HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » PeaceNikki » Journal
Page: 1

PeaceNikki

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Current location: Wisconsin
Member since: Sat Apr 14, 2007, 05:49 PM
Number of posts: 27,985

Journal Archives

Victim Blaming. 2012: the year when it became okay to blame victims of sexual assault

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/2012-the-year-when-it-became-okay-to-blame-victims-of-sexual-assault-8432716.html

At Caernarfon Crown Court earlier this month, a 49-year-old man was convicted of raping a teenage girl. Jailing the rapist, the judge told him: “She let herself down badly. She consumed far too much alcohol and took drugs, but she also had the misfortune of meeting you”.

It was the latest in a wave of examples of victim-blaming, a phenomenon that Christina Diamandopoulos, of the Rape Crisis charity, describes as the “myth that women are responsible for men’s sexual behaviour. From this stems the idea that what a woman wears, says, where she goes, or what she does can make her responsible for the crime committed against her.” The problem is compounded by common misconceptions, such as the idea that all rapists are strangers, who attack in dark alleys at night. In fact, Ms Diamandopoulos says, “most rape is committed by partners, ex-partners and men who are known to the woman”.

After news emerged of the sexual abuse of young girls in Rochdale, one victim told Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour: “Quite a few people rang social services: school, the police … even my own dad … basically they told my mum and dad that I was a prostitute and it was a lifestyle choice. And because I was only six months off turning 16, they wasn’t [sic] going to do anything.”

Meanwhile, this year’s Edinburgh Fringe Festival made headlines for featuring a high number of jokes about rape and domestic violence. Such “jokes” are also endemic online.“We must wake up to the way that social media enables and magnifies abuse and harassment of women,” Ms Dustin says. The popular social news website Reddit has entire categories dedicated to “raping women”, “hot rape stories”, and “choke a bitch”. And an article on the student website UniLad in January said: “Eighty-five per cent of rape cases go unreported. That seems to be fairly good odds.”



This blame the victim mentality will most likely continue as long as people believe rape is a crime of sexual desire. It is not, these men don't have an overwhelming sexual desire, they wish to dominate, control, and cause pain.

I don't think it's a new phenomenon or isolated to sexual abuse, either. There seems to be a resurgence of victim blaming in many cases surrounding violence against women. The 'war on women' we have witnessed this year has added to this. The linked article discusses the Aiken comments we all know about as well as the Julian Assange case that was dismissed as “bad sexual etiquette”.

It's a sad state of affairs ingrained in culture and society.

Bill Clinton touched me today.

His left hand hugged my right hand just after I took this. It was cool. The end.



What if we stopped focusing on the number of abortions and instead focused on the women themselves?

Numbers mean nothing without context. If the 1.21 million abortions that took place in 2005 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) represent the number of women who needed abortions (and in my opinion, if a woman decides she needs an abortion, then she does), as well as the many women who chose to terminate pregnancies that they very much wanted but could not afford to carry to term, then that number is too high. The work of reducing the number of abortions, therefore, would entail creating an authentically family-friendly society, where women would have the support they need to raise their families, whatever forms they took. That could include eliminating the family caps in TANF, encouraging unionization of low-wage workers, reforming immigration policies and making vocational and higher education more accessible.

On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low. If that’s the case, then what is an appropriate response? How do we best support women and their reproductive health? Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for women’s health, but also moral and just?

What if we stopped focusing on the number of abortions and instead focused on the women themselves? Much of the work of the reproductive health, rights and justice movements would remain the same. We would still advocate for legislation that helps our families. We would still fight to protect abortion providers and their staffs from verbal harassment and physical violence. What would change, however, is the stigma and shame. By focusing on supporting women’s agency and self-determination, rather than judging the outcomes of that agency, we send a powerful message. We say that we trust women. We say we will not use them and their experiences as pawns in a political game. We say we care about women and want them to have access to all the information, services and resources necessary to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their families. That is at the core of reproductive justice. Not reducing the number of abortions. Safe – yes. Legal– absolutely. Rare – not the point.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/04/26/safe-legal-rare-another-perspective

He wants to be president of nothing.

He wants to get elected, get rid of all foreign arms of the government and get rid of all domestic arms of the goverment. He would have no job then but to aimlessly wander around the White House making racist and sexist remarks to and about the staff. FREEDOM!! LIBERTY!! CONSTITUTION! STATE'S RIGHTS! NWO!

We are being bombarded with 'news' about how much this recall will cost.

And DPW has responded. Have this handy:

The $9 million cost of a statewide recall election is great, but the cost of doing nothing is far greater. This undertaking is the biggest investment in the future of our state and families we can make.

It would take more than 7 recall elections to equal the cost of Walker's tax increase on seniors and working families. It would take more than 11 recalls to equal the tuition hike Walker foisted on University of Wisconsin-System students and their families. And Walker's $2.3 billion in tax giveaways to out-of-state corporations and the super-rich would pay for more than 255 recall elections.

Wisconsin simply cannot afford Scott Walker any longer.

http://www.facebook.com/WisDems/posts/352565838103591

"Wisconsin lit a fire that I saw clear down in the swamplands of Georgia"

Jeana Brown Throws Down on Scott Walker

&list

Do you know how exactly Paul would effectively 'end' the war on drugs as POTUS?

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just want to know what his plan would be.

Sure, it's cool and sexy to say, "End the War on Drugs!". But, what would he do? Call off the DoJ? Huh, that would work while he was in office, but then what? Would he decriminalize drugs? How can he exactly do that... as POTUS?

Leading who? The Republicans? I think we are.

If you mean 'leading Ron Paul', I call total BS. His ideas are stupid, and won't work in the real world. It's no wonder that most of his supporters are people who don't understand what it means to live as self-supporting members of society.

And there is his UN/NWO bullshit is just that. Bullshit. The UN has no way to affectthe 2nd Amendment or any portion of the US Constitution. He is a paranoid, xenophobic crazy-man. aPaulogists are like cult members.

I actually kind of envy the aPaulogists their evidently bottomless stores of denial and ability to excuse EVERY glaring deficit in their completely twisted Great Leader. That kind of confidence is really pure in its way, even if it IS utterly blinkered and moronic and could get us all killed.

Paul is a wolf. The fact that he is the one trying to fit into the sheep suit isn't the entire problem, however; his platform is stupid and impractical.

What I find amusing is that some people support him on the grounds that the present system doesn't work. But it actually does, more or less. Libertarians want to exchange a system which actually works reasonably well for the majority for a system which doesn't work for anyone, except in a theoretical vacuum. It wants to let the market determine the economy without regulation. What's funny about that is the ones who are supporters of "OWS", yet support a guy who would remove all the socioeconomic checks and balances currently applied to the "1%".

Sure, he opposes military intervention in foreign wars, but not out of a sense of decency or pacifism; he would also withdraw from the UN (including humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, foreign aid would disappear, and if you think "unstable" regions are bad now, imagine what they would be like with the double-edged sword of multinational (read: US) corporate interests moving unchecked throughout the developing world AND an absence of monitored unilateral military involvement in those regions. Paul's position isn't one of altruism; it's one of isolationism. Not that I'm an advocate of First World military involvement in foreign problems, but look at what isolationism has netted in the past.

I don't know much about economics, but a return to the gold standard appears to me to be a likely trigger for severe deflation. Furthermore, while operating in gold might have worked 200 years ago, in a truly global economy, it doesn't.

He would remove social spending for almost everything, assuming the states would pick up the bill. First of all, where does he think the states will get the money for this? From the federal government, of course! So what's changed?

He claims to want to lower tuition, but what he wants to do is actually remove government control of tuition, and (wait for it) let the private sector deal with it. Do you actually believe that will result in lower education costs? Really?

None of us have time to cover point for point why Paul's selective and obsolete vision of a libertarian utopia won't work.

Let's just say it is the perpetual motion machine of political dogma; if it worked it would be really impressive and everyone would be happy, but it doesn't.

And, they have a paranoid nutter at the helm. Better luck next time.
Go to Page: 1