Women as an identifiable group under attack?

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
susan davis

sausage fest.......?

MegB

it would be great to see better representation for women in gov't., but sadly having women in power isn't a recipe for change if those women aren't progressive, resiliant, and able to avoid the quagmires and pitfalls of participating in an inherently corrupt and self-serving system.  There aren't many people - men or women - who can accomplish that and still maintain their integrity.

Sineed

Rebecca West wrote:

it would be great to see better representation for women in gov't., but sadly having women in power isn't a recipe for change if those women aren't progressive, resiliant, and able to avoid the quagmires and pitfalls of participating in an inherently corrupt and self-serving system. 

True; Maggie Thatcher taught all of us that being female doesn't automatically = progressive.  I think more women in power, however, is an important 1st step because it means that we can call the shots instead of having to go cap in hand to the guys running things.

remind remind's picture

A 15-year-old girl was dragged into bushes and raped in Port Coquitlam early Saturday.

Quote:
Coquitlam RCMP are investigating the sex assault, which occurred in the Tyner Street-Kelly Avenue area at about 1 a.m. on Saturday.

RCMP Sgt. Peter Thiessen called the attack "cowardly" and said at least a dozen officers are working on the case.

The girl was walking along Kingsway Avenue from the Port Coquitlam bus loop when she was approached by a man, pushed into the bushes and assaulted in the bushes off Tyner Street.

Following the attack, the male fled and the girl walked back toward the Port Coquitlam bus loop, where she found a transit security officer who assisted by calling police and an ambulance.

She was treated in a local area hospital and released.

"There were significant physical injuries, along with the emotional trauma," said Thiessen. "I can't think of a more cowardly act."

 

Cowardly act?

How about a sick fuck act?

Not only that,  she was walking  to get away from an other middle aged man in a car that had approached her just prior to her being attacked....right after she got off the bus.

So, the response of  course is women staying in and not going anywhere, which encourages other women to feel that is the solution too, so we are punished, while men continue to reep the benefits.....

 

JMartin

I have political aspirations I haven't exercised. Working on it.

 

Caissa

A Riverview monument built to remember victims of violence has been covered in swastikas and racist slogans.

A city crew from Moncton was in Riverview on Tuesday helping their counterparts clean up the vandalized monument.

The vandalism comes at a symbolic time for the monument as it also commemorates the 14 women who died in the Dec. 6, 1989, massacre at Montreal's École Polytechnique.

There was so much graffiti in industrial-strength paint on the monument that the lettering had to be repainted.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/11/25/nb-monument-vand...

remind remind's picture

The media is not doing women and girls any favours either, as I just read a Canadian news report that actually said:

 

Quote:
for having sex....with a 13-year-old girl.

 

Men do not have "sex" with 13 year old girls, Canadian Press, they are pedophiles raping a child.

Snert Snert's picture

Maybe that article was written by Whoopi Goldberg.

Last week there was a brief little story about the women on The View being all scandalized when a guest made a joke about being raped at age 13, and I couldn't help wondering whether Whoopi remembered to ask whether she was referring to "rape" or "rape-rape", but at any rate, getting anyone — starting with Polanski — to take Polanski's crime seriously seems tough.

Bacchus

"they are pedophiles raping a child."

 

uh no. A pedophile is one that goes for pre-pubescent children, not ones who have attained puberty.

 

Doesnt make him any less wrong (regardless of the gender of the perpertator so lets not bring out that strawman people) but the term is not correct here

I don't know what the correct term is however.

Stargazer

You're correct Bacchus. The correct term is ephebophilia and no, it doesn't make it less wrong.

Bacchus

Sorry if you dont like being correct Remind, but it is important to use the right terms so you don't accidentally misdirect people or cause them to misunderstand what is what *rolls eyes* OFFS indeed

 

Thanks Stargazer

remind remind's picture

.

remind remind's picture

.

Bacchus

..

Stargazer

remind, I'm unsure why you're having a hard time with this. It doesn't make the crime less to call it what it is. Any criminologist will tell you the same thing.

It was still rape, it is just not pedophilia (now whether or not he has those tendencies? that's another topic of which I have no information on).

remind remind's picture

.

Bacchus

Rarely Stargazer. a Pedophile only really responds sexually to pre-pubescent and the other the innocence of youth but the more adult features of someone in puberty. In other words, anyone could be attracted to a teenager (depending on a variety of factors like type, maturity, body development etc) but it just would not interest a pedophile

Very very rare for it to be anything goes kind of mental aberation

Bacchus

Are you having issues with typing Remind or is this some childish game?

kropotkin1951

Those seem like very technical lines especially when one is dealing with men who like children who are just on the cusp of adolescence at 13 or so.  They certainly are not looking for a mature adult to have a relationship with they are looking for a child.  We can all agree that they are child rapists the only dispute is when does a child cease to be a child for the purposes of calling the rapist a pedophile.  I have some nits over here to pick if anyone is interested in providing a little personal grooming help.

MegB

Instead of bickering about what to call it, let's just call it "wrong" and be done with it. 

In what is still a largely heterosexual male-dominated culture and power structure, one whose values haven't significantly changed in millenia, where currently girls are sexualized at a very young age, before they are even able to understand sexuality, where little girls are encouraged to mimic older women through girls' toys, fashion, etc., it's no wonder that sexual relations between an adult male and a pubescent girl are seen as "normal".

Any way you look at it, it's wrong.  Okay, so maybe there was some kind of social necessity a thousand years ago in Europe, where 13 year old girls were married off to middle aged men.  But that had to do with economics, power alliances, etc.  And girls died very young because they had to bear children when their bodies weren't developed.

Also, people didn't live so long - sexual maturity equaled adulthood when your life expectancy was 35 or 40 at best.

These old ideas have long lived out their usefulness.  Too bad they're so entrenched in mainstream sexual society that we can't easily change the concepts that support such wrongness. 

/end of rant

remind remind's picture

Quote:
Today, Canada is learning of the controversial comments made by Saskatchewan MP Maurice Vellacott. Vellacott said

"... Pro-life feminists have also come to see abortion as part of a male agenda to have women more sexually available."

His comments were embedded in a press release. Vellacott used his press release to counter the Executive Director of Sexual Health Centre Saskatoon, Evelyn Reisner. Reisner had recently expressed criticism of Saskatchewan's cut-off date for abortions of 12 weeks, the earliest in Canada. The Star Phoenix reported

"Reisner said the problem is that women who pass the 12-week cutoff date are sent out of the province and must pay their transportation and accommodation costs ... Reisner said reducing access to safe, legal abortions for women in the city increases the risks to their health, causing a "higher rate of infections, complications and deaths.""

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/282704

 

Bacchus

"... Pro-life feminists have also come to see abortion as part of a male agenda to have women more sexually available."
Thats totally fucked up

Stargazer

Rebecca West wrote:

Instead of bickering about what to call it, let's just call it "wrong" and be done with it. 

In what is still a largely heterosexual male-dominated culture and power structure, one whose values haven't significantly changed in millenia, where currently girls are sexualized at a very young age, before they are even able to understand sexuality, where little girls are encouraged to mimic older women through girls' toys, fashion, etc., it's no wonder that sexual relations between an adult male and a pubescent girl are seen as "normal".

Any way you look at it, it's wrong.  Okay, so maybe there was some kind of social necessity a thousand years ago in Europe, where 13 year old girls were married off to middle aged men.  But that had to do with economics, power alliances, etc.  And girls died very young because they had to bear children when their bodies weren't developed.

Also, people didn't live so long - sexual maturity equaled adulthood when your life expectancy was 35 or 40 at best.

These old ideas have long lived out their usefulness.  Too bad they're so entrenched in mainstream sexual society that we can't easily change the concepts that support such wrongness. 

/end of rant

 

Excellent post. I just want to point out that nowhere did I say it was okay. Nor did anyone else who posted here. No one was bickering with the exception of remind's strange posts.

Clearly there is a huge problem with the hypersexualization of children. Look at Miley Cyrus (sp?). She's a kid performing in tiny shorts for a mainly all girl audience. Parents have to take some of the blame as well. We buy into it. We need to teach our sons to respect women and girls and teach them how to take care of themselves - cook, clean, do laundry...all of it. We need to teach our girls self-respect, to love who they are as they are.

I don't seriously care how young these girls are. If they look like they are teens or may be teens - don't look. It creeps us out when older men look. It gives us a feeling of being potential diner. It makes us uncomfortable and self-conscious and yes, sometimes scared. 

For the life of me I will never understand how it is that the vast majority of women manage to not look or fantasize about teen or pre-teen boys, yet a lot of men feel and think this behaviour is "natural".  I don't think it is. You guys are adults, most with kids, some with girls. Would you want much older men leering at them?

Recognizing beauty is one thing - translating that into an invitation to leer, grope, or otherwise creep girls out is not.

 

 

Stargazer

Bacchus wrote:
"... Pro-life feminists have also come to see abortion as part of a male agenda to have women more sexually available."

Thats totally fucked up

Yes it is fucked up, but it says more about the "pro-life feminists" agenda than it does anything else. And since when are pregnant women
non-sexual? What a load of bullshit.

remind remind's picture

Is it not interesting that everyone wants to call themselves a "feminist" these days?

 

Apparently it is going from the "fword" status, to the word that everyone wants to apply to themselves, no matter how tenuous the connection is.

 

That has gotta be a good thing for women, right?

 

 

 

Stargazer

Women should have the choice of what to do with thier own bodies. Full stop. That includes abortion and sex work.

remind remind's picture

Smile

Caissa

MacLeans reported the findings of a survey on attitudes towards prostitution (their word) in this week's issue. I was reading it at the breakfast table but can't remember all of the precise questions and numbers.

remind remind's picture

Really that has no point in this thread Caissa,  which is specifically to detail attacks against women and women rights, unless you are stating that this drive to decriminalize john's, pimps and procurers is an attack against women?

Caissa

I was responding to Stargazer's comments in #76, Remind. I'm sorry you were confused by my comments.

remind remind's picture

Wasn't confused at all, figured you were....but I did find your article on line and will start a thread about it....so as the derailing here will stop.

 

Caissa

I'm glad to see the derail police are alive and well. This site is so active lately that it can afford to employ them.

remind remind's picture

shall we bump this puppy up to 100 posts, by other trivial baiting inanities, so it can be closed so we don't have realize women are under attack as never before.

only 17 more posts to go....now......

 

BTW your Maclean's article is in the gender divide thread

Caissa

Maybe if you stopped being disingenuous like you were clearly being in post #79 this won't happen in 16 posts.

Post #56, I think shows an interest in the topic, but I'm sure you will be the arbitrator of that as well. Forget it!

remind remind's picture

Agreed post #56 was, which is why I figured you were either being disingenuous in post # 78, or indicating that this drive to decriminalize pimps and procurers was an attack on women...I choose the latter, but was apparently wrong....

 

only 15 to go.......

Caissa

I truly appreciated posts  #61, 63, 66. I assumed you didn't care about the topic, but apparently I was wrong...

only 14 to go....

 

Bacchus

.

remind remind's picture

Kiss

Bacchus

SealedWink

remind remind's picture

Having thought more about it, I think perhaps caissa was onto something posting about prostitution in this thread given the report over here in this thread, where pedophilia/ephebophilia, was given a pass and  even tried to normalize it....

Quote:
had positive respectful experiences with her clients when she became a sex worker as an adolescent.

adolescents do not become "sex workers" they become sexually exploited adolescents, her "clients" were not clients, (add puking emoticon) they were pedophiles/ephebophiles, as per, at least on honest male's commentary of "Most guys, the older they get, the younger women they want," and his follow up to that, afterall can't have pushy feminists stopping them in their pursuit of adolescent girls, nor stopping those who want to exploit those adolescent girls and aging men.

susan davis

typical, ignore the actual data and focus on one man in the audiences "opinion"....

Stargazer

Not only that, but look at the way the man was referring to prostitutes. It was clear he thinks they are subhuman. Don't even bother with the MacLeans comments - typical of right wing nutbars and almost all show a complete and utter distain for women. Why anyone would use that article as proof of anything is beyond me. What's next? Fraiser Institute reports?

remind remind's picture

ummmmm, the Maclean's article is not linked here, the Vancouver Courier article is.......

fortunate

Mark Hasiuk is a joke.   For a supposedly unbiased "reporter" he has done some rather dubious things, like showing up to a university forum on a similar topic and heckling the speakers from his seat.  I think the whole thing had to be shut down to kick him out, and his report on this "story" heavily slanted because of this.   I thought reporters were supposed to be observers, not trolls lol.   In this article he takes the time to start it with an unrelated comment about what the anti-decrim groups want.  A deliberate attempt to slant and sway the reader before they have a chance to they find out what happens at the forum.   Then he selects a very small # (2%) and waves it around like some sort of see-I-told-ya-so, when that 2% is soooo much smaller than what probably would come up if the general male population was asked have they ever physically assaulted any woman (as opposed to the john-prostitute scenario).  I would hazard a guess, based on general stats and information that is out there, that a great deal more than 2% of men have done any of the following to women:

robbed a woman, physically attacked a woman, or raped a woman.  

Yet those stats of men who buy sex show #s that are far lower than average, imo.

fortunate

Rebecca West wrote:

Instead of bickering about what to call it, let's just call it "wrong" and be done with it. 

In what is still a largely heterosexual male-dominated culture and power structure, one whose values haven't significantly changed in millenia, where currently girls are sexualized at a very young age, before they are even able to understand sexuality, where little girls are encouraged to mimic older women through girls' toys, fashion, etc., it's no wonder that sexual relations between an adult male and a pubescent girl are seen as "normal".

Any way you look at it, it's wrong.  Okay, so maybe there was some kind of social necessity a thousand years ago in Europe, where 13 year old girls were married off to middle aged men.  But that had to do with economics, power alliances, etc.  And girls died very young because they had to bear children when their bodies weren't developed.

Also, people didn't live so long - sexual maturity equaled adulthood when your life expectancy was 35 or 40 at best.

These old ideas have long lived out their usefulness.  Too bad they're so entrenched in mainstream sexual society that we can't easily change the concepts that support such wrongness. 

/end of rant

 

This "tradition" continues at Bountiful and similar enclaves.   The girls are generally "married" off to much older men when 13-14, though I think it is pretty clear that this would be done because they can get pregnant, rather than because they are young looking.  In those societies, I doubt if either girls or boys ever achieve any real emotional maturity, fwiw.   I do think there is a huge difference between a pedophile looking at sexualizing an 8 year old, and a mysogynist looking to impregnate and control a 14 year old girl  --- but both are disgusting.   If the Bountiful people can't be charged with polygamy, who cares.  They can be charged with statuatory rape EASILY at any time.   That they are not is reprehensible.

kropotkin1951

fortunate wrote:

This "tradition" continues at Bountiful and similar enclaves.   The girls are generally "married" off to much older men when 13-14, though I think it is pretty clear that this would be done because they can get pregnant, rather than because they are young looking.  In those societies, I doubt if either girls or boys ever achieve any real emotional maturity, fwiw.   I do think there is a huge difference between a pedophile looking at sexualizing an 8 year old, and a mysogynist looking to impregnate and control a 14 year old girl  --- but both are disgusting.   If the Bountiful people can't be charged with polygamy, who cares.  They can be charged with statuatory rape EASILY at any time.   That they are not is reprehensible.

If the Crown prosecutor could find actual evidence then there should be charges laid.  I don't think that what you describe is a proven allegation for any specific person. So what age would you propose as the age of consent for marriage.  16, 18, 21 or maybe 30.  Personally I think that 16 has to be the age since we made it the age of consent for sex. Prior to last year the age was 14 so I think your use of the 13 year old being marriage off is likely not the facts. I would love to see the evidence that would convict abusers of children at Bountiful but despite three prosecutors looking at the circumstances they chose not to prosecute on any other grounds except polygamy.  I find that both odd and disturbing since we all "know" that the abuse is rampant, right?

If it is so rampant why can't we just charge the perpetrators with the real crimes?

remind remind's picture

Quote:
Yet those stats of men who buy sex show #s that are far lower than average,

Which throws the study into complete question...from the get go.

 

...the reality is many men who have raped, and who have been found guilty of rape, still believe they did not rape anyone....

 

Then there is the reality that people do not like to self-report on their own misdeeds....

Stargazer

I never really bought into the argument that men who buy sex are less likely to rape. The men who buy sex are as different as the women offering sex. That thinking often leads to the assumption that women "holding out" are the cause of rape (men who can't get it from a sex worker are more likely to rape because they can't get it anywhere else). It paints men as not responsible for their actions, and pretty much absolves them of responsibility. Men are just little boys unable to control themselves - which we know is not true). All the responsibility fallks back onto women (if only you women would loosen up more, have more sex partners, learn to please your man, there would be less rape).

Ditto what remind said - what are the chances of self-reporting? Then there are those who rape street walkers and don't think it is rape.

 

Fortunate, do you have the stats for that study? I'd be interested in seeing the study myself, see what methodology they used, etc.

 

susan davis

the study was done by chris atchison-sfu criminology, with research ethics review board scrutiny, providing confidentiality to participants so they could feel safe in answering honestly. the research is not officialy released yet but we got a sneek peek at the forum.

chris did not sugar coat anything. he stated 9 men confessed to sexually assualting sex workers. the entire point of the tri council policy for ethical research involving human beings is to provide safe space so participants share freely.

as soon as the research is availible on line i will post a link.

the sample group was 950 sex consumers, no research in this field has ever come close.

www.johnsvoice.ca

 

fortunate

kropotkin1951 wrote:

fortunate wrote:

This "tradition" continues at Bountiful and similar enclaves.   The girls are generally "married" off to much older men when 13-14, though I think it is pretty clear that this would be done because they can get pregnant, rather than because they are young looking.  In those societies, I doubt if either girls or boys ever achieve any real emotional maturity, fwiw.   I do think there is a huge difference between a pedophile looking at sexualizing an 8 year old, and a mysogynist looking to impregnate and control a 14 year old girl  --- but both are disgusting.   If the Bountiful people can't be charged with polygamy, who cares.  They can be charged with statuatory rape EASILY at any time.   That they are not is reprehensible.

If the Crown prosecutor could find actual evidence then there should be charges laid.  I don't think that what you describe is a proven allegation for any specific person. So what age would you propose as the age of consent for marriage.  16, 18, 21 or maybe 30.  Personally I think that 16 has to be the age since we made it the age of consent for sex. Prior to last year the age was 14 so I think your use of the 13 year old being marriage off is likely not the facts. I would love to see the evidence that would convict abusers of children at Bountiful but despite three prosecutors looking at the circumstances they chose not to prosecute on any other grounds except polygamy.  I find that both odd and disturbing since we all "know" that the abuse is rampant, right?

If it is so rampant why can't we just charge the perpetrators with the real crimes?

 

Statutory rape is simply sex (consensual included) between a teenager and anyone who is more than 5 years older than they are.  That is why I said it was easy.  Multiple marriages are not legal, so the polygamy angle cannot be proven since no actual license can be issued.  But it is fairly easy to prove a 14 year old who has been taken into a 40 year old man's household along with 2-3 other women, and she is now pregnant, is having sex with him.  Stat rape has been charged on young men with girls who are technically too young for them, even tho their ages are much much closer than these in Bountiful and similar areas. 

Canadian laws:

In looking at Canada, all but one Province requires that a couple be 18 in order to marry without parental permission. British Columbia sets the age of majority at 19. Although a few areas will waive this requirement if there is a pregnancy, the couple may still have to have court approval.  Even with parental approval, many Provinces will require court approval when a person is 16 years of age or less.

Basically a court consent is required for anyone under 16 to marry. 

 

For sexual activity:

It is now illegal for adults in Canada to have sex with a partner under the age of 16, one of the new provisions of the Tories' violent crime law that came into effect on Thursday. The Tackling Violent Crime Act raises the legal age of sexual consent in Canada to 16 from 14, the first time it has been raised since 1892. But the law includes a "close-in-age exception," meaning 14- and 15-year-olds can have sex with someone who is less than five years older.

 

It seems very simple to apply the laws that already exist.  The girls would have to be 17, and this is not happening.  These guys would be easy to prosecute.  So again it begs the question why not.

 

Between 1998 and 2004, the B.C. Vital Statistics Agency says, 69 Bountiful girls 18 or younger had babies.

A third of those girls were impregnated by men 10 or more years older than they were. Three-quarters of the men in the fundamentalist Mormon sect who fathered children with teens 18 and younger were at least five years older.

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/features/polygamy/story.html?id=64080dd7-ed78-4446-a795-b1b9e674fb3c

BETWEEN 1998 AND 2004 69 BOUNTIFUL GIRLS 18 OR YOUNGER HAD BABIES

46% of the fathers are 5 or more years older than the teenage mother

28% of the fathers are 10 or more years older than the teenage mother

Pages