Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 30, 2014, 06:38:56 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81367 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  DBMA Martial Arts Forum
| |-+  Martial Arts Topics
| | |-+  Violence against Women
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Violence against Women  (Read 22062 times)
~Ony
Guest
« on: May 01, 2003, 11:03:29 PM »

I am interested in having a discussion about violence against women because I am saddened and frustrated by the news today in Vancouver's The Province about Ji-Won Park.  Last year she was raped and was strangled to the brink of death.  She survived!  The attacker says "[I'm] not a killer..not a Charles Manson...not a rapist" And he agreed that "he basically just snapped" when Ji-Won passed by him and stopped to adjust her walkman. The story continues to say that "the investigators tried to find some logic to the attack-anger, rejection, sex." The attacker offered none.

My analysis is that violence against women is a socially acceptable, and dare I risk saying socially encouraged, form of control because it serves "to keep women in their place".  Being a martial artist myself, I suggest that martial arts can be a tool to empower women in a non-conventional way and in so doing, undermine this destructive status quo. Do you agree? (with my analysis a/o with my suggestion)

Am I too idealistic to think that violence against women will diminish (even end?) if martial arts could be used to empower them?
Logged
Crafty Dog
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2003, 01:21:57 AM »

Woof Ony:

  I look forward to seeing you this weekend in Vancouver!

You write:

"My analysis is that violence against women is a socially acceptable, and dare I risk saying socially encouraged, form of control because it serves "to keep women in their place". "

I disagree entirely. Smiley   Social disapproval of violence against women is far stronger than that between men-- which is as it should be as far as I'm concerned.   If anything, it is violence between men that is socially acceptable and encouraged.   Certainly men receive violence in FAR greater proportion to their numbers than women.

Something to consider.  Jane Goodall, the scientist who lives with the chimpanzees in Kenya writes how the first things a male chimp does upon beginning adolesence is to start thumping the females and as he develops more confidence he begins challenging lower males, then higher males etc.  In other words, it suggests that a man who is violent against women is a failure as a man measuring up against other men.

Following the thought along, one might hypothesize that the problem is, as Robert Bly has written, the absence of the male initiation rituals of ALL pre-modern societies.

Woof,
Crafty Dog
Logged
Marco
Guest
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2003, 12:27:52 PM »

The fact that there are laws against violence against women, and that those who are shown to have broken such laws are punished by the judicial system shows that society does not condone such crimes. Laws tend to reflect the values of society, which is one of the reasons they change over time.  A society that had no such laws might reasonably be considered to tolerate such behavior.


Often it is hard to prove rape, since often a he-said-she-said-situation exists, and there are often no witnesses. When the victim reports the event promptly and there is appreciable evidence, I suspect that cops are very happy that they can take such a predator off the street.

What happened to the attacker in the Canadian incident you mentioned? Were his actions considered "socially acceptable," or was he subject to prosecution through the legal system?

Marco
Logged
carlo
Guest
« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2003, 12:32:11 PM »

I must agree with Guro Crafty here.  In western society, the view of violence as a means of control over women at large is a fallacy although individual acts of control (a man beating his wife because he feels like he has no control over his life) do exist.  I quick survey of violent acts show that a majority of them are acts perpetrated by men on men.  The true form of social control on women comes in the form of selling social fantasy to them, that through genetic celebriy (beauty) the prince will come to make her fantasies come true.  That those women who don't fit the criteria are not deserving of this reward.

I agree with you on women studying martial arts though.  Violence against women does happen but I disagree with you that it is a western social institution, violence against men, however, is.  

My wife carries a knife and studies JKD because a woman will generally not be attacked by a person weaker than her.  

-Carlo
Logged
~Ony
Guest
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2003, 02:05:42 AM »

First, I want to appreciate all three of you for your responses!

In answer to the question about the perpetrator in this case, he has been in jail for this past year and the victim's lawyer is only asking for 8 to 11 years on the count of aggravated assault.  I'm not hopeful that he will serve even the minimum since the Law gives the judge a lot of choice in deciding the the most appropriate punishment in each case (like if he has a criminal record). I would shy away from resorting to the Law to ensure that violence against women ends because not too long ago, it was a man's legal (even moral) right to hit his wife with a weapon no larger than his thumb.  I hope I can convince you to lose some of that idealism...

I do not have personal experience with the police response to rape but I can assure you that police are far from making rape cases a priority.  I have heard stories by women of police blaming them for their rape, questioning them about the truthfulness of their batteries, and even arresting a woman and involuntarily committing her to the Vancouver General Hospital's psychiatric ward because her husband says she is "crazy" simply because she wanted full custody, (a story told to me first-hand).  I fear that it is these experiences which prevent women from reporting the violence committed against them and keeps them silent, leaving the attackers unpunished.

I understand what you say Guro Crafty about the male experience of using violence to overthrow the alpha-male as Jane describes of the apes.  But I hope you are not using sexual selection (i.e. male-male competition) in the vain of Social Darwinism, because that's definitely a slippery slope as evidenced by "the Jewish Solution".  Furhtermore, I am still not convinced that men experience more violence than women.  
On the street, when a man is following a woman she has to assess whether or not she is being followed and plan how to fight back or escape. Is this also the reality for men when they leave their homes. I suspect men do not live on a daily basis with that level of fear. (Please inform me if I'm mistaken)?

Finally, in terms of violence against women being socially acceptable, I see this evidenced not only by the fact that 1 woman in Canada will be raped every 17 minutes; but also by the fact that pornography, media images of women, insulting jokes, and comments made to us or about us contribute to this society which fails to disapprove of violence against women (see Vancouver Rape Relief's 'The truth As We Know It').

Again, I want to thank each one of you for the thought-provoking arguments you have all provided me and I hope to hear from you soon!

Peace/blessed be
Logged
xtremekali
Power User
***
Posts: 134


« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2003, 09:49:14 AM »

Violence against women is a terrible thing to happen in Western society. Sad to say any violent crime against the moral value of a community will make the news. Most violence against men is considered "boys being boys" unless there is extreme violence or death you may never hear about it.

You say rape isn't taken very serious by LEO's. I don't know about Canada and it's laws. But I can tell you here in the Southwestern part of the U.S. it is taken very serious and at time the sentences are stiffer than first degree murder. When convicted a rapist or child molester will also face the wrath of his fellow inmates.

I guess what I am trying to say is yes women have to be aware of violence everyday. The attacker looks for the weak to prey upon. He is not looking for a street fight. But for a victim. So that being said. A woman would benifit greatly from learning a street based system. Will it stop all women from being attacked. No. But then nothing will.

My wife has just recently started studing DBMA and she carries a .45 just in case.

Myke Tulsa OK
Logged

For those who fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know
Anonymous
Guest
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2003, 12:09:34 PM »

OK, so we've established that Canada is in the process of punishing this perp for his actions.  The media has condemned his actions, the legal system, which is a network of social institutions, is in the pricess of punishing him, and I suspect that if you talked to Canadians or an Americans about the case pretty much everyone would agree that he is scum and has whatever he gets coming to him. This all proves that society does not condone his actions. Unlike some other criminal cases (Rodney King, for example), there are, as far as I know, no large groups of protesters led by major political activists are demanding that he be let off. He will not win a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the cops, like King did. In other words, anyone who claims that the sort of violence he employed against women is encouraged, or even condoned, can't find much evidence to support their argument by looking at this case. In fact, this case seems to support the idea that if the evidence is there to convict them, the Canadian legal system goes after those who engage in violence against women.  

You use the phrase "only 8 to 11 years," as if this was an insignificant sentence. I don't know enough about Canadian law to put this in perspective. What, for example, is the typical sentence given for manslaughter? How many years would someone who killed another person with their car while driving drunk typically serve? What other crimes typically incur a sentence of 8-11 years? Knowing this would go a long way towards helping me understand what an 8-11 year sentence means in  Canadian terms.

BTW, what idealism is it that you think we should lose? This was unclear.

You say that to the best of your knowledge the police do not make rape cases a priority. What cases then do they make a priority, in your experience, or based on statistical evidence?      

I think that it is terrrible that some those who are truthfully accusing others of rape are themself accused of lying. I do think that it is perfectly reasonable though, for the police to not automatically believe eveyone who accuses someone else of a crime. I think that it is the duty of law enforcement to carefully gather evidence after being informed about a possible crime, and try not to rush to judgement against anyone, until significant evidence is found. Not automatically taking an accuser's word as the truth is important, as the case of the husband who had his "crazy" wife locked up shows.

BTW, numerous women in the U.S. who want to end their marriage and get custody make accusations that their husband have been molesting their children. This prevents the father from seeing their kids, can lead to a nasty encounter with the legal system for the dad, and can hurt him in many other ways. Women are not the only people who have to contend with problematic treatment by the judicial system. And, as you know, some rape accusations are false. It is important for the cops to try to not rush to judgement, as I said before.  One should not automatically accept accusations as facts.  

I could address some other points of yours, but this is enough to discuss for the moment.

Marco
Logged
linda
Guest
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2003, 02:22:29 AM »

Hi Ony,

Touting martial arts as a special tool to empower all women seems unwise. It's not a magic bullet. MA are not for everyone. And, MA and self-protection aren't always the same thing. Training any old MA won't necessarily do any good. Ditto for some one-hour SP seminar. Extensive training in a street based system earns you better odds; but it's no guarantee. As for rape, your average MA class will hardly touch upon any rape awareness material. There are integrated MA/SP/rape education courses for women. Does every woman who takes one of these walk away empowered & prepared? I doubt it. Do some walk away with a false sense of security? Probably.

I vehemently disagree with you about society condoning & encouraging violence against women. So, that renders the media-based propagation topic moot. Hmm, maybe this is a good point to agree to disagree!  Smiley  

Besides, getting past the sociological banter may allow for more interesting technical discussions. How about: how do the past violent experiences of women AND men impact the way they train? A few related questions for starters: As a teacher or fellow student how do you handle their discomfort w/ some ranges or weapons? Class format & intensity level? What role does the severity or frequency of the past attack(s) play in their progress? Relative to other students, how are their short and long term training goals different? I realize that ultimately, everyone has unique skills and challenges in training, independent of their history w/ violence. But I am curious about people's experiences w/ the above.      

One last thing. Living in fear and living with awareness are TOTALLY DIFFERENT. The former is a reaction, the latter a skill.  A skill  professionals, like LEOs, hone to stay alive. I far prefer the latter and know plenty of men & women who do too.  Nobody has to live in fear!

Smiley Linda
Logged
Anonymous
Guest
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2003, 11:47:21 AM »

Ony wrote: I understand what you say Guro Crafty about the male experience of using violence to overthrow the alpha-male as Jane describes of the apes. But I hope you are not using sexual selection (i.e. male-male competition) in the vain of Social Darwinism, because that's definitely a slippery slope as evidenced by "the Jewish Solution".

      Ony, that is a huge leap to go from Jane Goodall's observations of male dominance to the "Jewish Solution."  Who is sliding down the "slippery slope" here?  Guro Crafty or you?  I'd have to say it was you, to be honest.

Furhtermore, I am still not convinced that men experience more violence than women.

     No?  Check Department of Justice stats.  Males kill males with far greater prevalence.   Violent sports are dominated by men (no intended crack on either gender or on combative sports here, its merely an observation).  Male rape in prisons may outstrip female rape in the general population...but that hasn't been confirmed.

Finally, in terms of violence against women being socially acceptable, I see this evidenced not only by the fact that 1 woman in Canada will be raped every 17 minutes; but also by the fact that pornography, media images of women, insulting jokes, and comments made to us or about us contribute to this society which fails to disapprove of violence against women (see Vancouver Rape Relief's 'The truth As We Know It').

   Can't speak for Canada (being from the U.S.), but I disagree with the porn/violence connection.  Most porn isn't violent.  Insulting jokes aren't as common as one would think, and the vulgar ones typically don't encourage violent or assaultive behavior.  Ditto media images.

   This tends to be a fringe feminist perspective, demonizing society's presentations of women as rabid contribitions to a pro-rape mentality among men.  For the porn angle on this, I'd recommend "Defending Pornography", an intelligent and well written book by Nadine Strossen, a feminist and 1st Amendment advocate.  She's also president of the ACLU...but don't let that scare anybody.  Its a good book.



Hardheadjarhead
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2003, 05:37:34 PM »

>You use the phrase "only 8 to 11 years," as if this was an
>insignificant sentence.

8-11 years is by no means insignificant, but his victim is going to
have to live with what he did for much longer.  I don't know about
Canadian sentencing guidelines, but in the US we give perpetrators of
relatively harmless crimes (like drug dealers) stiffer sentences than
that.  John Walker Lindh was given 20 years just for being in the
wrong place at the wrong time.

>BTW, what idealism is it that you think we should lose? This was
>unclear.

I think she was referring to the idealism which holds that violence
against women can be and is being adequately addressed by the
criminal justice system, and is not a systemic or social problem.  

I don't think you have to be a feminist to argue that a criminal
justice system administered predominantly by males isn't going to
take crimes who's victims are predominanly females as seriously, or
treat them with the same sensitivity they would treat victims of
crimes they can see themselves as ever being the vitcim of.

If man accuses another man of raping him, there's going to be little
question of whether or not it was actually a rape, at least if we're
talking about a heterosexual man.  OTOH, unless she's a nun, a woman
who accuses a man of raping her is going to be subjected to a barrage
of humiliating questions.  She can expect to be asked whether she's
ever been into "rough sex," what she was wearing at the time, why she
was walking alone at night, and other questions intended to suggest
that y'know, maybe she wanted it.

>I do think that it is perfectly reasonable though, for the police to
>not automatically believe eveyone who accuses someone else of a
>crime. I think that it is the duty of law enforcement to carefully
>gather evidence after being informed about a possible crime, and try
>not to rush to judgement against anyone, until significant evidence
>is found. Not automatically taking an accuser's word as the truth is
>important, as the case of the husband who had his "crazy" wife locked
>up shows.

Couldn't agree more.  Of course everybody should be considered
innocent until proven guilty.  I think women are just sick of being
told that they're the ones responsible for making sure they don't do
or wear whatever could provoke a rapist.  As though men can't
reasonably be expected to resist the temptation to force a woman to
have sex with them if she walks alone at night or wears a tight skirt.

>BTW, numerous women in the U.S. who want to end their marriage and
>get custody make accusations that their husband have been molesting
>their children. This prevents the father from seeing their kids, can
>lead to a nasty encounter with the legal system for the dad, and can
>hurt him in many other ways.

I agree that's pretty freakin' bad, since you can probably get a
restaining order just on the basis of the accusation, but come on.
How often does this type of thing really happen?  I imagine such a
charge is pretty tough to prove.  A disgruntled Mom might be able to
cajole her kid into saying "Daddy touched me in a bad place," but
it's quite another thing (and pretty sick) to coach a kid well enough
to convince a professional child counselor that he's actually been
molested.

>Women are not the only people who have to contend with problematic
>treatment by the judicial system. And, as you know, some rape
>accusations are false.

True.  I think there should be severe penalties for accusing somebody
of a crime whom you *know* didn't do it.  I also think it's wrong for
a 19 year old man to have his name on a "sexual predator" list for
the rest of his life just because he dated a 16 year old girl whose
parents didn't like him.

Rog
Logged
anon
Guest
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2003, 05:45:05 PM »

Well they don't call them wife beaters for nothing !!!

 huh
Logged
linda
Guest
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2003, 09:26:03 PM »

Hey Rog!  

Ah well. So much for trying to get the ball rolling in a different direction. Sociological banter here I come...

Rog, I'm not up on my sentencing facts, so I'll limit my scope to your Lindh example. Not a great example. He isn't exactly representative of your average ordinary criminal case in the US. Although, there may very well be better cases to support your argument. I just don't know what they are.  Smiley

I see your point about a lack of empathy from those administering justice. BUT, I doubt male victims of rape or other violent crimes view it as a warm & friendly system. Why? B/c, the justice system is not run by victims. To me, that's the more pertinent issue concerning the treatment of victims. Honestly, how many men would be comfortable telling the police that he, an adult male, was raped? Might he be afraid they're going to treat him as some 2nd-class-emasculated-sissy-male for not defending himself? He's in for some pretty uncomfortable questions too. The same goes for men beaten by women.  And I honestly wonder if more men than women under-report being victims of violent crimes?  Afterall, is running to the police (read: mommy) considered the "manly" thing to do?  

The system is not perfect. No argument there. But I'm uncomfortable w/ the "blame the system/society first and foremost" approach. So many people take it as a cue to give up ALL personal accountability for their actions & inactions. I view public safety institutions like police, fire, paramedicine, and the justice system as back ups. For when, despite your best efforts, bad things have happened. Paramedics should be called for emergencies, not b/c someone was too lazy, afraid, cheap, or any combination thereof, to go to the doctor earlier. People living in high fire risk areas should clear their land of dead vegetation at the end of spring;  rather than call the fire dept when the fire is at their door.  Common sense.  The same goes for crime - all crimes against all people. Now, I am absolutely not suggesting that we blame the victims. Not at all. I just think that if people were more conscious of and responsible for their own safety, we would have fewer victims.

Personally, I wear & do whatever I want. I go wherever I want. Why? B/c I prepare myself for the consequences. IMHO, most things in life are largely a matter of taking calculated risks. And I figure, the better prepared I am, the more I can factor into the equation. I prefer to give myself freedom rather than demand it from others.

Just my two cents. See ya!  Smiley

Linda
Logged
Crafty Dog
Guest
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2003, 07:54:23 AM »

Woof All:

"I prefer to give myself freedom rather than demand it from others."

No time to comment on various points in this thread, but this is right on.

Crafty Dog
Logged
Lynda
Guest
« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2003, 01:12:51 PM »

Linda, spot on.

This discussion isn?t new, but it?s always interesting.  To address the original premise, violence is inherently human regardless of gender so I think we can all understand and accept it to a degree, such as in the case of a schoolyard fight.  I do not, however, think it is purposefully encouraged to ?keep women in their place.?  

As a female MA-ist who has had her share of run-ins and fights from all genders in multiple countries (despite best efforts to duck and dodge), and aware of the differences between male and female bodies, I humbly submit that violence is equal opportunity.  

I am also a strong advocate of personal accountability and am dismayed and thoroughly disgusted by the ?victim culture? that seems to pervade the US legal system (anyone recall the lawsuit filed by a fat person against McDonald?s for making him fat?).  

Martial arts can be a tool; no more, no less.  Its purpose and validation as a tool of empowerment depends entirely on the user.  

There was a particularly lively discussion of almost the same topic at another martial arts forum which includes the disparities of the treatment and dynamic of male/female violence.  

From that thread;
?I saw a quote from a woman who had been a POW in Desert Storm (and molested by the Iraquis): ?Male soldiers are just as likely to get raped as women -- women just get asked about it more.?

?Without question there is a bias in our legal system favoring women victimized by men. I don't think that bias "gives women a license" to kill necessarily. I think it merely acknowledges the physical difference between the sexes. Most self-defense discussions focus on the use of "equal force," but in situations where men attack women the level force isn't equal. Because of size/strength differences, women need to utilize a higher level of force in order to escape the conflict.?

Here is the link if anyone is interested in reading further.
http://www.bullshido.com/topic.asp?whichpage=1&TOPIC_ID=2864&FORUM_ID=2&CAT_ID=8&pollresults=0&Forum_Title=General+Discussion&Topic_Title=Levels+of+Violence&ReplyIDsNotFound=1&AllReplyIDs=1
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2003, 06:48:23 PM »

>This discussion isn?t new, but it?s always interesting. To address
>the original premise, violence is inherently human regardless of
>gender so I think we can all understand and accept it to a degree,
>such as in the case of a schoolyard fight. I do not, however, think
>it is purposefully encouraged to ?keep women in their place.?

I don't think it's explicitly encouraged, but I do think there are
widespread attitudes among men that:

1) A woman doesn't wear a skimpy or provocative outfit unless it's
because she wants sexual attention from men.

2) There are circumstances under which a woman is obligated to "put
out" for a man.

3) Women sometimes say no to sex when they really mean yes.

Furthermore (and I wish I had a good reference here), some studies
have shown that somewhere between 30-50% of college-age men surveyed
stated that were they guaranteed to face no legal consequences, they
would have no problem raping someone to whom they were sexually
attracted.  Some other studies have shown that men who watch films in
which violence is portrayed as cool or sexy, or in which women are
shown as being turned on by violent men, are more likely to hold one
or more of the attitudes listed above.

Now don't get me wrong here.  I'm not some ultra-PC mamby-pamby type,
and I'm not suggesting that "every man is a potential rapist" or any
such nonsense.  I like (some) violent movies as much as the next guy.
I do think though, that sex is used so often in our society to sell
us things, and is so often equated with things which have nothing to
do with sex juts to get our attention, that it should come as no
suprise that some people have some extremely unhealthy attitudes
towards sex and women specifically.

>I am also a strong advocate of personal accountability and am
>dismayed and thoroughly disgusted by the ?victim culture? that seems
>to pervade the US legal system (anyone recall the lawsuit filed by a
>fat person against McDonald?s for making him fat?).

Do you have any details of the case to which you refer above?  Or are
you simply dismissing it out of hand as "victim culture?"  I myself
thought it was a bunch of crap when McD's was getting sued by some
old woman who spilled coffee in her lap when coming out of the
drive-thru, but after examining the case more closely, the suit
didn't seem as unreasonable as I'd thought.

>Martial arts can be a tool; no more, no less. Its purpose and
>validation as a tool of empowerment depends entirely on the user.

Couldn't agree more.

Rog
Logged
linda
Guest
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2003, 07:37:15 PM »

Hi Rog!

Interesting points. I've loads of work to get through, so no rantings from me - yet. Smiley  But in the meantime, here's a little info on the McDonald's case. I'm fairly certain this is the case Lynda's referring to.  First link is to the opinion, second one is to the complaint. I haven't even had time to review the docs yet. Should be interesting though.  

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mcdonalds/plmnmcd12203opn.pdf

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mcdonalds/pelmanmcds21203acmp.pdf

Smiley Linda
Logged
Anonymous
Guest
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2003, 01:05:14 AM »

Woof All:

  So many points to comment on and so little time, so I will choose just one:

"I do think though, that sex is used so often in our society to sell
us things, and is so often equated with things which have nothing to
do with sex juts to get our attention, that it should come as no
suprise that some people have some extremely unhealthy attitudes
towards sex and women specifically."

This sounds quite reasonable; but what about Arabic and other Islamic cultures completely devoid of these uses of sexual imagery, yet which have some strange ideas e.g. in a climate of 120 degrees covering women up in potato sacks from head to toe?  Or that village in Pakistan that decreed a gang bang of a sister of a man convicted of walking unescorted with a girl of another family?!?  (So help me-- tis true!)

It would seem that we need look elsewhere for an explanation , , ,

Crafty Dog
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2003, 12:41:54 PM »

>>I do think though, that sex is used so often in our society to sell
>>us things, and is so often equated with things which have nothing to
>>do with sex juts to get our attention, that it should come as no
>>suprise that some people have some extremely unhealthy attitudes
>>towards sex and women specifically.
>
>This sounds quite reasonable; but what about Arabic and other Islamic
>cultures completely devoid of these uses of sexual imagery, yet which
>have some strange ideas e.g. in a climate of 120 degrees covering
>women up in potato sacks from head to toe? Or that village in
>Pakistan that decreed a gang bang of a sister of a man convicted of
>walking unescorted with a girl of another family?!? (So help me-- tis
>true!)
>
>It would seem that we need look elsewhere for an explanation...

No disagreement from me here...  Whether you (not you personally, of
course) claim that a woman "asked for it" because she wore some
skimpy outfit or you make it illegal for women to wear skimpy outfits
at all, the message is the same: rapes happen because women aren't
careful enough about making sure not to provoke them.  

Besides, I'm not convinced that the Islamic fundamentalist "solution"
actually even results in lower incidents of rape.  I imagine that a
society completely devoid of sexual imagery is just as likely as one
which is immersed in it to result in f'd up attidues about sex and
women.

What really disturbs me the most is that so many young men say they
would have no moral problem with committing rape if they knew they
could get away with it.  This reminds of something I once read about
Germans who personally took part in Nazi atrocities.  Some of them
were total psychos to begin with for sure, but when normal
constraints on such behaviors were removed (indeed these acts were
encouraged and rewarded), we saw people who would otherwise never
think of raping, torturing, or murdering anybody do so with gusto.
Then after the war was over, the ones who didn't get killed or caught
just quiety returned to the lives they had before the war.

Rog
Logged
Crafty Dog
Guest
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2003, 03:02:01 PM »

Rog et al:

"Whether one claims (syntax edited) that a woman "asked for it" because she wore some skimpy outfit or you make it illegal for women to wear skimpy outfits at all, the message is the same: rapes happen because women aren't careful enough about making sure not to provoke them."

This is interesting.  

I grew up in NYC.  The criminals, many of whom then were heroin addicts and today are crackheads, were and are like lions at a waterhole-- a fact of life.  People who did stupid things that left themselves vulnerable to street crime were considered stupid.  No it wasn't right that the criminals did it, but you were stupid if you left yourself vulnerable.

Just like street crime in NY, rapes happen.   Not only are they are great wrong, they are illegal, and when the rapist is caught and convicted he goes to prison?often for quite a long time.  

And just like walking down the street in NYC with regard to rapes too there are stupid things that a woman can do that dramatically raise the odds of her being the one to whom it happens.  If she is smart enough to know better, if we are not intimidated by PC pressures and apply the same standards we apply to all humans in other areas of life, in particularly egregious cases the question is raised ?What was she thinking?? And perhaps on some level was she asking for it?

This is not to say that she is not to be defended or that the rapist is to be let off the hook of his responsibility for his actions.  He is not.

Lacking the time I put aside the consideration of the cognitive dissonance of the considerations that a woman may face in how to act.   This is an important point and my brevity here is in no way intended to minimize it.   Perhaps someone else can flesh it out?

Woof,
Crafty Dog

PS:  Some 25 years ago and Mexican friend and I spent 3 days in a prison in San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico (i.e. quite near Guatemala) for defending two blonde American girls who were walking in shorts after dark in a part of the world where blondes excite strong sexual energy, where women don't wear shorts (or pants for that matter) where young women walking unescorted after dark are considered questionable etc. etc.    Not two minutes before four locals, mistaking them for hookers, tried dragging them off, I had asked them if they would like to stop by the hotel to change into different clothes. (We had spent the day horseback riding.)  "On no," replied one, "these Macho Mexcian assholes will just have to learn that we can dress as we like."  

Now, that had been true enough when she and her friend took their shirts off during the course of the day "to tan" a bit-- my friend and I knew we were being teased as they bounced along on their horses-- but , , , well, , , , whoops , , , in the village that evening things were a little different.  

To underline a point, I didn't say "Well, they were asking for it" and leave them there.  I pulled out a belt buckle that served as brass knuckles and saved them. (a long and wild story involving car atennaes, coke bottles, a fleeing policeman and more is omitted here).  When the dust cleared, the leader of the four guys we fought with was the son of a local big man, and the police threw us in prison (not jail-- PRISON) wherein additional adventures were had.

yip-Crafty
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2003, 03:09:40 PM »

Interesting article in the context of our present discussion:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/05/08/hs.hazing/index.html

Two hazing victims say violence was surprising
Girls describe choking, kicking at football game ritual

NORTHBROOK, Illinois (CNN) --Two high school girls who had to be treated at the hospital after a hazing by older students said Thursday they had no idea that what was supposed to be a touch football game was going to be a violent attack.

"I was strangled and choked, and I was kicked in the head repeatedly," Lauren, a suburban Chicago high school junior, said.

Another, junior class member, Marina, said she was "repeatedly kicked and punched," adding "they kicked my tailbone to the point that it fractured."

The girls, identified only by first names, spoke to CNN about Sunday's incident at a local park near here which was supposed to be a touch football game between Glenbrook North High School junior and senior girls.

"This has been a tradition in our school, to play football, not [to] be beaten up and put into the hospital," Marina said.

The girls said they had been told they would not be physically harmed but might have to endure light hazing such as ketchup, mustard and whipped cream being smeared in their hair.

Three other girls were treated and released from Glenbrook Hospital, spokeswoman Karen Ganz told CNN Wednesday. Ganz declined to describe their injuries because the patients are minors.
Attorney compares attack to lynching

Police said criminal charges against the perpetrators could be filed Thursday or Friday. Authorities said an amateur videotape shot at the scene indicates premeditation because some of the attackers had baseball bats.

"We believe there was some premeditation on the part of some of the attackers to go after some specific victims," Rollin Soskin, an attorney representing Lauren and Marina, said appearing with them on CNN's "American Morning."

"Nobody brings a baseball bat or a paint pellet gun to a powder puff football game."

"This was a vicious attack," Soskin said. "This was a lynching."

The tape shows several students huddled together on the ground while others threw objects at them, including large plastic buckets.

One girl walks behind the seated girls and slaps them on the back of the head. Another girl holds up what appears to be an intestine. At least one girl reported having a pig's intestine wrapped around her neck.

Witnesses also reported that urine, feces and fish guts were thrown and others said they had been forced to eat mud.

"Basically it started out as a fun hazing like our initiation into our senior year," said a junior girl who had been injured. "About 10 minutes into it everything changed -- buckets were flying ... people were bleeding. Girls were unconscious."

Dozens of students had come to watch the event and some of them, including male bystanders, joined in.
Principal supports prosecution

The school's principal, Michael Riggle, said Wednesday the school supports criminal prosecution of the perpetrators.

"I feel that the behavior that went on was certainly extreme and I think that it does get into the point of criminal actions," Riggle told CNN. "The school is fully supportive of prosecution at this point."

But, Riggle said, the school's jurisdiction in the matter is "very limited" and it is up to the sheriff's department to press charges.

In 1979, there were problems with powder puff or touch football games and the school discontinued the games, which had been used as fund-raisers, Riggle said. Since then, the matches have been organized by the students.

"Quite honestly, we were shocked as everyone else was when we looked at this videotape," Riggle said.

But, Soskin did not absolve the school of responsibility, saying that although it was not a school-sanctioned event or on school property, school administrators certainly knew the game was going to take place.

The Cook County sheriff's department and the county's Forest Preserve District police are investigating the incident, which happened on Forest Preserve property near Northbrook.

Glenbrook North High School is in Northbrook, a suburb north of Chicago. Riggle agreed with a reporter's depiction of the school's students as being mainly "upper middle class," adding that some 85 percent go on to four-year colleges.

CNN Correspondent Whitney Casey contributed to this report.
Logged
~Ony
Guest
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2003, 02:20:52 AM »

Woof all!
i apologize for my apparent absence. (it is difficult to connect to the net without a computer...)
i want to appreciate rogt for the points you made above. your thoughts were very clear and i hope that others were persuaded by your ideas.

i would like to offer my response to the thread as a whole.

Idealism of law:
1. people who say courts are rigorously prosecuting rape cases are misdirected.
 - most rapes go unreported because they stay within the family or a tight community with remarkably strong shunning practices such that we are only know hearing aboriginal women speaking of the sexual assaults they experienced 20-30 years ago.  We only know from the reported  cases that 1 in 4 women will be raped at some point in her life.  (Remember: these rapes are not all by the same man)
2. the fact that there are laws  with (in theory) harsh punishments, and that this is evidencethat society does not condone violence against women is naive.
 - it costs $ to enforce laws even IF there are not the socially encouraged constrainsts that prevent exposure/expression of violence against women.
[N.B. when we remain unquestioning, we passively condone, and ultimately encourage...classism, racism, sexism, violence against women]
--in terms of rape cases being a priority, having serious penalties (IF convicted)...how can cops be effective when the federal government is so ruthlessly cutting back on taxes that pay for the public servants to enforce our laws? (a relevant issue not only to Vancouverites but also to S-W USA....prima facie, the onus is on the american/canadian to prove that the enforcement mechanisms are strong despite radical cut-backs by Mike Harris, Bush). and how supportive are the police when women do report rapes? are they going to be able to have the psychologists and therapists that the Toronto police have? (I suspect those roles will be the first cut)
3. of course all this discourse isolates women's experience of violence from the lives of women everywhere, especially right now the women of war.  
 -  we know that rape has been a common phenomenon in every war and that it was even a military policy in some (e.g. male Christian Serbs raped female Bosnian muslims as a tactic to 'degrade' the communal infrastructure)
-- why has the media in the USA (eg. CNN) and in Canada (CTV) been so silent with this issue, when the paradigm of war dictates that men "rape, kill and pillage"?

Background
My ethics is feminist and so to me, the personal is political, the political personal.  As a feminist (and therefore taking 'political action'), I opened this thread to give an alternate analysis of Ji-Won Park on the personal level and pn a political level, an analysis of the dominant androcentric paradigm .
[N.B. K. Morgan describes the androcentric paradigm as "the normativity of white male experience" (1998)].
FYI: Feminist ethics and social justice presupposes that the oppression of women (and other minority) as a group is morally and politically unjust and must be addressed.
Thus, I offer a feminist discourse/episteme (system of knowledge) because I want to challenge the inherent power differential embedded in institutions (such as law, and ultimately language) which privilege one group over and above another.
NOTE: I do not want to perpetuate this Western dichotomy and therefore I will refrain from continuing what seems to be a competition between violence against men versus violence against women. (Remember: I entitled this thread 'Violence against women' with specific intentions. I am willing to have that kind of discussion in another thread).

what's at stake?
(ultimately, a long philosophical discussion on freedom and responsibility, the psychology of dominance, social justice and oppression/privilege.)
Yes, "every man is a rapist"
And no, not every man rapes!
Many of you spoke of "Protection" -
I can understand that men want to be treated by women as if they were in the category of protecting us from those 'other' men.  But why do men expect us to begin with an assumption of trust?
- the dangerous men are not visibly identifiable: we know them as our fathers, our brothers, our husbands, our teachers, our doctors, our friends. Sad

caution:
I hesitate to use the term "victim-culture" because as many women might tell you, they are 'survivors' of sexual assault and would never want to be considered a victim.
Logged
Anonymous
Guest
« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2003, 01:40:47 PM »

~Ony" said...

"idealism of law:
1. people who say courts are rigorously prosecuting rape cases are misdirected."

You accused one or more people on this forum of being "overly idealistic." No one here claimed or implied that any crime of any sort was or is being "rigorously prosecuted."        
 
"It costs $ to enforce laws even IF there are not the socially encouraged constrainsts that prevent exposure/expression of violence against women.
How can cops be effective when the federal government is so ruthlessly cutting back on taxes that pay for the public servants to enforce our laws?"

Even assuming one agrees with you views on taxes, how does this deal specifically with rape? It seems to me that even if tax cuts end up having an impact on law enforcement, it impacts _all_ law enforcement efforts, and not just on rape investigations. Wouldn't this also impact homicide investigations, for example? Do you have any evidence that it would _disproportionatly_ impact rape investigations?    

 
"We know that rape has been a common phenomenon in every war and that it was even a military policy in some (e.g. male Christian Serbs raped female Bosnian muslims as a tactic to 'degrade' the communal infrastructure)"

_You_ may know that "rape was a common phenomenon in every war," but do you have evidence that rape by the Americans or Brits was a common phenomenon in either of the Gulf Wars? I've heard that it was also very rare during the American Revolutionary War and Ameican Civil War. Do you have evidence that proves otherwise?  

 "But why do men expect us to begin with an assumption of trust?"

I'm a guy, and _I_ don't begin with an assumption of trust when I meet a stranger, and my trust is also limited in various ways even with most people I've known for a long time.  I've never heard anyone say that a person should assume others are automatically to be trusted.

I asked a few questions of you in my May 3rd post. As you are interested in discussion, could you answer them please? I'll post them again, for your convenience.

You use the phrase "only 8 to 11 years," as if this was an insignificant sentence. I don't know enough about Canadian law to put this in perspective. What, for example, is the typical sentence given for manslaughter? How many years would someone who killed another person with their car while driving drunk typically serve? What other crimes typically incur a sentence of 8-11 years? Knowing this would go a long way towards helping me understand what an 8-11 year sentence means in Canadian terms.
 
 You say that to the best of your knowledge the police do not make rape cases a priority. What cases then do they make a priority, in your experience, or based on statistical evidence?

Marco
Logged
Crafty Dog
Guest
« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2003, 03:45:04 PM »

Ony et al:

Not to distract from Marco's focusing of the discussion immediately above, but I thought I would comment on this point briefly:

")...how can cops be effective when the federal government is so ruthlessly cutting back on taxes that pay for the public servants to enforce our laws? (a relevant issue not only to Vancouverites but also to S-W USA....prima facie, the onus is on the american/canadian to prove that the enforcement mechanisms are strong despite radical cut-backs by Mike Harris, Bush)"

Not sure how things work in Canada, but two points here:

1) Under President Bush federal spending has INCREASED by an average of 11% a year.  (I vigorously oppose this BTW).  

2) Rape is a matter for the States and state police forces and thus federal spending is basically irrelevant.

There are some other points I'll get to later if I have the time.

Crafty
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2003, 06:46:18 PM »

>>We know that rape has been a common phenomenon in every war and that
>>it was even a military policy in some (e.g. male Christian Serbs
>>raped female Bosnian muslims as a tactic to 'degrade' the communal
>>infrastructure)"
>
>_You_ may know that "rape was a common phenomenon in every war," but
>do you have evidence that rape by the Americans or Brits was a common
>phenomenon in either of the Gulf Wars? I've heard that it was also
>very rare during the American Revolutionary War and Ameican Civil
>War. Do you have evidence that proves otherwise?

I don't know how common it was, but I believe US soldiers did commit
rapes of indigenous women during the Vietnam War, as well as during
our war in the Phillipines in the late 1800s.  It's even worse if you
include rapes committed (of which some of the victims were nuns) by
US proxy forces in various Latin American nations from the 50s up
through at least the late 80s.

But you're right, rapes don't necessarily happen in all wars.
They're just one of a set of special tactics used under circumstances
where it becomes necessary to terrorize the civilian population, most
often to erode their willingness to support any resistance to the invading forces.

>>But why do men expect us to begin with an assumption of trust?
>
>I'm a guy, and _I_ don't begin with an assumption of trust when I
>meet a stranger, and my trust is also limited in various ways even
>with most people I've known for a long time. I've never heard anyone
>say that a person should assume others are automatically to be
>trusted.

Of course this is the logical, rational way to think, but come on!
Regarding date rape specifically, when you're on a date with somebody
you like, who's putting their best foot forward and trying to get you
to feel comfortable around them, you're not thinking that they could
turn out to be a psycho.  This person is trying to make you like
them, is trying to get you to trust them.  You won't know whether or
not they're a rapist until you start messing around.

Some interesting stats (with references cited) are at:

http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/article.php/7498

It's no coincidence that 85% of campus rapes are date rapes, and 84%
of college men who've committed date rape say that what they did was
definitely not rape.  Also according to this data, 40% of men
surveyed say that they would commit rape "under certain
circumstances."

Rog
Logged
~Ony
Guest
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2003, 09:58:24 PM »

Marco...
I don't have enough time to answer all of your q'ns right now but I will share a recent piece of news....
yesterday it was determined that a man who killed a 13 year girl while driving is only being sentenced to 14 months because the 'dangerous driving' charge was dropped for lack of sufficient evidence that he was under the influence. (this news was in the paper on Friday in Vancouver's The Province)..
It is a fact that the girl is dead. And yet, this man will lose not even a year of his life.  So now, with this news, how can I expect anything stronger for cases with even less "evidence", like rape where the "facts" are more often than not, questioned?

peace,
Ony
Logged
Crafty Dog
Guest
?
« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2003, 09:36:27 AM »

Hi Ony:

  I'm confused.  Some questions:

1) What was the guy convicted of?

2) Are you suggesting that sufficient evidence shouldn't be required?

2)  Isn't 14 months greater than "not even a year"?   Tongue

However please put these questions to the end of the line of the ones already pending in response to your prior posts   Tongue

Crafty
Logged
Anonymous
Guest
« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2003, 03:08:49 PM »

Quote from: ~Ony
Marco...
I don't have enough time to answer all of your q'ns right now but I will share a recent piece of news....
yesterday it was determined that a man who killed a 13 year girl while driving is only being sentenced to 14 months because the 'dangerous driving' charge was dropped for lack of sufficient evidence that he was under the influence. (this news was in the paper on Friday in Vancouver's The Province)..
It is a fact that the girl is dead. And yet, this man will lose not even a year of his life.  So now, with this news, how can I expect anything stronger for cases with even less "evidence", like rape where the "facts" are more often than not, questioned?

peace,
Ony


You have to be drunk to be considered to be driving dangerously in Canada? That's pretty odd. Like Crafty, I'd like to know what this guy was charged with in the end.

For personal reasons I am particularly unhappy about the light sentences I've tended to see for those who have hurt or killed others while driving drunk. OTOH, you have mentioned that the assailant in the case you brought up in your first post may well be charged with 8-11 years. This implies that, under Canada's laws, the perp in question will serve far more time for his rape/assault than someone who actually killed another human being.

This would tend to support the argument that society's institutions do in fact treat rapists with something other than kid gloves. In fact, according to you, killers may serve less time than rapists. Also, I doubt that either perp will receive any appreciable support from the public, which is as it should be. Society does not approve of either sort fo behavior.  

Marco
Logged
~Ony
Guest
« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2003, 10:17:51 PM »

Ji-Won Park's lawyer is asking for 8-11 years but my point is that the chances of that happening are incredibly minimal for the very reason that a man who killed a girl will be getting 14 months tops (both stories are still in the judicial process and questions for which I cannot answer as of yet)....

I disagree with using the analogy of street crime in NY to rape. I am a strong advocate for human responsibility and owning our actions/decisions and so to that extent I appreciate your point Guro re: street crime. Nevertheless, the analogy raises an issue I 've been meaning to address.  There is a a myth about rape that underlies the aforementioned comment: the myth is that rape is being committed by 'crazy' violent criminals in dangerous parts of the city.
The unfortunate thing about the media in my view is the fact that the media perpetuates such a myth by delivering only those stories of rape in which the woman is brutally attacked by some random psycho, usually at night.  In fact, the 1 in 4 women who will be raped in their lifetime will be raped in their homes, his home or his car.  And who is the rapist? Her father, her brother, her husband, her lover, her son.  
In fact, it might even be safer for me to be walking alone at night in Venice Beach or the Downtown Eastside than to be at home with my grandfather.  
I believe that it is this myth that feminists are trying to expose when they make the statement, as I explained in more detail above, that "all men are potential rapists".  As well, it is very important to flush out the assumption of trust inherent in statements made about men 'protecting' women from rapists because rapes are not random acts of violence (i.e. being in the wrong place at the wrong time and wearing the wrong thing).  If there were not such an assumption, as someone suggested above, then why is it that I risk offending when I say that 'all men are potential rapists'?  I am questioning the assumptions inherent in the dominant androcentric paradigm because it is only when we question our system of knowledge that we can create what Kuhn describes as a a "paradigm shift".
Logged
Crafty Dog
Guest
« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2003, 01:31:43 AM »

Woof Ony, Rog et al:

1)  Ony, I still completely fail to follow your reasoning on this matter of comparing the 14 month sentence in what is, as best as I can tell from your description, a fatal traffic accident and sentencing for rape.  Again, what was the charge on which the man was convicted?
 
2) Concerning the definition of rape:  First, major kudos to Rog for providing the source of his data.  This is quite rare and I sincerely commend him.  However he left out the best one of all:  

"73% of those forced to have sex fail to recognize their experience as rape."

Go look folks! Its right there in his cited piece.  I had remembered reading this some time ago, but my memory failed me as to the asserted number and I thank Rog for providing it.

That said, the thought behind this number is is pretty special and takes us into a dimension where rational thought no longer applies.  It also makes clear the utterly political nature of the data.  

As for the rest of it, it may or may not be true, but I am reminded of the datum that 93.4792% of all data is made up.

3)  I appreciate the point about rape and date rape.   I do disagree with Ony about the rarity if violent rape. A close family member of mine was raped by a man who broke into her apt in NYC and as I related above, I spent 3 days (and it easily could have been more) in a Mexican prison for, as best as I can tell, preventing the rape of two silly American cockteasers.  Perhaps my life experience is a statistical aberration, but with data like "73% of those forced to have sex fail to recognize their experience as rape" I wouldn't know how to tell.

As for the ugly cases (fathers, step-fathers, etc) that are indeed out there, they are truly ugly.  But if an evening with your grandfather is equally dangerous to walking alone in Venice Beach late at night, my sense of the world is that the statistical aberration is your grandfather.   BTW does he know that you think this of him?  

As for date rape,  I thoroughly agree with the point that there is a place where a goodly percentage of men are dangerous.  THAT'S RIGHT-- and that's why if a woman goes there questions are raised-- because most women know this.  No paradigm shift required.

Anyway, my wife has the flu (Happy Mother's Day Cindy!) and our 11 month old daughter is beginning to cry.  Gotta go.

Crafty Dog
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2003, 03:54:26 PM »

>Concerning the definition of rape: First, major kudos to Rog for
>providing the source of his data. This is quite rare and I sincerely
>commend him. However he left out the best one of all:
>
>"73% of those forced to have sex fail to recognize their experience
>as rape."
>
>Go look folks! Its right there in his cited piece. I had remembered
>reading this some time ago, but my memory failed me as to the
>asserted number and I thank Rog for providing it.
>
>That said, the thought behind this number is is pretty special and
>takes us into a dimension where rational thought no longer applies.
>It also makes clear the utterly political nature of the data.

Yeah, I have to admit that even I was a little bit suspect of that
particular stat.  However, I don't think it's an attempt to
artificially inflate the frequency with which rapes occur in order to
push some political agenda.  My interpretation is that many victims
of certain types of non-consentual sex are hesitant to call it rape
because maybe they knew the perpetrator, and actually did consent to
doing other "things," but didn't want to have sex.  If the victim is
a child, then chances are he doesn't even know what sex is, let alone
rape.

The point is that we're largely conditioned to see only obviously
forced sex by one or more random psychos (like in the "Death Wish"
movies) as "rape."  It gets more complicated the better the victim
and perpetrator know each other, and how much consentual stuff went
on before it got non-consentual.

>I spent 3 days (and it easily could have been more) in a Mexican
>prison for, as best as I can tell, preventing the rape of two silly
>American cockteasers.

Assuming it went down like you said (and I have no reason to think it
didn't), then yeah, those chicks were pretty stupid, and it's a good
thing for them that you were there.  However, I'm sure you'll agree
that we all do stupid things sometimes (especially when we're young),
and that nobody deserves to get raped just for being stupid.

>As for date rape, I thoroughly agree with the point that there is a
>place where a goodly percentage of men are dangerous. THAT'S RIGHT--
>and that's why if a woman goes there questions are raised-- because
>most women know this. No paradigm shift required.

Sure, it's only fair that questions be raised in that situation.
Questions meant to determine how far things went before she decided
she wanted to go no further, how she let him know and how he
responded, whether or not they were drunk/stoned, and whether she
consented at the time but later regretted it are perfectly
appropriate.  What's not appropriate are questions about her sexual
history, how she dresses, or any other questions intended to suggest
that the perpetrator had some reason to think she implicitly wanted
it regardless of what she explicitly told him.

Rog
Logged
linda
Guest
« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2003, 07:24:07 PM »

Hi Rog, Ony et al.

Wow, lots of points to cover. The bolded phrases are my attempt to increase readability (ie skip what you want). I know I'll sacrifice some sensitivity in the interest of brevity. Oh well  - rambling seems the crueler option.  

IMHO, violence against humans, be they females, males, or transgenders of any race, class, and age, is all related. Related, as in, humans are imperfect and violent creatures. So you'll inevitably have to consider the larger picture; even if your only goal is reducing violence against women.

Use of the term victim. Ok, I'll respect that, survivor it is. But replacing "victim" with "survivor" in my earlier post doesn't alter my point on personal accountability. Also, some people seem to automatically equate "survivor" with "hero." I think they're mistaken. Not all survivors are heroes and not all heroes survive. I mean this for survivors of any ordeal.
 
Sentencing stat sources.  Using cases with high media coverage may not give you the best examples to work with if you're trying to illustrate that what is the norm is chronically problematic.  The fact that the case is in the news generally indicates there is something unusual about it. Ony, the police or the Canadian equivalent of a District Attorney's Office can probably give you more complete stats or tell you where to look.

Ji-won v 14 yr old What Ony has shared leads me to believe that the only thing these two cases have in common is that the survivor and the deceased are women. My understanding, though limited, of the criminal justice system (in the US) and its sentencing guidelines is that the sentences are based on much more than the gender of the survivor or deceased.

Funding. As I mentioned before, public safety institutions are back-ups. If more people actively maintained their personal safety and well-being, there would be less of a financial strain on these institutions & funding wouldn't be so problematic.
 
Assumption of trust. I don't begin with an assumption of trust OR distrust. Indeed, I try not to assume too much of anyone - be they strangers or even old friends since people (myself included) change over time, like everything else. I have a better shot at seeing and understanding people's actions for what they really are that way.
 
Date rape. Wanting a guy to like you and his wanting you to like him isn't license for both of you to become devoid of sound judgment. This can be difficult terrain to negotiate, but difficult is a long ways away from impossible. I agree w/ Rog that nobody DESERVES to get raped for being stupid.  However, I'll add that engaging in stupid behavior does increase the likelihood of getting raped.  And how much stupid behavior one engages in is an entirely personal decision.

Also, the guys from the rape survey would probably rob banks and murder people "under certain circumstances." People with unhealthy attitudes towards women & sex usually have unhealthy attitudes about themselves & the consequences of their actions. I also wonder how they'd respond if told that the women would bear no responsibility for any actions "under certain circumstances," including after a rape.  
 
Rape & war. Agreed - it's hideous. The following does not justify ANYTHING, ONE BIT; it's a mere exercise in perspective. In these wars, for every woman raped, how many men died? Of those men, how many were not volunteers? Of the volunteers, how many were swayed to fight by political pressures or social expectations?  After they were finally in the thick of it, how many wished they hadn't volunteered? Revisit: humans are violent & imperfect creatures.

All men are potential rapists.
And I think all humans are potential murderers...
   
"...we must refrain from the human tendency to always see ourselves as good people."
 
Nori Ito, a Buddhist minister stated the above in a discussion regarding the difficulties of pacifism, but it seems applicable here.

My take on this, applied in a more general sense, is that part of the default asumption that people are inherently good includes the assumption that oneself is also inherently good.  I think this perspective decreases the sense of personal responsibility in individuals, which I think increases the likelihood of someone engaging in stupid, risky behavior with greater frequency, thereby increasing the opportunities for stupid risk-taking criminals to commit crimes, and this usually translates into MORE CRIMES.   Because: humans (read: men AND women) are violent & imperfect creatures.  

Ok, this violent, imperfect creature is signing off (to go learn a little jujitsu!)
Smiley Linda
Logged
Crafty Dog
Guest
« Reply #31 on: May 12, 2003, 08:12:46 PM »

Woof Linda:

  Great post!

Woof,
Crafty
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2003, 03:03:30 PM »

Hi Linda!  Smiley

>Also, the guys from the rape survey would probably rob banks and
>murder people "under certain circumstances."

I dunno...  Saying you'd rob a bank if you could get away with it is
about the same as saying that you'd just pocket an envelope full of
$100 bills if you found it on street instead of turning it in to the
cops.  But by saying you'd commit rape if you could get away with it,
you're saying that you don't see a woman as a human being deserving
of the same respect as you, but as a piece of property for you to
simply take in the absence of anybody willing or able to stop you
from doing so.  I'm not saying people should be locked up for how
they answer survey questions, but the kind of man who is unable to
resist the temptation to use his superior strength to simply take
what he wants from a woman (or anybody else) does not belong in
civilized society.

>Rape & war. Agreed - it's hideous. The following does not justify
>ANYTHING, ONE BIT; it's a mere exercise in perspective. In these
>wars, for every woman raped, how many men died? Of those men, how
>many were not volunteers? Of the volunteers, how many were swayed to
>fight by political pressures or social expectations? After they were
>finally in the thick of it, how many wished they hadn't volunteered?
>Revisit: humans are violent & imperfect creatures.

I don't think it can be simply written off as "humans are violent."
I think in most wars where soldiers (or paramilitaries) were raping
the vanquished, the practice had the implicit approval of their
commanders as a means of terrorizing the population.

For example, look at the recent rape scandal that went down at the US
Air Force Academy.  Four top academy officals, including the
superintendent and commandant of cadet training, were removed from
their positions (but not discharged) for having covered up dozens of
rapes and other incidents of sexual harssament of female cadets by
male cadets over a period of 10 years.  In several cases, women who
complained to their superiors or sought to file charges actually had
charges filed against them, while their assailants faced no
disciplinary action at all.  A 1997 survey revealed that 10% of
female cadets said they had been sexually assaulted within the past
10 months, 75% of whom said they would not report the incident for
fear of retribution.  A 1993 probe by the General Accounting Office
discovered systematic harassment of female cadets at all three
service academies.  If this is how future members of our elite
officer corp treat their female fellow cadets (with the tacit
approval of their commanders) what will likely be their attitudes
towards the civilian population of a country against whom they'll be
fighting a war later?

Rog
Logged
lynda
Guest
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2003, 04:54:42 PM »

From CNN today

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/13/academy.rape.ap/index.html

DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- An Air Force Academy cadet was charged Tuesday with raping and sodomizing a female cadet in a dorm room last fall.

Cadet Douglas Meester, a sophomore, is the first cadet to be charged with rape since a sex scandal broke at the academy earlier this year.

He was also charged with indecent assault and providing alcohol to two cadets in the Oct. 18 incident.

A freshman from Pennsylvania reported the alleged attack immediately and underwent a medical examination, lawyer Steve Werner said. He said she later was disciplined for fraternizing with older cadets and for drinking.

Werner had said he believed two cadets would be charged with rape, along with possibly another who allegedly knew about the attack but did not report it. Academy spokeswoman Pam Ancker said she did not know why only Meester was charged.

An Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a pre-trial hearing, was set for Wednesday to determine if Meester will face a court-martial.

The academy near Colorado Springs has been under scrutiny for months since dozens of female cadets said they were reprimanded or ostracized when they reported being raped. The school's top officers have been reassigned, and the Air Force and Defense Department are investigating.
Logged
lynda
Guest
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2003, 04:56:30 PM »

My point re: above article, the AF can and is changing.  Will post better response when I've another min to breathe.
Logged
sting
Power User
***
Posts: 290


« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2003, 05:41:31 PM »

>~Ony
>Finally, in terms of violence against women being socially acceptable, I >see this evidenced not only by the fact that 1 woman in Canada will be >raped every 17 minutes;

This is evidence of prevalence, not acceptability.  There are specific laws
that define such behavior to be a crime.  Likewise, pedestrians are run over by cars, but accident rates are not indicators of social acceptability.
If safety measures suddently reduce the accident rate, in your world, would such accidents become less socially acceptable.

As for the numbers, it would be more useful to relate Canadian rape rates to the population, which is about 30 Million according to the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia.  
Otherwise, you're playing the phone company bill game for your local service costs: $240/year, $20/month, $0.66/day, $0.027 / minute.   Which sounds cheapest to you?
Logged

Baltic Dog

Go Shin Jutsu Kenpo (Prof. Richard Lewis)
3rd Degree Black Belt Instructor

Bono JKD/Kajukenbo (Prof. John Bono)
Gentlemen's Fighting Club
linda
Guest
« Reply #36 on: May 13, 2003, 06:16:50 PM »

Hey Rog! Smiley

Keep found cash v bank robbery

Don't want to go off on too much of a tanget but I think the two are extremely different. In short, one is a violent crime, the other is not.  If my understanding is correct, there are even statutes differentiating lost & found property from stolen property.  

Slightly more in depth:

1) Intent.  You don't just "come across" robbing a bank. (Unless your attorney tells you otherwise...) There's pre-meditation involved.  A decision to go out & deprive someone of something.

2) Forcible deprivation of property.  This is an element missing from finding the cash since it's already lying there - someone neglected to care sufficiently for their property. Whereas with a bank, parties have gone to substantial extents to protect it.  DESPITE THIS, a robber decides to take it, usually with force.  

3) Violence. Quietly walking away with some cash is worlds apart from drawing guns on innocent people and threatening to kill them or actually killing/injuring them.  I'm sure there are survivors of bank robberies who feel like they lost a little more than cash that day. Heck, it's the bank that actually lost money...  

The two acts involve such different mindsets.  Also, when formulating your response, I notice you conveniently wink  cheesy forgot I included murder in my comment!  Sure, people who can't restrain themselves from committing these kinds of crimes shouldn't be part of civilized society, but the reality is THEY ARE.  Knowing this, I feel it's my responsibility to figure out how I'm going to deal with it.  

Paramilitaries. Aren't these the same ones in which commanders also implicitly condoned the abduction, torture & execution of civilians as part of the overall plan to terrorize the population?  I stand by "humans are violent."  

Cadets. Stats are not my strong suit, but if 10% of female cadets were raped, isn't that actually safer than being in the general population, which Ony stated has a stat of 1 in 4 (25%) women being raped?

I agree that the cover-ups and threats of retribution are inexcusable. However, I think the fact that it has been made public and that changes are being made bodes well, or at least better, for future cadets & conflicts in this regard.

Time permitting, more later.  MUST get back to work now.  

See ya!  
Smiley Linda
Logged
Crafty Dog
Guest
« Reply #37 on: May 15, 2003, 11:18:02 AM »

Woof All:

  Is this what all the sound and fury is about?

Crafty Dog

----------------------
LA Times: THE NATION
Female Cadet Testifies to Rape
An Air Force Academy freshman says she had been drinking and was semiconscious.

From Associated Press

AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. ? An Air Force Academy freshman testified during a military hearing Wednesday that she was raped by an older cadet after drinking shots of tequila with him in his dorm room.

The Pennsylvania woman said she drifted in and out of consciousness during the alleged attack, acknowledging that while she did not agree to have sex with the cadet, she did not physically resist.

"There was no way to fight him off. I did not feel like I was in control," she testified.

Both the woman and sophomore cadet Douglas Meester had blood-alcohol contents that were nearly double the level at which a motorist would be considered drunk, an investigator said later.

Near the end of the hearing, Meester was allowed to make a statement. He was not sworn.

"I am not a rapist," he said. "I am not a perfect cadet, perfect student or perfect person, but I am not a rapist."

He then addressed his family, and said he was thankful for the opportunity to attend the academy. But he said he believes he won't be allowed to return. He also said he hoped the woman who accused him of rape will continue her education there.

The woman, who was 18 at the time of the alleged assault Oct. 18, testified at a hearing to determine whether Meester should face a court-martial on charges of rape and sodomy, the first such charges since a sex scandal broke at the academy earlier this year. Meester also is charged with indecent assault and providing alcohol.
----------------
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #38 on: May 15, 2003, 06:49:55 PM »

While it's good that this cadet is actually being prosecuted, I wouldn't take it as evidence that the Air Force is making any genuine effort to reform itself in this area.  Let's not forget that it took several dozen of these incidents occuring over more than a decade in order for the Air Force's top commanders to finally decide that yeah, maybe they should take this problem seriously.

As was mentioned in one of the articles posted, the female cadet in question reported the incident immediately and was herself reprimanded for fraternizing with older cadets and drinking alcohol.  It's unclear whether or not Meester received any punishment, but I won't be surprised if it turns out that *no* discplinary action was taken against him.

Clearly the top brass knew this was going on.  Why do you suppose they did nothing about it for all this time?

Rog
Logged
LG Dog Russ
Guest
« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2003, 11:42:43 AM »

I want to thank you all for helping me think through a lot of these issues and for influencing my teaching with regards to self defense versus developing fighters.

This week I got a new student, a young woman who was beat and almost suffocated by her ex-boyfriend three years ago.  After hitting her in the face repreatedly, he pinched her nose shut and covered her mouth with his hand.  She said she didn't even know it was coming.  No time to react or try to pertect her self from the initial attack.  She did hit back, but at that point it was useless.  He was too strong for her and she was already a bit disoriented from his blows directly to her face.  The guy was a practicing martial artist....

I had her talk about his experience to my other students on Tuesday night.  They were convinced that after only 6 weeks of training, they could handle themselves!  She felt that even if she had some training, there was still little she could have done to protect herself once the attack began.  Its occurrance came as such a surprise and her attacker was able to easily overpower her due to his size and strength advantage.  Let's be honest here.  In fighting, size and strength do matter.  The more we develop our skills, hopefully the more we can find ways around this however.

I was given the opportunity last Fall to develop a curriculum to train a high school girl preparing to go to college next year.  The dicotomy between teaching self defense and developing a fighter played a huge role in what I chose to teach.  I don't like teaching your standard self defense material (ie. biting, pinching, eye gouging, groin striking) initially.  First, I think you need to develop the students environment awareness and confidence.  To this end, we began with boxing basics.

The first classes, we spent learning how to throw the basic punches and how to defend against them.  Inosanto Blend uses some great drills for this- the Repost material and what I like to call the Inosanto Gun Shy Drills.  Both of these allow the student to learn how to protect themselves under fire and return in the opening after or during the attack.  Protect your head-  Hmmm.... isn't that the #1 principle in DBMA?

I've had enough fights with drunk friends and Marines to know that eye gouging, kneeing, headbutting and even groin shots don't do much sometimes in a real fight!  They may help you get away, but that person is still able to fight nonetheless and will not stop because of the pain.

The idea behind starting with boxing is to develop the confidence to stand your ground, be able to recover from a hit, continue fighting and keep your wits about you.  I don't think you can really act like this without knowing that you have something solid like boxing fundamentals to fall back on if the shit hits the fan.  After that, you can add in the other self defense pieces gradually like the in-fighting, Kali footwork and environmental weapons.

If you don't have the luxury of time, then awareness is one key.  Teach people that they need to stop these attacks before they start by being aware of their surroundings and to be vocal about people they feel are getting uncomfortably close to their space.  In the case of many attacks though, the attacker is someone trusted.  It is unlikely that most people will be able to percieve these attacks.  Herein lies the problem.  If you don't train or are not a naturally tough person, how do youodeal with these attacks from boyfriends, fathers, uncles, friends, acquantances, etc. ?

When we started to ground fighting in that class, I taught a lot of pinching and biting to vulnerable areas.  Even going so far as to tell them to kiss an attacker/rapist so they can bite off his upper lip (remember to spit, not swallow) or biting the kidneys/abdomin area if the opportunity presents itself.  I really waited a long time before we got to any in-fighting though.  I think without a basic boxing or kickboxing (Muay Thai, Savate, Panatukan) background, the student will not have the confidence to use the in-fighting tools.  Or worse, the in-fighting tools wil not be effective and the student will having nothing to fall back on.

My new students reaction when she started to get hit was to not fight back after she realized that her hits were ineffective.  She though that he would stop when he saw that she was not resisting.  He did not and she spent two days in the hospital.  Now she asks me to convince her that training martial arts can help her truly defend herself if she needs to (she originally came for Yoga class only).  I told her.... "martial arts is a tool.... it depends on the tool and how it is used.  It will not guarrantee anything."  

As Linda said, MAs are not for everyone.  So what then?  Also, think of all the martial artists who neglect their training in ceratain areas.  Obviously there is some transfer of awareness, but I know when I neglect my stand-up and focus only on weaponry, my confidence to defend myself empty-hand drops significantly.  How about focusing only on groundfighting as many people do nowadays.  Do you really want to be rolling around with someone if you don't have to?  I don't teach enough straight self defense material to my fighters.  This may make them overly initiative if they have an encounter in the street.  We also have to remember...."it's self defense, not self offense."

For any of you interested more in Rape & Mugging prevention, I encourage you to check this website out: www.psdtc.com

Woof,
LG Dog Russ
Logged
linda
Newbie
*
Posts: 16


« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2003, 07:16:24 PM »

LG Dog Russ,

Awesome post! Smiley  Actually - thank YOU!!  It is exactly what I was trying to steer the thread towards in my first reply. B/c IMHO, a technical discussion of HOW to make training more effective in this context is more interesting and honestly - far more useful. Talking about how we think others should/shouldn't behave is all good and well. But as MA students or instructors, what SPECIFICALLY, can we do for ourselves, our training partners, or others?  What's been done?  What worked?  Didn't work?  Why?

Admittedly, it's especially interesting to me b/c several weeks ago a woman who recently left a years-long abusive relationship started at the school where I train. Our instructor pairs her w/ women on some drills and since I'm one of two other women there regularly, I work with her a lot.  All extraordinary experiences and cause for much contemplation. MANY thoughts & questions but I'm swamped right now so I'm going to have to come back to this in a few days.  

'til then...
Smiley Linda
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30655


« Reply #41 on: May 19, 2003, 07:44:06 PM »

Woof Russ, Linda et al:

  I'll put aside some intended comments on the Air Force Academy affair wink and turn to the interesting question Russ poses.

  Peyton Quinn (author: A Bouncer's Guide to Barroom Brawling, columnist, SD instructor of note, etc) used to come around when he was in LA and I've seen what he does (Bullet Man training for citizens and martial arts people alike) and FWIW IMHO it may have a lot of merit when it comes to the question of "What to teach first?".

  Women:

1) Tend to be of a victim mindset-- which is understandable.
2) Have a place of ferocity of which they are completely unaware unless they have already had to go there.

Tangent/Story:  My friend the late Carl James, (you see him in the interviews at the end of RCSFg#6 saying "Being your own private eye.")
was a man of a highly adventurous life and one of the chapters was being a bouncer in a tough bar in a tough section of Detroit.  He told me that the fight to break up that he feared the most was between two women.  (Trivia-- Carl is the man who as a bodyguard saved Larry Flynt's life when his wife went off and tried to kill him with a knife)

What Peyton and people in his field do is after some quick and dirty tools training (this is a headbutt, this is how to throw an elbow, that sort of thing) create scenarios that trigger the adrenal state and then person in the training connects that state with being able to pull the trigger and really tee-off on the "attacker".

I haven't had many women students and have had uneven results, but my sense of it is that this is not a bad place to start-- and having experienced it, the woman will understand and benefit from her martial art training in a higher trajectory.

Woof,
Crafty Dog
Logged
funnyguy
Guest
PIA
« Reply #42 on: May 21, 2003, 01:16:47 PM »

Sodomy  huh?
what a pain in the ass Smiley evil
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30655


« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2003, 01:41:20 PM »

Woof FG et al:

  Actually one has to be careful with the term "sodomy"; in some statutes the term encompasses fellatio  shocked

  Similarly the term "assault":  "Assault" to ordinary English speaking people means  , , , assault.  But "assault, as in "Assault and Battery" means the threat, and the battery the physical contact.  

  The quicker witted amongst us may be left wondering over the meaning of the term "sexual assault":  Is it:
1) a hostile physical grab with sexual overtones
2) a rude/crude pass
3) an unsuccessful pass
4) rude/crude comments?

Crafty Dog
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30655


« Reply #44 on: May 24, 2003, 05:47:45 AM »

Woof All:

  Well no one has joined in on the question of how to get women started since my reply to Russ on Monday-- so allow me to stir things up a bit evil

A question for the women here:

Hypothetical:  You are 18 years old.  You attend the Air Force Academy. If I have it correctly, to do so you are a member of the US Air Force, with all the oaths and responsibilities thereof.  In violation of Air Force Academy regulations, at night you go to the room of man cadet and get so snookered on Tequila that you are drifting in and out of consciousness.  Sex occurs without resistance on your part.

Question presented:  What do you do?

Woof,
Crafty Dog
Logged
burnsson
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #45 on: May 27, 2003, 09:35:30 AM »

hello crafty, hello guys.

first of all, thank you for the forum.

linda quoted this: "...we must refrain from the human tendency to always see ourselves as good people."

i don't think it's a question about good and evil.

homo sapiens is not that old and life/surviving was very hard and cruel.
sometimes we are talking about the animal in us and i believe that it contains more truth then we dare to admit.

i assume that developing our brains to a other level then "hunting and collecting" (as we say in german) takes a lot more time then 100'000 years.


possibly my personal explanation is too easy and there's a much more complicated answer... smiley

16:35 Wink burnsson
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30655


« Reply #46 on: May 28, 2003, 12:06:28 PM »

Woof All:

  While we breathlessly await any anwers to my hypothetical nearby, this on the real world variation:

Crafty Dog
-------------------------------

Item Number:22
Date: 05/28/2003
USA - PANEL TO STUDY AIR FORCE ACADEMY MISCONDUCT VIOLATIONS (MAY 28/DOD)

DEPT. OF DEFENSE -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced the
appointment of a seven-member panel to review allegations of sexual
misconduct at the U.S. Air Force Academy, the Dept. of Defense
reports.

Former Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Fla.), who served on the House Armed
Services Committee, will lead the panel. Other panel members include social scientists and mental health experts, the former judge advocate general of the Army and military academy graduates.


The panel will conduct a 90-day study that reviews the policies,
management, organizational practices and cultural elements of the
Air Force Academy that may have been led to alleged sexual
misconduct, including sexual assaults and rape.
Logged
~Ony
Guest
« Reply #47 on: May 31, 2003, 08:03:46 PM »

woof Crafty et al.

Interesting posts. I am glad that this discussion has been so lively and continues to grow. thank you.

in response to your recent question Crafty : "what do you do?" re: scenario related to the recent experience of the female cadet.
in keeping with my analysis outlined above, I find it interesting that the question raised reflects the androcentric paradigm which continues to look at the woman's behaviour in issues of sexual assault. (i am assuming that the "you" in Crafty's question referes to you women, correct me if i'm wrong on that one).
So why is that I, the woman, must do something?

Women are socialised to think that they will be safe as long as they do (fill in the behaviour). But rape or sexual assault is a behaviour that men choose, not women.  I find it absurd that our society continues to ask the woman to change her behaviour.  Again, I raise these issues because I want to question the very paradigm which raises all of these interesting points.

That being said; what would I do?
well, personally, I would never drink to the point of intoxication when I start to lose consciousness. In fact, I prefer to never put myself in such a situation unless of course, I was choked out in while training  wink
I take action to get myself to a safe place if I feel that I don't have all my faculties in place, so to speak (i.e. I go home if I can't keep my eyes open). As well, I am always conscious of my state of awareness, sometimes I am less aware than I would ideally prefer to be, but my training has taught me what I need to do maximze my safety to counteract that factor.   I find my awareness especially heightened when I'm alone with my male friends.  In other words, I keep my guard up even among friendly acquaintances.  My training has taught me the specifics of body mechanics (i.e. the physical movements of a potential attacker), so that I can have three options: respond before, during or after the initiation of an attack. But my personal experience has taught me that even my grandfather can be that attacker.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30655


« Reply #48 on: June 02, 2003, 11:24:52 AM »

Woof Ony et al:

To refresh memories, my question presented on the previous page was:

"A question for the women here:

Hypothetical: You are 18 years old. You attend the Air Force Academy. If I have it correctly, to do so you are a member of the US Air Force, with all the oaths and responsibilities thereof. In violation of Air Force Academy regulations, at night you go to the room of man cadet and get so snookered on Tequila that you are drifting in and out of consciousness. Sex occurs without resistance on your part.

Question presented: What do you do?"

The AF has the regs that it does that this cadet broke (both on the alcohol front and going to opp sex's room) precisely because this is the sort of thing that happens.  This is pretty obvious, yes?  

Again, if you were this female cadet, what would you do the morning after?

Woof,
Crafty

PS:  Ony, forgive my martian linearity but I really do want to isolate this point.  I know that there are many other points, including personal ones, in your post.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30655


« Reply #49 on: June 09, 2003, 07:21:54 AM »

Woof All:

  It seems like there will be no answer to my question huh   Oh well.

  Changing subjects, I see that there is an article in today's NY Times discussing a matter that was discussed earlier in this thread--the subject of rape during war:

"Congo's Warring Factions Leave a Trail of Rape
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
Sexual attacks have become endemic during Congo's war as soldiers from one armed group after another have seized villages."

I have somehow cleverly blocked myself from accessing the NYT and have been unable to figure out how to do it huh --- is there someone out there who can access the article and post it here?

TIA,
Crafty Dog
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!