TrueEnglishLiberal

Saturday, 29 June 2013

Nigella lawson and Charles Saatchi row

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351667/Saatchi-sues-Nigellas-aides-170k-shopping-spree-company-credit-cards--case-helped-spark-strangling-row.html

I don't think there should be a law against what Charles did. Not saying it wasn't a bad thing but I don't think having a law makes things better for the woman. Look at this situation - has the law made things better for nigella? Now let us imagine if there hadn't been a law. It would be less likely the pictures would have been published because there would be no,social pressure to view the situational as a state/police matter. Nigella knows what level of violence her husband is capable of and would likely not have been phased by Charles's actions. Given that she knows there is no legal protection she would be more likely to stand up for herself (because the state isn't) and so would tell Charles that in future she will not stand for this behaviour. Instead we have nigella looking like a pathetic helpless victim beggin her husband to come back. Which, if he does, gives him immense power and licence to treat her as badly as he feels like since he knows she can't be without him.

Sunday, 7 October 2012

Nick Cohen - creating a misogynist narrative, which encourages women to feel like victims

Link:The shameful history of silence on child abuse. Nick Cohen. 7 October 2012. Observer

It would very hard for the government or any kind of establishment to prevent child abuse. The fact that most people didn't see what was happening to these girls as a bad thing can mean 2 things. Either they enjoy seeing little girls being made to be unhappy. Or the girls weren't unhappy at what was happening to them and therefore most people disagree with the law.

I read an article by a woman who was at school in the 70's and she said a teacher of hers had sex with the majority of girls in her year when she was about 15. Now this would be considered "abuse" today. There would be an outcry. There would be articles like this making out the worst thing in the world had just happenned.

What I find disturbing is how much journalists such as nick Cohen, David arronavich and Nigel lawson seem to get so much pleasure writing about creating the narrative that these girls are the unhappy victims of male sexual power whose lives are now devastated. Rather than the alternative narrative/paradigm that this was not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things or that in some of the cases the girls may have been willing participants who actually enjoyed having sex with older men.

Thursday, 30 August 2012

It Is Wrong to Say 'Sex Without Consent is Rape'

Brendan O Neill says:

"But it is wrong. More than that, the idea that all "non-consensual sex is rape", as Galloway himself has now said in his clarification of his defence of Assange, represents a dangerous rewriting of what rape really means."

It doesn't, because rape has always meant that. He is confusing rape with the 'crime of rape'. The dictionary definition doesn't change depending on whether it is a crime. There is a standard dictionary definition: sex without consent. Because a sleeping woman cannot consent, it is rape. It doesn't have to be a crime of rape though. What he really means is: when considering what actions to make a crime, using the definition "all non consensual sex" to define rape in law is dangerous. I agree with that. I would actually prefer there to be no relationship rape law for a few reasons. It gives women a false sense of security; that the law protects them. One of the motivations for the rapist is the power he gets knowing that he has raped the woman and she can do nothing about it; that there is a social pressure on her to pursue justice even though very few women want to go through the justice system. It also means that rape becomes a taboo topic because everyone assumes that it is the government's job to handle it and deal with the aftermath of it, not the people or society's job. So that is why a lot of women who have been raped do not want to discuss it; they feel that people will just tell them to go to the police and then blame them when they do not go. So they feel more isolated and alone. Which again gives the rapist power.

Link: It Is Wrong to Say 'Sex Without Consent is Rape'. Brendan O Neill, Huffington Post. 29/08/2012 00:00

Tuesday, 28 August 2012

Comment on Guardian article which illustrates why relationship rape laws are not a good thing:

Interesting. ran a youth program a few years ago. A party occurred, girl drank a lot, got 'flirtatious' (her term) found a likely young man, initiated sex, then 'started acting weird' (his term) so they stopped. next day, girl went home and mother questioned her apparent sadness. Girl felt she 'might have been raped, but couldn't remember' (her words). Boy contacted. His story exactly the same as the girls (except the bits she didn't remember, e.g. the flirtation and dragging him into a room (he's known as a shy boy, everybody saw...)). Police called in. Rape test performed (negative, but only tests for insemination). result: boy stigmatized for rape; girl stigmatized as a 'cry wolf liar' by all their mutual friends, male and female. Still 'can't remember', left college and now lives with Mum, who wants 'someone' (not necessarily the original 'co-operative' boy) punished. there have been death threats and suicide threats. . The problem in this type of scenario is not even that awkward or bad or non-consensual sex (partially) took place.. it's that the mix of sexual excitement, alcohol (and probably grass) and 'amnesia' seem to be very common as the rationale of why A or B was guilty or not guilty of rape (depending on your point of view). the same events can equally be interpreted as teenage stupidity, 'life's like that' or rape. The police I spoke to (as I knew both kids and the social group) dropped the case, and all 'grey area' cases like this, as they said usually they only act on clear cases of coercion or violence... glaringly, it is the girl in this case who has been most marked.This kind of half/half situation (leaving 'amnesia' aside) is very common indeed, when both young people start something, then one (in this case the girl) changes their mind. In this case, the boy stopped all intimacy, but the booze, a bad night's sleep and a worried parent took the whole situation into kafkaesque realms.So, my question to you: did rape take place?

Link: How do we teach young people what sexual consent really means? comment rustypooh 28 August 2012 6:16AM

Friday, 24 August 2012

Rape case, proves my point that marital rape should not be illegal

Link:Former martial arts teacher charged with marital rape found not guilty. Daily mail. 24 August

This is why there shouldn't be a law against marital rape. Not because it isnt a terrible thing it is because the husband will always deny it and get away with it. If there wasn't a law against it, the husband would admit it, apologise and the woman wouldnt feel as violated and alone.

Wednesday, 22 August 2012

George Galloway and Steve Brookstein on rape

Firstly an explanation of what the position of rape deniers really is.

This is the true position of so called rape deniers.

I think they do consider what Assange (allegedly) did was rape. They know it is rape under the law. It is a fact it is rape under the law. It is a fact it is rape under the dictionary definition. If a woman does not want it to happen, it is rape.

However, you can agree it is rape but also think there shouldn't be a law against what happened in this particular instance (relationship rape); that you should be arrested and punished for it.

People seem not to realise you can agree that what Assange did was wrong but also at the same time thiink there shouldn't be a law against what is called relationship rape.

It would be a lot less upsetting to people for whom this has happened and who consider it rape and a traumatising event, if you acknowledged that it was rape. Because it is. Rather than denying it is rape.

In reality Galloway thinks that there shouldn't be a law against what assange did. My point is that his real position is that he knows it is rape under the dictionary definition but that he thinks there should be no law against what Assange did, even though it is rape.
I believe that is what most 'rape denier's real position is.

Regarding Steve Brookstein - he waded into the controversy on twitter last night. I wish to distance myself from Brookstein and the way he handled things. He was incredibly insensitive to rape victims and was basically laughing at them. He was also verbally abusive towards a number of women who had the courage to challenge him. His basic position was him and his wife had an understanding regarding what was acceptable and what was not.

Even though I think he handled the situation badly and there was no need for the insults and unsympathetic attitude towards rape victims, it did bolster my argument that having a law against relationship rape is not helpful. It also bolsters my argument that Jewish men on the whole tend to be more misogynistic.