.
Alternatively, the exercise of power over the inalienable right of self-ownership (viz slavery) is tyranny per se AND THEREFORE the person being treated as property is metaphysically incapable of giving consent to intercourse–thus necessitating the lesser included offense (to slavery/tyranny) of rape.
lotta,
Again.
Slavery is one crime.
Rape is another.
You can prove one as a factual matter. He was a documented slave owner. You cannot prove the other without testimony of someone long dead. It’s that simple. It’s a matter of proof.
You cannot attribute a state of mind to Sally Hemmings simply because you dislike her slave status. We call that “making shit up”. The crimes are discrete. There is no force majure issue. One can be a slave owner, a rapist, or a slave owner-rapist. But being one does not automatically make one guilty of the the other even if you are sleeping with a slave. Guilt of one crime is not the ability to convict of the other without evidence of all the elements of the crime charged. Throw in treason if you’re going to throwing out accusations you don’t have evidence of all the requisite elements.
What part of none of us are psychic isn’t getting though here? I don’t think I can any clearer that you are attributing as fact what is actually an assumption. STATE OF MIND. Prove Hemmings state of mind. Without testimony you can’t.
You say rape. I say prove it. That’s what a judge would say too.
So far, all I’ve gotten is lip service about SLAVERY. The issue was RAPE. The elements of rape are intercourse and lack of consent. Her chattel status does not preclude her giving actual consent. Just because legally she had no legal recourse to refuse does not mean that she refused. That’s just logic. Unless of course she has no free will which would make her a primitive animal, wouldn’t it? You are degrading her as a human by implying a motive to her you have NO WAY of knowing. Your altruism in doing so is irrelevant.
Quite simply, prove Sally Hemmings state of mind concerning Thomas Jefferson.
You can’t. And because you can’t you can’t prove rape.
You cannot get beyond your distaste for slavery to see you are trying to convict Jefferson of a crime he may or may not have committed without proof of all the elements of the crime being proven superficially much less to a standard of judgment. All because you find the idea – even the possibility – of mutual attraction repulsive because she was property. Before she was property, she was people. And people sometimes find happiness in strange places whether it offends your sensibilities or not.
Yeah, she was a slave. We’ll never know if she considered her interaction with Jefferson rape or a relationship though unless we can ask her. It’s that simple.
AY–
“I was thinking of Holiday Dress. Would you suppose you could tell me how to get the Holly to not prick?”
I doubt you’d look good in a “holiday dress.” Besides, I just love that natty elf ensemble you’ve taken to wearing of late. May I suggest that you make your outfit more festive for the holiday season by 1) pinning a few sprigs of holly to your white collar, 2) festooning the peak of your pointy cap with some mistletoe, and 3) encircling each of your ankles with a small pine wreath.
lottakatz:
we are only talking Jefferson in particular. Maybe he raped her 5 days a week for 20 years, I don’t know and neither do you. He may not have even touched her, he did have a brother.
Slavery is wrong what else is there to say? I also like Jefferson and Madison. Do I like the fact they owned slaves, no. But the sum total of their lives was positive.
BIL: “By the same token, we’ll never know if she was compelled by force either. But to call “rape” when we simply cannot know is just not fair to either of them as individuals. It demonizes one and victimizes the other.”
different entry: “…If you can’t prove 1) lack of consent and 2) intercourse, you can’t prove rape.”
Byron: “but I don’t believe the man who wrote the Declaration would force his will upon a subordinate woman and this is, think, what Buddha is saying.”
————
Slavery is the ultimate force majeuer. It relieves the owner of any obligation to fulfill any aspect of any recognized social or legal compact with the slave. The slave can’t give consent because they have no legal or moral standing; they aren’t even people, they’re property. You can try to parse it with all kinds of language defining this and that as an intellectual exercise but for all practical purposes all sex with a slave is rape.
Srsly, did anyone reading this thread ask their PC if IT wanted to visit the Professor’s blawg before you hit the ‘power on’ button. Of course not, why would you? it’s property, you don’t have to ask a utilitarian tool if it wants to be used.
You don’t ask your house if it wants you living in it, it’s your property. The very nature of the property/owner relationship precludes consent.
If you want to think Jefferson was too sensitive and honorable to take full and customary advantage of the nature of the relationship (and actually use force) then do so but let’s not attempt to alter the nature of the relationship or the implications of that relationships on the victims- the slaves- post-facto for our own reasons.
BIL & Byron–
While we’re discussing male/female relations–I thought I’d leave you–at least for the time being–with a poem I wrote about Rush Limbaugh around the time he was holding A Female Summit to find out why he wasn’t as popular with women as he was with men.
RUSH: “Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to do the Female Summit today, by the way. We will do the Female Summit in the third hour of the program today, and the reason we’re going to do the Female Summit is Public Policy Polling in North Carolina published a national poll on your beloved host, El Rushbo. They found I’ve got 46% approval, 43% disapproval, but I got a huge gender gap. My gender gap between men and women is 31%. Thirty-one percent is the differential between male approval and female approval. So yesterday I said, “What can I do about this? What could be done? What is the explanation for this?”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022509/content/01125109.guest.html
Since he wanted an explanation, I obliged him—in rhyming verse.
Why Don’t Women Like Rush Limbaugh?: A Rhyming Response
Limbaugh, Limbaugh, cookies and cream,
Rush kissed the girls and made them scream.
He asked them if they’d like to play
But the feminazis ran away.
Limbaugh, Limbaugh, pudding and pie,
Ole clueless Rush couldn’t figure why
He didn’t rate with the “weaker” sex.
Maybe it’s ’cause he has three necks!
Maybe it’s ’cause he’s full of bile
And sports a snide satanic smile
And calls us babes—and things much worse.
Here’s your answer, Rush, in this little verse.
Crosstalk happens Elaine. An inherent flaw with communicating via an intermediary medium. No worries. I was also not allowing that you, as a librarian not a lawyer, could be using a different definition for rape.
I say no autopsy, no foul.
BIL–
I’m not charging Jefferson with the crime of rape. I thought we were discussing the Hemings/Jefferson relationship–not as a case of rape one would bring to court…but as to the possibility of what might have gone on between the two of them.
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear about that. If I didn’t, my words failed me.
And talk about timely.
Church of Scientology being charged with slavery and human trafficking.
Lindstein v. Miscavige
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23175190/Complaint-filed112509
Elaine,
No, I’m looking at rape as a crime defined as non-consensual intercourse. I’m big on definitions. If you can’t prove 1) lack of consent and 2) intercourse, you can’t prove rape. Well there is no doubt they had intercourse, but your answer in no way addressed the logic that you cannot and do not know Sally Hemmings state of mind. It’s an emotional response to a logical failing to prove a specific element of the crime charged. Your admirable empathy for the woman is clouding the legal analysis. Slave, yes. Rape victim, you’ll never know. Believe what you like, but without evidence or direct testimony to Ms. Hemmings state of mind, Mr. Jefferson would be free to leave any court in the land on the charge of rape. If his attorney wasn’t insane.
Slaver and rapist are not the same crime. No amount of sympathy will change that. If you want to talk about Jefferson being guilty of being a slaver, by today’s laws, he’d be in prison. But as a alleged rapist by definition, he goes free until Sally steps to the bar.
Elaine:
maybe I got a little carried away with inveterate scumbag.
Byron–
“What you and Jill seem to be saying is that Thomas Jefferson is an inveterate scumbag or at least a typical male in this regard. And I believe that is the idea that Buddha is taking to task (conjecture only).”
WOW! Where in any of my comments did I ever state or imply that I think that the typical male is not honorable? Have you read all of my comments?
For example–
Buddha said the following: “Men are stupid. 96% of them think with only their penis.”
I replied: “I’ve had the good fortune to know lots of men who don’t let their genitalia do their thinking for them.”
Does that sound like something that a woman who has a low opinion of men would say?
You and Buddha may be trying to understand/imagine what Jefferson’s thought processes/feelings might have been. Maybe Jill and I are looking at the Hemings/Jefferson relationship from the perspective of a woman who was a slave–a human being who had no power and no say in what happened to her.
Elaine,
I won’t argue that she wasn’t a victim of slavery. I will argue you cannot know if she was victim of rape without talking to her first. Consent as I was using the term should be read as a voluntary act. Coerced consent is not actual consent. It’s coercion. None of this changes that she could have actually consented to sex with Jefferson. Not one bit. You assume the worst motives not just on Jefferson’s part, but also assume there is NO WAY that Sally could have actually had feelings for Jefferson.
As proof she may (not did, I’m not claiming to know her state of mind) have thought their relationship more than rape, I offer that she bore children to term and cared for them when everyone knows there were abortions and forced miscarriages available then too. They were just dangerous and done in secret. She even told some of them their actual lineage. Do you tell your progeny they’re the proud product of rape when a lie would have been just as acceptable as there were no DNA tests at the time? There is no proof of the absolutely essential element of the crime of rape here: Sally Hemmings’ state of mind vis a vis consent. Slave, without doubt. Victim. And bad on Jefferson for not freeing her without doubt. Rape victim? You say yes yet all of this is pure speculation.
You have no way of knowing whether she felt compelled or actually cared for the man short of asking her, ergo, a claim of rape is simply unprovable as a matter of logic. You presume a crime here without being able to prove the essential element.
Byron,
Not specifically but I would say Jefferson using compulsion for sex would seem out of character considering his writings, no matter Sally’s legal status.
BIL–
I’m aware that rape is a crime of violence and domination–and not sex.
Hemings WAS a victim–a victim of slavery. What say could she have in any of the things that were done to her? Jefferson didn’t have to have her consent. She may have submitted to him because she had no alternative. In that case, I’d call it rape– even it wasn’t violent rape. I see her as a victim.