Real men don't rape

I read this article about a rather scary research study conducted by the MRC regarding rape and HIV/Aids. Do read the comments section too.

I responded to the article (and the commenters):

"Firstly, in the context of polygamy, virginity testing, women being violently abused for wearing trousers or short skirts, dry sex, jackrolling, female genital mutilation, and voting against the UN declaring rape an act of war, I am going to be so bold as to say that Africa has some serious problems when it comes to the issue of women's rights, and men's sense of entitlement. This does not mean that Africa is the only place where this is true, but many of these sexist practices are socially sactioned. If you do not oppose the practices I've listed, in my opinion you do hold that problematic ideal of masculinity Prof Jewkes refers to.

Secondly, my studies tell me that rape (by and large) is not a problem of "sick people". It is a problem of a society with skewed beliefs about women and sexuality. Be honest, how many of the men (even women) on here truly believe that an incident was rape if the woman did not physically resist and scream? Even if there was a weapon involved. How many people would say that a drunk woman in a bar was "asking for it"? All cultures have been subjected to pathological ideas about women's rights and about rape for centuries. As Gareth said, marital rape, "corrective" rape, date rape etc are not seen as rape. I agree with Delia that a more in-depth study of the motivating behaviour and the thinking behind rape would be beneficial, but such studies have been conducted on convicted rapists and the results are not particularly surprising. Entitlement and sexual myths play a huge role.

Thirdly, do remember that the study (if not the newspaper article) is peer-reviewed and the raw data, workings etc must be published and *will* be ripped to shreds if not rigourous. I am not sure about the provinces and the age group apparently used, but the sample size seems reasonable. The stats don't literally imply that if I'm on a bus with 4 men that one of them *is* a rapist.

Has any of the commenters actually read the report? And why do some of the men here seem so precious about this? Kind of like that ad with Charlize Theron. Can anyone deny the seriousness of the problem?

Oh and finally this is not a race issue. It's a gender rights issue."

Mysogyny should never be confused with traditionalism.

Paging Dr Milgram

The regular readers of this blog may have noticed that I don't really plan these posts. If something gets up my nose I tend to put it on here. My husband insists on reading the often inane, occasionally incomprehensible, and sometimes frankly terrifying posts on MyNews 24 and Thought Leader and sharing these things with me. Today I read this:

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/sandilememela/2008/10/01/can-shilowa-be-greater-than-the-anc/

And responded as follows:

"Mr Memela, please tell me you are joking. Your profile claims the following about you:
"He believes freedom of thought and expression encourages diversity of opinion and tolerance for the 'other.' He is very sane." That doesn't fit well with this post.

If people blindly follow the group's "authority" and abdicate personal responsibility, the most horrific things can happen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

People committing atrocities in apartheid-era South Africa were also just following orders, instead of listening to the dictates of their conscience, and we are familiar with the terrible results.

Let's not slavishly follow the dictates of the organisation, comprised as it is of humans, and temper our respect for authority with sense, reason and justice."

Later on in discussion with Mr Shnukums I realised that the point put across also seemed to imply that the "conscience" of the organisation may be at odds with that of society, which in this particular case is extremely worrying.

At any rate, I hope Borg-like assimilation is not the actual view or ideal of the ANC.

"A noble death", or, a whole lot of bull

I have just read this http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10357 and responded here http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2008/08/27/a-noble-death/

I will freely admit that I am not a philosopher and I do not have time to answer every assertion in the article. I guess my most important question is this: does it even matter whether some people get some aesthetic gratification out of it? Does aesthetic gratification justify inflicting harm on a sentient being who has no choice as to whether he partakes of this spectacle?

If the subject (victim) were human would this article have been written? If so, I think the DSM-IV-TR may have something to say about it, and so may the authorities. If a fight between an animal and a human, where the animal had an equal chance, would be "grotesque", is a bullfight not the same?

And as for the issue of animals not having rights if they cannot be "called upon to uphold those rights for themselves", that is a rather backward notion. Should children and the mentally disabled be denied rights, because they cannot be expected to uphold those rights for themselves? I think that the rational human being is in a position to uphold said rights, and therefore shoulders the responsibility. Yes I do find it somewhat hypocritical that people eat (factory farmed) meat - needless to say I don't - and protest bullfighting, but it can be argued that people need meat. Can the same be said of bullfighting? More importantly, do we have the right to inflict our whims on the animal whether it has rights or not?

As for the comparison between bullfighting and the lion attacking the wildebeest, this seems puerile. It is the nature of a predator to kill and eat prey. But humans can choose which aspects of our nature we express. Again, the bull has no say in the matter.

At any rate I find it sad (and as a psychology student, disturbing) that people consider the torture and death of a sentient being, an aesthetically pleasing spectacle.