Violence Against Women - More on Causation Rape and Affects

This was an attempt to clarify some points - useful thinking.

I never knew you were a “Plato Guy / Bloke”, fact is tricky here due to the evolution in thought and the “mash up” that is modern perception – whatever happened, history is only as useful as the future it makes – we are both agreed on what the future should be.

The semantics related to the term “platonic” in contemporary context I believe supports my use of the term to communicate non-sexual association. It may be the case that Plato argued in defense of women’s equality, there is a degree of linearity in “platonic” relations and stoicism, in so much as one manages the relations – what is relevant is the contemporary expression of “celibacy” and it being held as a “value”; if you’re advocating for Plato as a feminist, I’ll let history speak. Celibacy exercised as a life choice is a “platonic” value, humans are innately “a” platonic, and our default state is to engage in sexual relations. The fact that religious organizations hold celibacy as a value, puts us at odds with our “innate” state of being and has in it inherent conflict. Christian doctrines tend to hold a negative bias toward women in the management of sexual relations, that is to say, women are given the responsibility of virtuosity to a greater extent than men – this is certainly true tacitly in society – the double standard that exists which to a degree gives men a tacit pat on the back at sexual conquest and has the same action by women garners an unfavourable social outcome. THIS IS WRONG TO BE CLEAR. While I appreciate your knowledge, what is relevant is how the complex of contributing factors – contemporary culture and the memes that have travelled to us out of past western teaching land on the minds of people to an actuate proper treatment of women or not – presently women are the recipients of a disturbing degree of sexual violence.      

“Self - Control” as delivered by Stoicism is of course a good thing, the challenge with “self-control” and Stoicism is that many people, in an effort to exercise Self-control of emotion often end up suppressing emotion – Stoicism practiced “healthfully” permits the choice to access emotion or to leave it, but emotion is present. To some extent “stoicism” is more actively expressed in the male population – women often describe men as “emotionally unavailable” – it maybe that the attempt to detach one’s self from overriding attachment effects a degree of conflict in relations with women. It has been my observation that when natural and healthy inclinations are suppressed – ugliness and violence ensue. Violence first in the suppressing in many cases and violence in circumventing the suppression and violence again in the punishing of the for the second.

God is a divine – humans’ response to God is a human construct – this is evidenced by the multitude accepting there is a God, and yet having many different ways of attending to metaphysical contemplation. I am saying, violence is a part of the human condition, as you point out, dominance is an inclination of humans – male and female. The inclination to violence as a means to dominate is primal, perhaps archetypical; it resides in us individually and tribally – the realities of manliness & womanliness historically permitted male dominance – no man has ever been barefoot and pregnant.  England is a country founded on religion generally, yet it holds dear stoic values – stiff upper lip – in the US the Abrahamic adherents have found much common cause, the channel has been stoicism’s primary carrier. Jesus was a tender, gentle, tolerant – beautiful – entity, as you point out his actions on earth sullied no one – yet the institutions that have emerged in his name have – at the confluence of social reality and narrative marginalized and sullied female sexuality to an even greater degree than sexual relations generally.       

I take your point with respect to physical harm; it is my assertion that the greatest affect is mental - more so spiritually. I think much of the “frat boy” or “date rape” hinges on attraction. It may be the case there are numbers to support attraction is a smaller player than I assert. This in no way negates the capacity for women to manage risk – where you are, how you conduct yourself, who you associate with, where you place your faith – all play a role in self-protection. It is the total assault on one’s being, regardless of physical pain, it is the breach all things sacred, defenselessness – the failure of structure to effect safety – the illusion of order is attacked. It would be my assertion to say mental trauma occurs, and that physical trauma only serves to contribute to it.

It is clearly the responsibility of parents to firstly council against sexually violent material and secondly, to curb viewing via electronic media. There should be no coercive elements permitted to play on the inclinations of young women, in a healthy setting there is a forum to discuss these influences. As you say “make it essential for her to unequivocally say yes”.  

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.    

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 

Jian Ghomeshi - the Most Challenging of Events

As a regular listener to “Q” I am dismayed at recent events surrounding Mr. Ghomeshi. The specter of sexual harassment and or violence against women is disturbing. The fact that the allegations being leveled against Mr. Ghomeshi is disturbing and very serious in nature, should drive behavior by all parties that is prudent. In listening to CBC radio and digesting the materials related to the issue on the web; people should know they are doing one of two things in publishing “hearsay”; they are either facilitating a vendetta OR prosecuting someone for non-consensual sex. Given the vulnerability of people in positions of “celebrity” to slanderous attack, judgment should be reserved until all the facts are in – especially in matters related to criminality, like non-consensual sex.

We can hold moral beliefs, we can direct support or withdraw support to others based on our own moral perspective, we do however, need to be mindful of the rights of consenting adults to interface as they deem appropriate. I am unaware of the breadth of accusations being leveled against Mr. Ghomeshi, or the rationale that has driven CBC management’s conduct. I am seriously challenged by the reports that have emerged out of the controversy related to violence and misconduct toward women, the point is they are only “allegations”. I am seriously challenged by Mr. Ghomeshi’s own reported practices for my own moral reasons. I am equally concerned however, that a man maybe being ridiculed, defamed and criminalized on hearsay alone absent due process.

The appropriateness of actions by the CBC and others in processing the allegations leveled against Mr. Ghomeshi should be firstly contemplated in the presence or absence of consent as determined by due process. Personal moral perspectives can be answered to in civil society, people may choose to associate with him or not – that is their right. No person or organization should preempt, or prejudge, the sober examination of the facts that due process provides – that is his right. We should all remember, people can say anything.