[Saya]

[quote=Creed of Heresy;808006]I'm a bit worn out at the moment, since what was supposed to be a day off mutated into my 17th straight day of working, so I'm gonna have to reply piecemeal instead of one large post. If someone's post isn't replied to, don't worry, I'll get to it as my brain lets me.

I kind of get what is meant by systemic oppression vs. prejudice. The former is a legally institutionalized means, based and originating in prejudice, to force those society, or sects of society, view as "inferior" into disadvantageous positions, with the backing of political and legal authority. My view of prejudice is often that of the sinister potential beginnings of systemic oppression. Having seen what prejudice has a tendency to manifest into, well...

There is a world of difference between the two and saying prejudice necessarily may lead into systemic oppression blurs the line. Most of the oppressions we're talking about are pretty old and established, hence why they're systemic.

The first one, I greatly suspected. Even if I didn't have statistical knowledge of it, I've seen enough enduring racism in American society to figure this was certainly the case. After looking up the statistics, my suspicions were, sadly, proven to be all too true. Being white means you have almost twice the likelihood to be referred for a kidney transplant to someone who was black. The second part...not entirely true, but only because a lack of specification. Vagrancy laws had existed for quite some time before that, with extremely harsh penalties. After the Civil War, though, most southern states implemented the "Black codes" which indeed were designed for specifically that reason. They were based in those pre-existing vagrancy laws, and used for the ends of the southern states, whose economy had been backed by slave labor. Sore losers...

Are Prisons Obsolete? by Angela Davis is an excellent source on the systemic imprisonment of black people to continue exploitation.

The third, however, is not precisely true, though the rate is still far too high. Honestly, 1% would be too high regardless, but I digress. The actual rate of sexual assault against bisexual women is 46.1%, and 61.1% of all bisexual women had endured sexual assault, physical abusive, and/or stalking by a current/former partner. Granted, the sample size for straight women in this study was far larger than the ones for lesbians and bisexual women (9,709 included in study; 96.5% identified as straight, 2.2% and 1.3% for bisexuals and lesbians, respectively), so the sample might not be conclusive...but then...lesbians and straight women both reported less incidents of ****, abuse, and/or stalking, so... Either way, I understand what you're saying on this point all the same. Just my nitpicking for statistics and sources here, is all.

Dude, not only am I queer and know what I'm talking about, I also volunteer at a **** crisis centre. The study I'm referring to is here: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePreventio...SOfindings.pdf

Sexual Violence by
any Perpetrator
• The lifetime prevalence of ****
by any perpetrator was:

For women:

- Lesbian – 13.1%

- Bisexual – 46.1%

- Heterosexual – 17.4%

For men:

- Gay – numbers too small

to estimate
- Bisexual – numbers too small
to estimate
- Heterosexual – 0.7%
• The lifetime prevalence of
sexual violence other than
**** (including being made
to penetrate, sexual coercion,
unwanted sexual contact,
and non-contact unwanted
sexual experiences) by any
perpetrator was:

For women:

- Lesbian – 46.4%

- Bisexual – 74.9%

- Heterosexual – 43.3%

For men:

- Gay – 40.2%

- Bisexual – 47.4%

- Heterosexual – 20.8%