Violence Against Women - Rape and Response

Written in response to discourse on CBC radio, May 28, 2015.

There is a call from people affected by rape to strengthen laws. There has been an evolution in law away from the victimization of the victim; a reduction if you will, in drawing inappropriately on orthodoxy and a contorted view of female sexuality.  For a person to be charged with rape, there needs to be a clear determination of the absence of consent on the part of the victim – oft times the means by which to determine the presence or absence of consent is in the un-witnessed dialogue between two people leading up to the event. There is no basis in this circumstance to answer to an accusation of rape and there can never be, or people would be convicted on accusation alone.

The goal is to have a society where people are safe and can choose how they want to interface with others – the challenge is it is hard to effect through law enforcement – it needs to be culturally driven and that will take some time. Women are understandably frustrated that they are required to be constrained in their daily lives to a greater degree than men to protect themselves, but there is really no other way, people simply have to protect themselves. As a man I am mindful of where I am, who I am exposed to and how I might manage any given situation should it arise and women need to as well. So prevention is a critical element in response to the threat of rape.

Consent and only consent – is the determinant of rape. People must be clear in communication around sexual relations, by way of example, a woman when confronted with a male in a manner that is uncomfortable to her should respond by saying, PLEASE STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING – an affirmative request to cease is the clearest means by which to be sure what you are saying is understood. There is room for misinterpretation in the interface unless a very clear AFFIRMATIVE request to cease is made.  

  

People refer to the presence of rape culture, it is important to break out all the aspects of the issue – there is the patriarchy – there are men who rape women, but they are unrelated. The patriarchy marginalizes women by systematizing male privilege, and rapists rape. The patriarchy has an imperative to protect women, an imperative that is part and parcel with “chauvinist” inclination; the protective inclination as a “stand-alone” entity is a good thing. Patriarchs in the traditional sense see rape as a crime, as women do. A convicted rapist or a person compelled to act to rape when the opportunity presents, should be contemplated separately and apart from the male population generally. One hears women referring to the “rape culture” as though it is a general practice of “most” men. Most men I know are kind, loving and respectful towards women. The general state of patriarchy effects less than desirable outcomes for women in society at large – this is in no way a rape culture, it is a culture of privilege for men.

The awkward fusion of Stoicism and Christian Theology has created a culture where women become devalued when contemplated in the context of sexual relations; this reality then contributes to male disrespect for women in some circumstances. This may be the source of some violence toward women – this is the point where violence against women can be attacked culturally. Presently, we are at an awkward point in the evolution of female sexuality in society at large, women have evolved perhaps in advance of society as a whole, which is abrading against old perceptions on the part of males.

Due to the reality that rape is very difficult to prove and is subject to interpretations of discourse between people, caution is warranted in how we respond to accusations of rape. Also, given that the data associated with conviction is ofttimes the interpretation of interface between two people, there is a high possibility of wrongful convictions. Given these realities, it is important that people convicted of rape once, who have served their sentence, be permitted to enter society in an unfettered fashion.  So the answer to the question - To publish rapist names - seems simple enough, the first time through the process NO, if a person re-offends, then society needs to protect all concerned. There is wrongful conviction, especially in the area of rape; rape is very difficult to prove for the reasons stated above – so if someone is convicted and serves their sentence, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. There should be no question that if there is an offender that has more than two convictions, steps should be taken to ensure the public can manage their presence in any given community.

What is missing here, and is missing throughout our corrections processes, is criteria-based advancement. There needs a series of steps people go through to regain their place in society at large having committed a crime. Multiple time offenders are by definition “repeat offenders”, so our approach to them needs to be different than a person that is a first-time offender. The key here is assessing each case and then making a choice to publish data or withhold it.

The challenge with publishing the names and locations of offenders is that we marginalize them more and subject them to people inclined to “name & shame”.  Naming & shaming offers no value in the case of an individual intent on reforming and fails to arrest the actions of an individual who is compelled to act as a result of illness. The general public ofttimes is out to effect vengeance – rather than exercise a measured response to people accused or convicted of rape.

Rapists that have offended eight times (as was the subject of the CBC program that has prompted this blog) require NO consideration with respect to privacy, they need to be managed. In the case of repeat, “high risk” offenders, they should be monitored 24/7, ankle bracelets and other technology to communicate their location to the police or a monitoring body is warranted and or an isolated living circumstance – perhaps a community that is designed to house and contain the negative affect of repeat rapists.

It is critical, however, that people, having served their punishment, and having been released on the first occasion be given the opportunity to reintegrate into society – unobstructed. A person in this circumstance should never be exposed to “community” type interventions, because, for the most part, there is an absence of evolved enough people to involve themselves in the private lives of others. There tends to be a vindictive, small-minded cohort that finds their way into the “community justice” space, people absent the understanding of fundamental law and ignorant of critical elements related to civil rights.

The other challenge is the reversion to an “ancient” moral perspective, a degree of righteousness emerges along with a “vigilantly” mentality. This is exacerbated by people who have been affected by rape as they become involved in processes related to “community” interventions, people traumatized by an event are unlikely to be able to find an objective place from which to actuate.

Within our society there is a wide cultural variation with respect to sexual discourse, this is allowed, and the response to sexual deviation tends to drive us backward to a strict and highly traditionally moralized stance. It is the merger of sex and all the associated baggage it carries and violent suppression that drives the rebuke. The focus of response needs to be on violence and the violation of being overpowered – to be forced to action absent consent.  

Ideally, society would be free of rape, there is no more grievous injury to the sole than to be overpowered, rendered defenceless and sexually assaulted. Ideally, women would be treated the same clothed in a burka or a bikini – the reality is they are treated differently. Ideally, women could run in the parks at any time of day or night by themselves absent of fear, the reality is however, they are at risk when they do. The prevalence of rape is shocking to me, when I inventory the women in my life whose personal lives I am familiar with – the percentages that have been affected by rape is staggering. I am unsure what drives it, I only know it exists, the only way to manage it is to recognize its presence, to understand the modalities that lead to it occurring and then find a way to lower the risk, and contain perpetrators.   

Click Below

VAW - More Discourse

Progressing Personal Liberty - A case for moral relativism

Progressing Personal Liberty - A case for moral relativism 

In the acceptance or creation of a moray, one needs to begin contemplation with the presence or absence of harm and or the presence or absence of goodly outcome.

Morality finds our minds mostly as memes from our parents, and cultural influences as are extracted from the Metanarrative in which our development is steeped. The innate human morality that exists, such as the almost universally recognized morality of reciprocity (or as it is found in the Christian world – the golden rule), is augmented by the aforementioned. There is a tendency for many to grip morality in an unconscious manner, given the nature of its introduction to our beings, morality is absent of a rationale, it just is. Yet morals come to us both tacitly and explicitly, sometimes in accord and sometimes in discord with each other. Often the Meta-Christian narrative ascribes moral conduct that challenges fundamental human inclination. It is from these realities that much inner and outer conflict occurs under the influence of morality, often effecting “moral action” that results in pain. It is this paradox where morals intended to manage human behaviour for good can distort human action with the most inhuman results. The ability to discern morality is innate and "god" given, it is in this context humanity must take the liberty to examine its conduct in the context of morality and revise morality under an umbrella of more complete knowledge. The best place to begin to consider morality is to ask, "does this belief and my application of it, result in good outcomes or in pain for others". Strict and fervent adherence to unclear and tacitly transmitted moral structure is the source of outright evil. There have been actual cases of mothers outcasting their own daughters as the result of the daughter’s unwanted pregnancy. What could cause such behaviour, the meeting of a child’s error with absolute immoral neglect? Extreme travesties happen as societal pressure contorts the human psyche to the point where the moral code promotes inhumane action.

As many such moral precepts transfer as memes from one generation to another and where little thought is given to their origin or purpose, contemplation is required to ensure good action. Morality when considered in the context of rational purpose and good outcome takes on a healthier character. Much biblical morality comes to us in this fashion from our parents and or the Metanarrative of society at large. Biblical morality was committed to paper thousands of years ago when the mastery of biology and other related science was undiscovered. People learned from life experience that sexuality out of wedlock caused social strife; exposure to illness and caused conflict. What is necessary for Christianity to keep pace with an informed society is the recognition that knowledge and technology have offered the neutralization of threats that precipitated the necessity for the moray in the first place. In the absence of a rational basis for the assertion of a given moray, people begin to challenge the validity of that moray and more damaging, they then begin to challenge the morays carrying contemporary pertinence. It is a better circumstance to allow the examination of morays in the context of good outcomes and contemporary knowledge and provide latitude on morays that can safely be allowed to pass from the collective consciousness.              

When one sets about the task of rationally examining the collection of morals that determine our life actions, it becomes a cumbersome task, as they reside so deeply in our psyche and morph with every life exposure, the multitude, variability and transient nature of morals make them almost impossible to list and make explicit. A young boy is schooled by his mother to extend kindness to others and yet is later in life asked to find a moral reprieve from acts of war. So, even a moral tenet in Christ’s teachings as fundamental as respecting the life of another finds societal circumstances justifying its psychological circumvention. Was St. Augustine’s just war theory an act of moral relativism, or a practical moral adjustment, to what is at its roots, a passive theology? 

The precedent for the adjustment of morality in the light of circumstance is hardly new, only now it has a new handle, moral relativism. Moral relativism is merely a means to rationalize moral conduct to new knowledge or circumstance. A Moral action, is an action that is absent harm and promotes good, and good is like the beauty of the sun’s rays across the rolling countryside in the early morning, you'll know it when you see it. Goodness resides innately in humans and evil arises from circumstances. Morals are a code to promote circumstance absent evil and an environment where good can flourish.    

The Tale of TWO Christianities and the path forward for Female Liberation & Liberation Generally

Christ lived 2015 years ago, yet we allow our impression of his life to be formed by a committee of men in Rome 400 years after he died. Perhaps there is merit, now, in an enlightened world to reconsider some prior impressions and interpretations of Christ’s life. Perhaps by being willing to see that others have contemplated his life through a different lens, we can begin to contemplate his message through the lens of modernity, perhaps we then can develop a Christianity that is relevant to our times and offers flexibility on our path forward; rather than has so often been the case, where religion has foiled or obstructed human progress.  

Origen of Alexandria converted to Christianity around 200 AD. I read a description of his interpretation of God. It has it, that God is a concentration of spirit from which souls emanate, one might imagine a wellspring of human spirit genitally bubbling, and each bubble is a human soul and seeks to unite with a human being. This entity that is god exists in perfection and binds the entire universe on a foundation of perfection. Upon death, the soul then reunites with the perfection of God and becomes one with the universe.

There is a refreshing absence of threat in this view. It is consistent with the cyclical nature of other phenomena in the natural world that are readily observable. There is the presence here of a harmonious acceptance of my humanity and the absence of contorting doctrines; there is only the unobstructed union with perfection. I can imagine a beautiful child coming into being and being touched by perfection. The child, as its life develops will then be exposed to the rigours of existence and upon death be returned to perfection, having lived a life absent the fear of the all mighty and only with love to look forward to. This view finds accord with Jesus as was exemplified by his good works on earth and his innate tolerance and peacefulness.

This view stands in startling contrast to the doctrine of original sin, which has an innocent child labelled a sinner on the assertion that human inclination, the inclination that emanates from divine origins is wrong. Augustine was seriously challenged as a human being and tormented by his own sexuality. Of course, he would ascribe ugliness where beauty lives. When I see a child, I see the beauty and the opportunity for good things to come. Augustine projected his own angst around human sexuality and turned a beautiful exchange between a man and woman into sin. His legacy pervades Christendom’s psyche to this very day, distorting human conduct through the negative conditioning that finds expression in many of the formal Christian institutions, the sin lies in placing evil on a creation of a perfect god and inserting guilt where joy should be. One of the most unfortunate events in the journey of Christianity was the credence given to a sick man. 

I would be concerned about levelling this complaint against original sin, save that many in the two institutions that have to manage its legacy share this view. Distorting doctrine is in no way peculiar to original sin or Christianity – it is merely the subject matter I am familiar with, the general sternness by which religion, in general, has dealt natural human inclination is resulting in much pain and distortion. 

      

With Origen’s Christianity, liberation lives, as a person, you're connected to perfection, always present and always accessible. So rather than quaking in fear at a patriarch hijacked by a human being for concern of power, you're in direct connection with the supreme being and able to live life liberated from anthropogenic influence, with the full knowledge that perfection will be the net result of your existence.

 

In the 400 AD version of events, there has been gross infidelity in the delivery of Christ’s message, as it has been anthropomorphized with his message sullied first and second as his message has been hijacked by political concern. One is hopeful now that in the ambit of the hard-won advancements that the enlightenment has given us, we can bring free and open minds to the task of theological contemplations. I dare say unless the people of Christendom do, the absence of contemporary support due to the absence of relevant doctrine in the modern context will leave Christendom to erode against its own intransigence until it fades to inconsequence; as it has done in much of the “enlightened” world - this would be a loss to us all.    

Violence Against Women - Causation

THE COMMENTS HERE ARE DIRECTED AT THE CANADIAN REALITY

IT IS MORE TRUE - CLEARLY - IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS

& TRUE OF ALL RELIGIONS

Violence Against Women - Causation 

The transition from chattel to sovereign being has been long coming and well deserved for women. From 1959 when my mother needed the permission of a group of clergymen to have her tubes tied, to now when my daughters are absent from any ostensible obstruction to the highest office; this is truly a great step forward for “man” kind. It is a relief, as a father of two women, to have witnessed this progress. In society at large, young girls strut more boldly now, less constrained by conditioning and they are well educated. It is difficult to know what to attribute the progress to in the past fifty years, whether it was the feminist movement finally gaining critical mass or the advent of a pill that put pregnancy in the hands of women as opposed to the whims of nature, or perhaps the awareness of the enlightenment spreading into the western canon. Whatever might be the cause, the future for my daughters is brighter as a result.

The blemish on this progress is the incessant presence of violence against women (VAW). One wonders what is at the core of the challenge, what fuels barbarism. Perhaps it is that in reality, we are mammals, that because someone has the capacity to subdue and sexually assault someone with blatant disregard for the “other” – they do. For the vast majority of human evolution, we simply did what we wanted, when we wanted, based on individual strength or alliance, the humanitarian imperative was absent – I am unsure that we really have evolved that much. Instead of a femur bone of a large ungulate as a weapon, we have adopted more sophisticated means – the result however is the same.

When people engage in consensual sexual relations, we call that lovemaking, when people engage in sexual relations absent consent, we call that rape. So what is at stake here, what is the atrocity, I submit it is the disempowerment of another human being. This document is directed toward VAW, men do get raped too it is worth noting. The harm is rarely physical, the crux of the harm is psychological – it is a spirit-breaking event to be overpowered, add to that sexual elements and the affected incur extreme pain. If this theory is true, what is true by extension is that RAPE takes many forms – the systematized suppression of women is in effect societal rape – a violation of the spirit, a disempowerment.

So what is the cause of VAW, why is it continuing and what is the cure. Part of the challenge in dealing with VAW is that it is normally sexually related, we still, in varying degrees, live in a world where sex is brushed under the carpet. People fail to speak about healthy sex honestly for the most part, how then, can they manage unhealthy sex. The generalized suppression of sexual discourse of any kind is the problem; it stifles progress along the path to a solution. When you put a thumb on the forehead of natural human inclination, something ugly always squirts out the side. Humans are biological creatures first, that is our reality, we need to manage ourselves from that perspective. Morality should have as a base premise, the presence or absence of harm; from there we can bring a rational mind to the challenge.

We, hitherto, have lived in a male-dominated society – I suppose through history there are examples of female-dominated societies – they are few. When might was right, men had the upper hand. As the social complex became more developed, women still had the vulnerability of childbearing – men have never been barefoot and pregnant; which gave men the upper hand. We know this is true, because this reality is omnipresent in contemporary society – women still carry the largest share of domestic concerns. Until now, men have had the upper hand, and as we know, power corrupts, corrupts in a multitude of ways; VAW is such a corruption. 

Western males are conditioned under the fusion of Christian theology and stoicism. This fusion in conjunction with male biology is a very conflicted place. The Christian discourse around sexuality, what there is of it, is inherently conflicted – sex tends to be demonized or sullied to a degree here. Stoicism is largely misinterpreted as control over emotions; control over emotions often results in suppression of emotion and by extension, fear of emotions. Add to this male biology – primal inclinations – the deep-seated desire to spread genes and the resulting tacit support from peers, even mother’s in this regard, and you have a cauldron of human interface that is unhealthy and often unfair.

Often as a male, the most treasured facet of society is femininity, often treasurer tacitly - treasured nonetheless. Living life as a male, the female occupies our mind and drives many of our decisions. Women nurture us and then they let us go, only to occupy our minds 24/7 as their biology becomes a point of fascination (young men talk about women). Their presence in our psyche holds sway over us, there is a powerful paradox in our development, where we are immersed in our dependence on women and then societal conditioning requires us to take a different stance, as both the dominant moral complex and the stoic imperative for emotional independence come into play. There have been historical requirements of men that preclude the luxury of acquiescing to the comforts women provided as nurturers. The nagging inclination toward the comforts of that nurturing, in the context of our requirements as men, creates a conflict. Out of that male internalized conflict emerged the patriarchal society. Once the investment is made in a woman, males tend to want to secure that association for a host of reasons. The liberation of females challenges this inclination, which is why society became structured the way it was during the age of the patriarch.

Violence is born of three things in large part, the desire to dominate, the desire to prevent domination and fear. Domination is a freighting space; the western male’s conditioning is a product of argumentative thought; we are taught to be oppositional, to deploy tactics and win the day. Intellectual confrontations often extend to physical confrontations. A culture with the imperative to hold domain over ourselves, or to dominate has emerged - dominate or be dominated. The innate desire to have a women’s appreciation linked to maternal bonding is powerful, it redirects us away from the traditional precepts of strength and independence and threatens  self- domain, FEAR, plays a role here; paradoxically a woman’s affections can occupy the mind as a threat. This may in part be the birthplace of misogyny, this may be the place where the Montreal Massacre came from, or less extreme, or perhaps causal, this may have been the place where Paul’s letter to the Corinthians came from.   

So again, hear the conflict, firstly men want to spread genes, secondly, we want fidelity – the only assurance that genes are getting spread is fidelity, so fidelity trumps all – hence the moral complex around western sexual relations and fidelity. So in developing the patriarchal society, men, have had an aim at play, fidelity. Fidelity, the accurate copy is innately important to men – men want to know “our” children are our own; innate one would imagine at the most base level, it would be a biological desire. There is no biological imperative for monogamy; monogamy is a cultural means to ensure every man gets his own and or to prevent conflict. In fact, monogamy gets in the way of spreading our genes. So here too the liberation of females falls a fowl with male desires, or at least potentially so, or perhaps more likely so.  

The introduction of Greek philosophy in Abrahamic morality is a source of consternation for men in the contemporary setting.  Plato’s ideal of “being above the senses” precluded him from enjoying female company, some still hold celibacy as an ideal to be aspired to – and encounter self-loathing when they fall short. This is of course a perversion of human discourse that has caused perversion of human sexuality and resulted in perverse outcomes.

The Christian narrative around sexuality is complex, conflicted, sullies sexual relations and generates an inappropriate physiological space around virtue. There is at once a requirement for women to be virtuous and a lover, a circumstance that has a woman becoming somehow less acceptable for having been a woman. The language that one encounters around sexual relations in Church is often derogatory – “sins of the flesh” and the like; this puts in place a conflict with virtuosity and sexual relations. The exaltation of virginity (the absence of sexual activity) imposes a diminished state on those who have chosen to engage in sexual relations.

By way of example Original Sin, is a doctrine developed by a very conflicted man in about 400 AD, Original Sin is in no way the word of Christ. The Original Sin doctrine proposes that by our nature we are sinners and that the pleasure derived from sexual relations is sinful. Original Sin besmirched our humanity and fowls sexual relations. Original Sin is more of a Platonic ideal than one that Christ would have propagated. Christ embraced love; Original Sin is misplaced in Christianity.

The generalized SUPPRESSION of sexuality by Christianity has sexuality “erupting” in inappropriate ways, violent ways. Perhaps in part, VAW finds some cause here. It certainly raises its head in religious institutions, as has come to light since the sexual revolution has permitted victims of sexual abuse to speak of the incursions on their person. It seems often, where people with suppressed sexuality gain power over others, sexuality is actuated in painful ways, in forms of abuse – residential schools for example.

The violence that emanates from sexual suppression is evident in so many ways in Christian institutions, in the pre-sexual revolution era women who became pregnant out of wedlock incurred violent rebuke and marginalization from the Church. Our policies around prostitution that leave the most vulnerable in often the most deplorable of conditions, is an act of violence that emanates from the institutional Christian moral complex. When people exist affected by suppression, in the case of sexual suppression and other forms of suppression, that is to say, they are in effect fighting to contain an inclination, and their response to that inclinations enactment is often violent. You could say that the greater the degree of desire, the higher the degree of suppression, and then greater the degree of violence that is elicited in response.

From Eve who betrayed men to the Virgin Mary as an ideal, the ostensible foundation of Christian morality as it relates to sexuality lands on the male psyche in ways that affect our interface with women negatively. It may be posited that in our secular society that most young men are unaware of biblical teachings and Eve and Mary hold no sway with them, the truth, however, is that these concepts amplify as they enter and are distributed through the narrative.

It is my assertion that the tacit double sexual standard that exalts men in sexual conquest and sullies women in sexual participation (thankfully diminished in contemporary society) emanates from the Christian ideals of femininity and the biological inclinations of men, in conjunction with the male desire for fidelity. It may be, that the more generalized double standards between men and women in society finds some cause here as well.

          

The Abrahamic moral complex, in fact, the entire human moral complex, as it relates to human sexuality came into being thousands of years ago. It was developed to generate a harmonious society, to reduce male conflict, to create the family unit, to satiate the male desire for fidelity and to manage the negative externalities that can flow from human sexuality. It was developed at a time when the consequences of the sexual interface were dire for people – especially young women, so the rhetoric and response to sexual interface had to be extreme and strict. The moral complex that has arisen from these times is still being projected throughout the human discourse, some are a help, and some are a hindrance. As this arcane and archaic moral complex finds expression in society, in the form of government policy and actions, and in the general human endeavour, it effects VAW, and confounds an equitable and loving interface between men and women. As morals come to us with our mother’s milk, we fail in many cases to examine them; in the west, we need to examine the Abrahamic moral complex and keep the good, and dispose of the bad - keep the family, dispose of inequity.

With a clean moral slate, we can build a narrative that is anti-violent and is free of suppressive language. We can construct a human interface that is liberated, that allows us to teach young people that sexual relations are beautiful and can occur healthfully as a part of their general life course. When human sexuality is seen as it is, as beautiful and worthy, humanity will do with it what humanity does with all things it values, it will protect it and by extension protect those involved in it – this is the thing we call progress. In contemplating a new moral complex, let’s begin with the end in mind - a society of love and tolerance, with happy children, the one Christ started his revolution for. The beauty in Christ’s message has survived 2000 years of the institutional perversions that came from philosophical warfare, actual warfare and power-mongering because it is liberating and recognizes the innate beauty in humanity.  

Law, Legislation and Liberty - Violence Against Women - #NOTokay

Law, Legislation and Liberty  - Violence Against Women - #NOTokay 

Links to more complete thinking below.

MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

Law, Legislation and Liberty - Violence Against Women - #NOTokay  

It is clear that it is simply unacceptable that women, in Canada, in 2014, find themselves in a state of vulnerability. Our justice system would do well to focus on eliminating violence in society; the challenge is we ask our police to attend to so many things that it is difficult to attend to this important concern.

When police are stretched so thin, we all have to learn to take care of ourselves, men and women alike.  While we need to work toward a society that is wholly respectful of women’s safety and wellbeing; in the interim, there is a reality to deal with; there is a risk inherent in some areas of life for women. When my girls were young; I taught them to never walk alone, avoid being alone with one or more men, build a strong buddy system with their friends and generally be aware of their environment. This is teaching young women to take care of themselves; it is in no way acquiescence to the generalized state of barbarism that seems to exist in the societal subtext.

MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

In his book The Anatomy of Power, John Kenneth Galbraith, speaks to the sources of power in society, he states that CONDITIONING is the most powerful of the sources of power. We live in a society that is in large measure directed by the Christian Narrative. The Christian Narrative holds a patriarchal bias and in some cases, women are ridiculed by errant historical depictions. The destructive elements in traditional Christian teachings, or the misinterpretation of Christ’s word, are being muted as we become generally more secular. The United Church and other progressive churches have helped to move us toward a more rational society which has fueled women’s progress.

The lingering effects of orthodoxy and the generalized suppression of healthy sexual dialogue lays a cloak over the whole subject of human sexuality, and with that reality there comes a stifling environment where teaching young men and women about appropriate relations is difficult. The sexual revolution, spurred by secularism, has brought us closer to the Christian ideal of peaceful human relations, because now, having “de-stigmatized” sexual relations to a large degree – people negatively affected can speak about what has happened, knowing they will be seen as the victim of wrongdoing. Much of the “shame” in victim-hood related to sexual assault emanates from the generalized suppression of sexual relations as exercised by many Christian organizations.  

MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE     

We need to exercise caution in remedying the negative circumstance that does continue, yes we must teach compassion to young men, yes we need to exercise a culture of respect for women – we do, however, have to be mindful of zealotry. People should never be convicted on hearsay, in the case of the two parliamentarians who were suspended; both were severely affected absent due process. It may be that they did do something wrong, what is required is the sober assessment of a Judge as opposed to a near “lynch mob” mentality. The men that inflict violence on women are bad men, we need to be cognizant that there are bad women too. We need to remember that in a world where accusations convict that we are replacing one vulnerability with another. DUE PROCESS PLEASE.

More Thinking on the VAW

CLICK THE LINKS BELOW

VAW - Causation 

VAW - Rape and Response