10 years of rapes

16 posts / 0 new

Wed, 2009-07-08 09:12

remind

10 years of rapes

Just shocked I tell ya!

Quote:
Eight men from the small farming community of Manitoba, Bolivia -- named after the Keystone Province, where the residents' ancestors came from -- were arrested last Monday and charged with drugging and raping at least 60 women and girls as young as 11 years old.

The men, aged 18 to 41, are accused of sneaking into homes, drugging the women using an aerosol spray and sexually assaulting them. The news agency Reuters reported earlier this week that a Bolivian federal prosecutor said the rapes may have been occurring for the past 10 years.

"People are just shocked," said Hans Werner, an assistant professor of history at the University of Winnipeg and an expert in Mennonite history.

Werner said he stays in professional contact with members of the more conservative Mennonite community and that they are among those who were shocked to get the news.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/world/2009/06/29/9967881-sun.html

men who have no rules, have no boundaries, and religion again proves no friend to women and girls.

Wed, 2009-07-08 14:21

al-Qa'bong

Gee, I'm glad we have rules against rape around here, otherwise I'd be so busy raping and whatnot I'd never get anything done.

Wed, 2009-07-08 21:39

remind

al'q, I didn't know you likened yourself to those men who practise religious patriarchial supremacy against women. Though it is good to know that you do, for future reference, as I see these men and Winston Blackmore, types, as men who have no rules, they are absolute in their world, and believe they have a right to do whatever they want, there are no rules for them, in their world.

Thu, 2009-07-09 08:30

Stargazer

Not sure why that flippant comment was warrented Al Q. Rape is real. Rape is nasty and rape is the absolute power of a man over a woman - destroying her agency, the way she sees herself, and forever destroying her ability to trust (not to mention her sex life).

Thu, 2009-07-09 09:41

Refuge

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Gee, I'm glad we have rules against rape around here, otherwise I'd be so busy raping and whatnot I'd never get anything done.

Here is a report on studies done with college students about the statistics of how many men say that if they could get away with raping a women with no consequences would they do it. It is not every man but it is a high percentage of men that if they were in a situation where they would not have to face the consequence would commit rape. It was not just looked at in terms of attitudinal thoughts but corelated with arousal during "porn" that depicted rape so their physical reaction backed their attitudes. So, though it is not a reality for all males it is a reality for a disturbingly high number of males.

Fri, 2009-07-10 16:18

survivor

The Winnipeg Sun article, 10 years of rapes? quotes "Hans Warner, an assistant professor of history at the University of Winnipeg and an expert in Mennonite history" as saying "people are just shocked" and that "he has never heard of anything like this occurring in a Mennonite community before," and also quotes "Rick Fast, director of communications with the Mennonite Central Committee Canada in Winnipeg" saying that "he has not heard much more about the incident than what has been reported in the media and declined to comment on it."

But, according to this article in the (Mennonite Brethren) MB Herald from Feb. 2008, the knowledge of sexual crimes against women and children in these Bolivian Mennonite colonies is not a "shock" to Mennonites in Canada. They have been aware for years that Mennonite children were being sexually abused there and that this "is the tip of the iceberg on abuse," but Canadian Mennonites "have turned a blind eye to issues of abuse" when it involves their own Anabaptist children.

That is why "any such information is controversial among Mennonites in Canada, since Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) has been working in the colonies for years, establishing relationships with elders" - the same Mennonite elders in Bolivia who have been ignoring the sexual crimes being committed against their own children "including generational sexual abuse" - crimes (of incest) that have nothing to do with allegedly being drugged and raped while they slept, by roving gangs equipped with cans of sleep inducing aerosol spray and viagra, and then waking up naked in their beds.

What are the Mennonites in Canada and their fellow Mennonites in Bolivia covering up, considering their years of knowledge of these sexual crimes being committed against their fellow Anabaptist children, by claiming now that they are "just shocked"?

http://www.mbherald.com/47/02/news-1.en.html

Sat, 2009-07-11 00:35

Harumph

Refuge wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Gee, I'm glad we have rules against rape around here, otherwise I'd be so busy raping and whatnot I'd never get anything done.

Here is a report on studies done with college students about the statistics of how many men say that if they could get away with raping a women with no consequences would they do it. It is not every man but it is a high percentage of men that if they were in a situation where they would not have to face the consequence would commit rape. It was not just looked at in terms of attitudinal thoughts but corelated with arousal during "porn" that depicted rape so their physical reaction backed their attitudes. So, though it is not a reality for all males it is a reality for a disturbingly high number of males.

Uhhh... no. A 30 year-old study conducted on male college students (a small, and ever-shrinking portion of men) in two countries on the same continent is no foundation upon which to make generalizations about an entire sex. That, and if you're going to quote people, it helps if they're not unreasoning hate-fanatics with an agenda.

I'll thank you not to cast sexist aspersions. I know that's probably exactly what you'd like to think of men, but you're really just grasping at misandric straws.

Not that I'd expect anything short of misandry here, but at least try to veil it a little better - perhaps by blaming the oft-accused but never-quite-identified and always-obscure "patriarchy" for all of life's (and the world's) problems.

Sat, 2009-07-11 08:31

Refuge

Harumph wrote:

Uhhh... no. A 30 year-old study conducted on male college students (a small, and ever-shrinking portion of men) in two countries on the same continent is no foundation upon which to make generalizations about an entire sex. That, and if you're going to quote people, it helps if they're not unreasoning hate-fanatics with an agenda.

That's funny, I learned about those studies when I was taking sociology 101, from a text book. So obviously that site is not the only one that thinks that the study is important. Those are published studies, reviewed etc. If you have any studies that have been published since that refute those findings I would be interested in hearing them. Also I am talking about men on this country, where the study took place.

Harumph wrote:
I'll thank you not to cast sexist aspersions. I know that's probably exactly what you'd like to think of men, but you're really just grasping at misandric straws.

Not that I'd expect anything short of misandry here, but at least try to veil it a little better - perhaps by blaming the oft-accused but never-quite-identified and always-obscure "patriarchy" for all of life's (and the world's) problems.

Actually no, that is no just what I think of men, it is also what I consider myself when I am in situations that I have power over someone else. I realize that there is a part of me that would do something if I could get away with it just like everyone else in the world so I have to make sure that I consider the consequences of my actions and if me getting away with something would hurt someone.

Even though I am female I have a little patriarchy in myself as well.

And I don't know if you realize this but you are in the FEMINIST forum. Where partriarchy is not debated. Where patriarchy is an accepted social constraint for women. It is offense that you would tell feminists that they are not allowed to talk about patriarchy as one of the leading causes of sexism and everything that stems from it, especially in a sentence that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

In fact it sounds very patriarchal to do that so it sounds like you don't have a handle on patriarchy at all.

Sat, 2009-07-11 08:34

Maysie

Wow, Harumph, so much sexist crap in your one brief post.

Stay out of the feminist forum from now on.

Sat, 2009-07-11 09:18

#10

Michelle

Harumph wrote:

Not that I'd expect anything short of misandry here, but at least try to veil it a little better - perhaps by blaming the oft-accused but never-quite-identified and always-obscure "patriarchy" for all of life's (and the world's) problems.

Get out of this thread and stay out. Actually, get out of the feminism forum and stay out. Don't post here again.

Sat, 2009-07-11 09:19

#11

Michelle

Oh, ha, I didn't read down to Maysie's post before responding. :D What she said!

Sat, 2009-07-11 10:39

#12

remind

meanwhile, recent stats show that women who experience violent attacks against them are now 1 of of 3 women, as opposed to former stats of 1 out of 4 women.

So indeed, the written word of 30 years ago, is still pertinent today. Even more so it seems.

Sat, 2009-07-11 19:01

#13

Harumph

Refuge wrote:

That's funny, I learned about those studies when I was taking sociology 101, from a text book. So obviously that site is not the only one that thinks that the study is important. Those are published studies, reviewed etc. If you have any studies that have been published since that refute those findings I would be interested in hearing them. Also I am talking about men on this country, where the study took place.

That IS funny - I also recall reading about survey methods and statistical generalization in my Empirical Research Methods class - you know, the foundation of reputable research. There was this fallacy called "hasty generalization" and it happened when people drew conclusions from the results of surveys on samples which were too small to generate reliable data about their subject populations.

Lets calculate the required sample size to make generalizations about the male sex:

World population: 6 706 000 000 (roughly)

Male population: (lets say 49%) 3 285 940 000

Confidence level: 95%

Confidence interval: .5

Sample size required: 38 416

That sample would also have to be proportionally distributed from around the world in order to overcome the cultural, political, social, etc. confounding factors.

The estimable Dr. Russell uses studies with nowhere near that size of sample. Furthermore, she uses data drawn primarily from males in highschool and university, in the US and Canada.

Of course, you completely missed that whole point in your response. Maybe another few years on the ever-valuable undergraduate Sociology degree is required. But then again, one doesn't need legitimate science when one has carte blanche to spread misinformation.

refuge wrote:

Actually no, that is no just what I think of men, it is also what I consider myself when I am in situations that I have power over someone else. I realize that there is a part of me that would do something if I could get away with it just like everyone else in the world so I have to make sure that I consider the consequences of my actions and if me getting away with something would hurt someone.

Even though I am female I have a little patriarchy in myself as well.

So you're saying that the propensity to abuse from a position of power is not a particularly male trait, then attribute it to the patriarchy. What do you know, the patriarchy's at it AGAIN!!! Damn that scheming patriarchy and its collective penis. I hear their secret gathering this year is going to be in a mountain fortress somewhere in central Asia. Peons in cover-alls, silver hardhats, and wielding submachine guns are going to stop anyone trying to foil their plans.

Nice attempt at backpeddling, though - very dignified. Kind of like the Ross Perot "that's-not-what-I-meant" dribble in the wake of his "you people" comment.

refute wrote:
And I don't know if you realize this but you are in the FEMINIST forum. Where partriarchy is not debated. Where patriarchy is an accepted social constraint for women.

Oh, I realise that very much. I didn't want to disturb all the back-patting groupthink but I felt a ridiculous generalization about the world's male population warranted an interruption of the ideological circle-jerk. The fact that you can't even substantiate your arguments and get upset when anyone would ask you to is too funny for words. I suppose it's understandable - beliefs are much more comfortable when they're unchallenged. For someone to challenge a fundamental principle (patriarchy) to the whole weak system of belief is just too much to be borne. Big Sister says we've always been at war with Eurasia - who am I to question?

Of course, none of you should consider yourselves intellectually honest, but that's a small price to pay.

refuge wrote:
It is offense that you would tell feminists that they are not allowed to talk about patriarchy as one of the leading causes of sexism and everything that stems from it, especially in a sentence that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Not allowed? Where did I say anyone wasn't allowed to do anything? I see that even when you're not being abused or oppressed, you'll invent the treatment to justify your own brand of hate. Surprise! I'd say unthinking subscription to an ideology characterized by self-righteous hysterics and hatred of half the human population would be a bigger cause, but the monocled old Patriarchy, sitting in his rest home, makes a good culprit.

refuge wrote:
In fact it sounds very patriarchal to do that so it sounds like you don't have a handle on patriarchy at all.

You're right - disagreeing with you is patriarchal. Male dissent is patriarchy and, ergo, is oppression. Suppress the dissent so we can achieve liberation. Great logic you have there.

While I hate to link to a right-wing rag like the National Post, this article is just too apropos. Apologies for the long URL.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/02/27/barbara-kay-on-domestic-violence-no-one-wants-to-hear-the-truth.aspx

All that I ask is that you not kill my dog.

Ban away, sisters!

Sat, 2009-07-11 19:02

#14

Maysie

Are you still not banned yet? Silly me how could I have overlooked that?

Bye bye Harumph.

Sat, 2009-07-11 19:06

#15

Stargazer

Funny, the guy relies on what he calls empirical research, then he posts up an article from the National Post. How hypocritical.

You're quick Maysie!

Sat, 2009-07-11 19:24

#16

Refuge

Riiiiight. Well his post pretty much says it all. I like the link to the self described right wing newspaper on a left wing board. I also like how he told me that I was getting "upset", that I "hate" and feminist thought is "hysterics" is very revealing of what he thinks of women.

Like how he said I was back pedeling to saying "that's not what I meant" where if he would have been "intellectually honest" himself he should have scrolled back to see that I never said that I thought that men would do something that I would never do myself in response to when he said that I was "cast(ing) sexust aspersions".

Oh - and we have students and professors here too so make sure all you academic types tell your collegues and professors that they can't ever publish a paper again because they don't have the proper sample size to say anything about anybody. Better recall all those psych and socio textbooks that teach theories as well since most of those are based on university students as well!

But it sounds like he has a lot of issues with patriarchy himself so I wish him luck.