Academic culture is the etic rapist of emic meaning by classification, co-option, and preemption of secular paralanguage (part 1)

Posted: July 15, 2011 in Fifty years later, PORNALYSIS MISSION STATEMENT AND PURPOSE
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Academic culture is the etic rapist of emic meaning by classification, co-option, and preemption and re-definition of the language of laypeople.

If you are not a book smart person, go here[.], down below the double line under all this talk below. This is written for college people, but I am trying to talk to you about how aggressive women commit violence in relationships, and how other women don’t talk about it, and how men don’t have the words to describe it.

——————————————————————————————————————–

Aggression has multiple definitions in the daily use and paralanguage of lay people, however, in discussions about rape, domestic violence, and pornography, it is the language of the lay person that suffers, and the very duty of linguistics is betrayed, as politically motivated and grant-funded groups and individuals wage war on words that have common understandings to non-academics.

Choose your weapon. I choose the freeware dictionary “The Sage,” by Sequence Publishing* for the purpose of discussing the battles waged against words and people who use them. You can download a copy of the freeware Sage dictionary here.

Violence is clearly, by anyone’s definition, a sock in the eye, a kick in the groin, or a gut punch. But in defining aggression, the jury is still out, denating whether men or women are more aggressive.

It is a slap in the face of anyone who seeks a broader understanding of truth, or issues that confront them, to have to deal with the inherent sexism of such debate. It is indisputable that physical aggression is violence–if one accepts the standard Merriam-Websters definition.

It seems it isn’t as clear in academic minds that aggression takes many forms against all persons before physical aggression takes place, with males being the most prone to being victims of that aggression, and one cause of this opacity of the academic mind is the rhetoric of the body, and feminist discourse about patriarchal violence.

According to Sage, aggression, definition number one is “violent action that is hostile, and usually unprovoked.” I don’t think anybody can dispute that, and many of us have experienced it. However, definitions get a bit fuzzy when we look at words like “usually,” within the definition–even in a linguistic sense. It is a landmine of a word that threatens to throw the whole definition into the toilet. And using a prescriptive dictionary like Websters only exacerbates the problems inherent in the discourse.

Why? Because in this case, ‘usually’ is an ambiguous, an indefinite article of speech. What is ‘usually,’ exactly? Ask your own dictionary, but it basically means ‘commonly occurring,’ and based on Sage, it would be an artifact of presumptive meaning, modal behavior for those who enjoy the modality of ordinary life.

But what about the rest of us? We employ other means by necessity of survival to arrive at meaning–and the means are holistic, not atomistic, as is the case of political, academic intention.

And to that purpose–sans academic politics, and in reference to domestic violence, both sexes commit aggressive acts within relationships almost equally, with women ‘usually’ initiating more violence than men, and more likely to commit physical violence, according to a three decades long bibliography of domestic violence statistics compiled by Martin Fiebert, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach.**

Martin Fiebert, Ph.

Martin Fiebert Ph.D. California State University, Long Beach (562) 985-5027 e-mail: mfiebert@csulb.edu

The combined studies in Fiebert’s not-so-easily-dismissed sampling have an aggregate sample size of 369,800 people, and demonstrate that women commit an equal, or greater amount of violence against male partners.

So, the problem inherent in the academic war against facts is one of subjectivity versus objectivity. Or, in layman’s terms, academics have whored themselves for funding at the expense of truth.

In fact, in acts of war upon language, academia employs the tool of a laypersons possible or theoretical, subjective reality—using imagery of abused women at the expense of using imagery of abused men– at the expense of objectivity. Who can’t feel sorry for an abused woman? And why don’t men just ‘protect themselves?”

These questions have obvious answers, except in the mind of academics, who still deny that women are more likely to sexually abuse children than they are to sexually abuse men. If inquiry were actually a goal of academics, rather than grant writing for popular causes, or politicking, I would imagine that fact would beg a huge research question–yet there is still no hypothesis on the effect of women’s abuse of children on men’s aggression.

Objectivity is a requirement of most standard sciences(never mind gender and culture studies), yet falls by the wayside when political objectives are mixed with propagandists intentions—or, as I discuss briefly in my mission statement, academia has sacrificed truth and scholarship at the expense of objectivity, which for academics is a lucrative industry. This is what I call academic porn.

The net effect of rhetorical ploys over objective reality is that, in the time such rhetoric has been employed against objective truth, the American prison system has nearly tripled incarceration rates of males, with over half of them imprisoned for crimes that ARE NOT VIOLENT CRIMES, nor are the crimes for which they are imprisoned violent crimes against women, or against persons. In fact, more than 50% of imprisoned men are in prison for what they did to their own bodies by using drugs.

Addiction (a side issue here) is almost exclusively anti-social, in that addicts live lives that are solitary, isolated, and incapable of interacting with social norms to the level where domestic violence would even be an issue. Equally, many addicts in prison are victims of violent crimes perpetrated on them y mothers, and of actual rapists, we have known for decades that they are often the victims of domestic violence when they were children.

But back to Sage for a minute, and a reality check. Sage (and I am sure whatever dictionary you are using) has several definitions of aggression—so why stop at definition one?

Definition two is merely the initiation of unfriendly behavior; definitions three onward are really a discussion about initiating aggression, to feelings that arouse thoughts of attacks.

Let’s look at two for a minute. What initiates behavior—what is unfriendly? I will show you one of the thousands and thousands of examples of women’s aggression in action on the web. This example comes in the form of aggressively ‘baiting’ men for aggressive responses to women’s behavior. And mind you—there are no men present in the discussion except perhaps in the imagination of the author:

Typical aggreesion baiting by typical female blogger--the lowest common denominator in the discussion of domestic violence

On the surface, the article seems to appeal to all people, in an almost egalitarian manner, despite the fact that it just a snapshot in time, from one locality. And of course, it is a selective example wherein not only do women appear to be greater in ‘victimhood’ but also it compares the existing notions and false presumption (women are victims of DV at greater rates than men) against the facts of DV ( Fiebert’s careful three decade study of DV on initiation and follow through of women’s aggression and violence directed at men.)

In simple terms, homicide is a statistical outlier—an extreme that is almost not worth noting–which would indeed go unnoticed if only men died from DV.

Now, the facts: in this one study of deaths caused by DV, men lose, clearly, in the common imagination of the layperson, because obviously, more women died in this example. The author then goes on to break down the examples and we find that—surprise!—the men who killed women were abusers, and the women who killed men were no doubt driven to it, by being egregiously abused, while many men also killed themselves ( hot topic in feminist rhetoric ‘ men kill themselves to hurt women’—new lows in the debate…).

What is missing in this particular snapshot is that we have to imagine what could drive a man to murder—and we do not impute males with the same propensity to kill a mate with long term abuse suffered by those males. But enough about this snapshot- one of millions out there that attempt to circumvent the issue of aggression with extreme examples—where are the facts in practice as documented by Fiebert? Based on th definition of aggression, the facts are everywhere, every day, and I will demonstrate that some women use verbal aggression with the explicit intention of provoking male anger.

Comments
  1. […] recognize your position in a society that doles out certain privileges. Simple. Two outputs have it/don’t have it. We could have dropped it then and […]

What do You think about that?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s