Tag Archives: rape

UK justice system terrified of Muslim minority.

30 Jan

Here we go again. A man, Adil Rashid, from an insulated Muslim community in England raped a 13-year old girl and was exonerated by a UK judge for “not knowing it was wrong to rape.” Judge Michael Stokes set Rashid free saying “you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters.”

Rashid’s defense was that he was from an insulated community and “educated” in a madrassa where he was taught that “women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground.”

Assuming this guy honestly didn’t know it was wrong to rape a child (and let’s not bullshit ourselves, he knew), since when has ignorance of the law been a valid excuse? Oh I’m sorry officer, I’m from an insulated community and didn’t know it was wrong to speed. Yeah, that should get me out of a ticket. But this isn’t something minor like a speeding ticket. This man raped a child.

The UK justice system, just like so many other politicians, media outlets, and universities are terrified of enraging the Muslim communities that refuse to integrate into society at large. They are afraid that if they piss them off they will become violent and begin rioting and killing like they’ve done in the past over cartoons and low budget bullshit films on youtube.

Fear and cowardice disguised as a misguided sense of cultural relativism is at the heart of this matter. It’s not about race or immigration, as some might claim. No, immigrants and race have nothing to do with this. That’s a smoke screen put up by people who are terrified at the notion of calling someone else’s culture wrong.

Well guess what. Their culture is wrong. It’s fucked up. It’s backwards. Ours is fucked up too, but it’s a whole hell of a lot less fucked up than theirs. We don’t hold that half the population is worth the same as a “lollipop that has fallen on the ground.”

Wear a skirt, get arrested.

26 Dec

Wearing a revealing clothing is now a crime in Swaziland. Correction, it’s been a crime since 1889, but the country just started enforcing this law against “immorality” more stringently. The reason? To prevent rape.

Classic victim blaming. Unfortunately it’s a sentiment that’s pretty widespread. The idea is that when a woman gets raped, she is somehow complicit in her rape. She encouraged the rape by inflaming the passions of the man who then couldn’t control himself and so he raped her. Had she not inflamed his passion she would not have been raped. Ergo, it’s her fault.

This view of rape is pretty degrading to both sexes. One, it assumes that men are savage beasts without the higher functions like self control and responsibility; secondly, it places the fault of the rape on the victim rather than the person actually perpetrating the rape.

The “logic” here is so ass backwards it’s astounding. I can’t really think of a way to explain to people who think like this. No matter what, a victim is never asking to be victimized or deserves it. “But if you play with fire you have to accept the responsibility that you’ll get burned” is usually how their response goes. Fire is not a sentient, self aware being capable of making a choice not to victimize another person. The responsibility not to rape is solely the responsibility of the would be rapist.

Proponents of this law weakly offer up the excuse that it is easier to rape people wearing skirts then it is to rape people wearing more clothing. This is absurd. The amount of clothing is trivial. If someone wants to rape another person, the fact that the victim has on slightly more clothing isn’t going to make a difference.

I believe much of this line of thinking stems from viewing women as something slightly less than human, as a form of property. When a woman is a thing you posses  rape no longer becomes a brutal crime against another human being, but rather a crime of vandalism against your possessions.

Holy texts condone everything

25 Mar

Have you ever seen some extremely hateful people using religious texts to justify their actions? Have you seen some very loving people using the same religious texts to combat the hateful ones? Well they can’t both be right, right? Well no, actually they’re both correct about what they say their books condone.

Language is dependent on us using the same words to describe the same thing; when everything is open to “interpretation” then anyone can be correct about what a holy books means, even if someone is else is correct about a diametrically opposing view.

So does god hate fags? Yes, yes he does. Does god love everybody (including gays?) Yes, yes he does. It all depends on how to “interperate” the words in the bible. In effect the bible can be used to support whatever view you already have decided upon, and this is why so many people love the bible!

How is god both father and son?

19 Apr

The trinity is one of the “great mysteries” of the christian faith. A “great mystery” is really just another way of saying “Over the course of being invented by iron age goat herders, manipulated by the church, and then translated over and over again by scribes, this shit makes no logical sense.”

The Arians had it right. Father and son have distinct definitions. A son cannot exist before the father that begat him. A son is literally the offspring of a father. Created by that father. Existing after that father. They by definition are not the same being. Brothers would make more sense. They at least can be created at the same time as twins, neither existing before the other. But then that raises the issue of two gods plus “who was their father”

Also, where is the mother in all this? If god is the father, Jesus is the son, then who is the mother? Don’t say Mary because while you might claim that she is miraculously the son of human Jesus, Jesus existed before he was sent by god to earth.

“Well that’s simple GP, god can create anything, so he created a son without needing a woman”

First off, does the sexualization of god not bother you? Secondly, then why the hell do we have two sexes here on earth? Would it not be easier to just reproduce a-sexually? Think of all the “problems” that would be solved if humans reproduced a-sexually. No Eve, no eating from the tree of knowledge, no sex and the “sin” that goes along with it, no prostitutes, no women to subjugate, no rape!

The Rape of the Virgin Mary

15 Feb

Rape is non-consensual sexual activity. If a man or a woman does not give consent, then it is rape. (Same if they are unable to give consent, like drunk or passed out)

In the annunciation god just announces to Mary that she is pregnant.

Luke 1:26-35

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called [a] the Son of God.

There was no asking Mary “Hey, do you consent to this?”, she had no choice, god just knocked her up and told her afterwards.

I can foresee people saying “Oh, but she was fine with it! How can it be rape if she’s ok with it?” Simple. Did she consent to being impregnated before she was impregnated? No. Then it’s rape. It does not matter if she is ok with it afterwards. I know a girl here at college that was drugged and raped by a guy she liked. She refused to press charges afterwards because she thought he was “a nice guy” but that does not change the fact that she was raped. Just like Mary.

Men and Feminism?

19 Oct

Today I went to a talk on rhetoric and literature which turned into a very fascinating conversation on feminism and pop culture. The room had around 20-25 people in it, and I was 1 of 3-4 men present. The entire time feminism was being discussed I was very nervous and uneasy.

I felt this way for a number of reasons. For one, being a male, I felt like the historical “bad guy” for feminism. For centuries men have oppressed women all over the planet. They’ve beaten them, raped them, denied them economic and educational opportunities, barred them from political power, and treated them merely as objects that existed solely for their pleasure.

I had this all over my head; I was ashamed and disgusted by the way men have treated women in the past. While I sat there quietly, unsure of my place in this discussion, I could not help but think how I was not those men, how I wanted to help. But how? How can I as a man help feminists? Is that even a valid question to ask? I don’t want to imply that women need my help as a man.

All I know is that I want to be part of the solution. That statement, however, assumes that I even have a part. As obvious as this may sound, a lot of feminism is strictly women only. This “minority space” is just somewhere I can’t go as a white male. It’s important that women have this private space to themselves to be able to exchange ideas and experiences. So then that begs the question “what spaces within feminism are not minority spaces, and can men be apart of them?”

All of these questions and then further questions about the assumptions behind the original questions paralyzed me in that room. Here I was, a willing ally yet a member of the old enemy, but so unsure of everything that I couldn’t talk. I didn’t, I don’t, want them to look at me like the enemy. The only thing I could manage to do to try and stave off those assumptions was to raise my hand and express my lament at the video game industry being a bastion for misogyny.

I tried to convey my displeasure with the unrealistic and extremely sexist way women are portrayed in most video games. I tried feebly to mention some of the points I made in this post about sexism in games. How I can count strong, competent female main characters on one hand, how most women in games suffer from the “women and refrigerators” syndrome, or “white man saves the day” scenarios, and how millions of young boys are growing up with these twisted views of women.

After I managed to get that out without tripping over my anxiety too badly I felt a little better. At least now I hoped they would see that I was aware, and making an effort, and was not to be thought of as the enemy.

It’s only now while writing this that I realize the whole “as the enemy” thing can be misconstrued as “man hating feminist”.  I assure you that’s not what I mean. I realize that it is important to choose my words carefully. There are so many assumptions that I used to take for granted, I can easily see how other men could be intimidated.

I had all these questions but I didn’t want to ask anyone at the talk. Not only was I not sure if it was the right time to ask, but I wasn’t sure if I could ask in the first place. I do know that it’s bad for men to go on feminist forums and post “I don’t understand X, so teach me!” It’s not the job of the women on those sites to take the time out of their day to teach you when you should go do the research yourself. My problem is not on the concepts and theories, but where I fit into it all. To add to my confusion there is controversy on both sides of this question as well. Some want men out all together, others want to include them on some things.

I would imagine that if feminism’s goals are going to stick, then the behaviors and assumptions of the men perpetuating the problems are going to have to be addressed. That will require women to engage with men on some level to try and deal with these problems. I just don’t know what part I can play in that engagement, or in engagement with other men on the issues.