Dear Rape Apologists,
A girl in Delhi’s Gandhi Nagar was abducted and repeatedly sexually molested for a period of 48 hours by her neighbour. The neighbour had cut open her throat and mutilated her genitals. He also tried to strangle her. She is currently battling for her life at Swami Dayanad Hosiptal. Along with wounds on her lips, cheeks, chest, the doctors also found a candle and a bottle of oil inside her. Nobody knows if she will live.
She is five years old.
The nation is in shock, again. We are looking for solutions, again. But I see some of you have already started with your rants of “legalize prostitution to prevent rape”. You seem to hold the view that if men have more sex, they will commit less rape.
I don’t see how legalizing prostitution is going to help reduce cases of sexual assault because rape is NOT about sex. It is about power and dominance over another (smaller, weaker) human being.
Legalising prostitution to prevent rape is like saying that it is a women’s ‘duty’ to provide men with sex or men will try to get it by hook or by crook. In other news, we are currently in the year 2013.
Please change your calender.
The most common apology for sexual assault is that women provoke it. Pray tell how this little girl, provoked it. Oh, I’m sorry, was she wearing a frock that was a really small size? Well, maybe it is because she’s FIVE YEARS OLD! And no, I won’t ask what kind of a mentally sick person sexually abuses a five year old because I refuse to make excuses for him. He is not sick. He is sound of mind.
Abduction and rape do not occur in the heat of the moment. They are planned attacks; and this man obviously had the mental capabilities to turn his plan into action successfully.

Antifeminist crusader Erin Pizzey bravely tells Redditors that “never in the history of the world have men been so unprivileged, if you think about it.”



Longtime antifeminist crusader Erin Pizzey recently did an “Ask Me Anything” session on Reddit. Here are some highlights — by which I mean lowlights — from her answers.

Ms. Pizzey wants to ban feminism as a hate movement:

Personally, I would like to see the feminist movement described as a hate movement, so that we can then ban them from the government, from university faculties, from anywhere where they can destroy the minds of young women and men.

It’s just a teensy bit ironic, I would say, that she characterizes feminism as a hate movement at the very same time that A Voice for Men, a site she has very publicly aligned herself with, is leading a hate campaign against an individual feminist activist. (More on this to come tomorrow.) Indeed, Pizzey herself adds to the vilification of the activist here.

And speaking of A Voice for Men, she apparently agrees with AVFM’s Paul Elam that feminists are only interested in the issue of rape because they have rape fantasies and are angry that they’re not getting enough attention from men:

If you’re referring to Paul’s statement that many or most women fantasize about being taken, I’m sorry but that’s the truth. That doesn’t mean they want to be raped, but it’s a fantasy I think almost all women have. And I think he went on to say that feminists like Andrea Dworkin who were and are so obsessed with rape are really projecting their own unconscious sexual frustration because men don’t give them enough attention. Andrea was a very sad lonely woman like this–I didn’t know her but I knew of her, and I knew Susan Browmiller and you can just read her stuff to see it there.

Yeah, I’m thinking that Dworkin’s “obsession” with rape might have had less to do with her wanting “attention” from men than it did with the fact that she had been raped.
In response to a question about using Title IX to increase the number of women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), Pizzey argues that most women’s brains aren’t equipped to handle all that sciencey stuff, and that most women would rather be raising children:

During our Anti-Street Harassment chalk party last week, Anthonine and I spoke to guys, young and old about why it’s wrong to harass women in the streets. It was both entertaining and sobering to hear the many different ways they defended their right to engage in this behavior. More importantly however, it was enlightening. It made it clear that there is a huge disconnect on what is and isn’t appropriate language to use with strangers. Men seemed genuinely shocked and confused that the way they spoke to women in the streets was considered harassment. It made it clear that we have our work cut out for us and that ongoing inter-gender and intergenerational dialogue must be the cornerstone of our anti-street harassment work. This article is an attempt to address that confusion.

Almost every man we spoke to felt the remarks made to women in the streets were “harmless” and were an attempt at being neighborly. When we asked whether they were similarly neighborly to other men, their defense fell apart. They pointed out the absurdity of infringing on someone’s personal space in public in that way. Yet when we pointed out that these gender-based unsolicited remarks are street harassment by definition, they adamantly disagreed. While they were difficult, we realized that each one of these conversations was a step towards a harassment free neighborhood.

I was compelled to complain because I feel that the vast majority of black folks who are subjected daily to forms of racial harassment have accepted this as one of the social conditions of our life in white supremacist patriarchy that we cannot change. This acceptance is a form of complicity…. Racial hatred is real. And it is humanizing to be able to resist it with militant rage. –bell hooks

From the founding of the nation, the meaning of American citizenship has rested on the denial of citizenship to blacks living within its borders. –Dorothy Roberts


I write this essay so that I do not have to swallow the rage—or to borrow from bell hooks, “killing rage”…“militant rage”…“rage at injustice”…“constructive healing rage”—that currently consumes me regarding the state of black women in society. I write this essay after learning that none of my friends, family members, colleagues, or undoubtedly most of America have come across any news coverage or informal conversations discussing the events that transpired two months ago involving a doctor accused of illegally and nonconsensually videotaping and photographing possibly over one thousand patients—mostly women of color—during their medical procedures. I am not only angry at the black doctor who used his power, position, and race to gain illicit access to the bodies of these women, but also at the media and our white supremacist society for its insistent racism, sexism, and classism that allow such exploits to take place and then get downplayed or overlooked. While this is only one story tied to a multi-century-long narrative of devaluation, this racialized, gendered, and classed incident, as well as its lack of publicity, speaks to both the historical and contemporary devaluation of women of color, the ways in which we are denied normative expectations of privacy, and our lack of full citizenship in the United States. As Linda Gordon explains in Pitied But Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare, “Without some minimum level of security, well-being, and dignity, people cannot function as citizens.”

On February 4, 2013, the late Dr. Nikita Levy, a Jamaican-born obstetrician/ gynecologist who worked at Johns Hopkins’ East Baltimore Medical Center—a center that primarily serves low-income African-American women—was accused of secretly recording patients during exams. An employee reported the doctor to hospital officials after becoming suspicious of a pen that Levy would consistently wear around his neck while examining patients. Hospital security later interviewed Levy in his office, where they found additional devices, and according to an official statement released by Johns Hopkins Medicine, “determined that Dr. Levy had been illegally and without our knowledge, photographing his patients and possibly others with his personal photographic and video equipment and storing those images electronically.”

WE WENT TO A MEN'S RIGHTS LECTURE IN TORONTO
AND WE DISCOVERED THAT THEY'RE A BUNCH OF LOSERS
By Brad Casey


In November of last year the University of Toronto hosted a lecture by Dr. Warren Farrell, a divisive figure who has been described simultaneously as a sage of the men’s movement and a rape apologist. On the night of the lecture a group of students barred the doors of the lecture hall in protest while chanting, “No hate speech on campus.” Police were called, the situation was brought under control and the lecture went on as scheduled. Another lecture took place in March of this year, this time an overly critical look at feminist studies by Janice Fiamengo in which she described the discipline as “intellectually incoherent and dishonest.” Again, protesters were on hand waving placards and this time a fire alarm was pulled but, once more, the lecture went on as scheduled. These controversial lectures were organized by a student group called the Canadian Association for Equality or CAFE for short. CAFE has come under fire from student groups and media who not only disagree with their actions and ideology but have associated them with the extreme, vitriolic American men’s rights website A Voice For Men. Where AVFM is upfront and open about its hatred for feminism, calling them “rape farmers,” CAFE takes aim at feminism with misleading information and careful rhetoric, barely ever using the word “feminist” itself.

CAFE has sprung up in several campuses across central Canada in the past year. They have groups on university campuses in Guelph, Montreal, Ottawa and Peterborough as well as two Toronto groups and off campus groups in Ottawa and Vancouver. Most recently, Ryerson University caught a controversial mix of praise and indignation for banning the group from their campus. CAFE claim to be “committed to achieving equality for all Canadians” and identify as a human rights group who focus on men’s issues. However, despite their claims or how they identify, the events which CAFE have been planning have been covered to an unusually extensive degree by A Voice For Men.

But who are A Voice For Men and why do they care about Canada? AVFM is run by a man named Paul Elam and provides a forum for vitriolic hatred against women and feminists. The website was once labeled a hate site by virus software Norton Symantec, which may have been a mistake—but isn’t completely unjust. Their coverage of CAFE organized events includes extensive videos and articles about the Toronto lectures with a focus on painting event protesters as violent, loudmouth, radical feminists whose goal is to destroy the rights of men. They’ve even gone so far as to post an entire article on one of the protesters featuring her full name, a picture of her face with the word “bigot” below, as well as screen shots of her Facebook and Twitter posts. They also added this girl to register-her.com, a website AVFM own in which they name women they allege to be bigots (whatever that means) and “female rapists,” the majority of which are women accused of or found guilty of statutory rape. The website is less about men’s rights and more about anti-feminist ideas—and the imaginary monsters which those ideas create.

Teenager exposes India's 'one month wives' sex tourism

Campaigners for Muslim women's rights said while short term 'contract marriages' are illegal in India and forbidden in Islam, they are increasing in Hyderabad, in southern India, where wealthy foreigners, local agents and 'Qazis' – government-appointed Muslim priests – are exploiting poverty among the city's Muslim families.
The victim, Nausheen Tobassum, revealed the scale of the problem when she escaped from her home last month after her parents pressurised her to consummate a forced marriage to a middle aged Sudanese man who had paid around £1,200 for her to be his 'wife' for four weeks.
She told police she had been taken by her aunt to a hotel where she and three other teenage girls were introduced to a Sudanese oil company executive. The 'groom', Usama Ibrahim Mohammed, 44 and married with two children in Khartoum, later arrived at her home where a Qazi performed a wedding ceremony.
According to Inspector Vijay Kumar he had paid 100,000 Rupees (around £1,200) to the girl's aunt Mumtaz Begum, who in turn paid 70,000 Rupees to her parents, 5,000 Rupees to the Qazi, 5,000 Rupees to an Urdu translator and kept 20,000 Rupees herself. The wedding certificate came with a 'Talaknama' which fixed the terms of the divorce at the end of the groom's holiday.
"The next day he came to the house of the victim girl and asked her to participate in sex but she refused. She is a young girl and the groom is older than her father," Inspector Kumar told The Telegraph.

A Republican New Hampshire lawmaker referred to women as "vaginas" in an email to colleagues on the official legislative electronic mailing list earlier this month, drawing outrage from his own party.

State Rep. Peter Hansen (R) made the comment, first reported by New Hampshire political blogger Susan the Bruce, in an April 1 email debate with colleagues about a "stand your ground" gun bill. Hansen's colleague, Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R) had delivered a lengthy floor speech about the benefits of retreating instead of using deadly force, to which Hansen replied in an email:

What could possibly be missing from those factual tales of successful retreat in VT, Germany, and the bowels of Amsterdam? Why children and vagina's of course. While the tales relate the actions of a solitary male the outcome cannot relate to similar situations where children and women and mothers are the potential victims.
State Rep. Rick Watrous (D) immediately criticized Hansen for his choice of words. "Are you really using 'vaginas' as a crude catch-all for women? Really?" he wrote. "Please think before you send out such offensive language on the legislative listserve [SIC]."

Yesterday, when attacks on the Boston Marathon injured scores of people, mostly spectators, every runner I know spent the day wandering around in a daze, then either going on an angry run or curling up in the fetal position at 9 pm. The spectators — people who show up and cheer with noisemakers and high fives and encouraging cheers and magic-markered tagboard signs that read "YOU ALL ARE CRAZY! KEEP RUNNING!"— are the people who matter most to runners. Without those people, a marathon would just be an exercise in self-abuse from a large group of crazies. But there is meaning in marathoning: the people who watch.

Running can be a lonely sport — hours on the road solo at times so early people can still be seen stumbling out of bars and hailing cabs home, declined invitations to evening activities, neglected significant others, and truly disgusting feet. In fact, unless a runner trains with a group that doesn't annoy the living daylights out of them, the months leading up to a long race can be profoundly antisocial. But on race day, all of that disappears when, as the marathon runner embarks along a path lined with people — all kinds of people, they're bathed in the encouragement of thousands of people who cheer for them without knowing their names.

In his excellent piece for The Nation yesterday, Dave Zirin invoked a famous quote from women's marathoning pioneer Kathrine Switzer: If you are losing faith in human nature, go out and watch a marathon. As a runner, I know this to be true, but not because of me or my fellow standard issue runners. It's the spectators — who yesterday after the blasts, jumped over barricades to run toward the injured, who helped the few remaining volunteers at the event throw tables out of the way to make room for ambulances. It's the people of Boston who offered their homes to families stranded by the blast — the last I heard, the Google doc of open doors contained 5,000 entries. For strangers. From the people who watch.

One of the many puzzling aspects of yesterday's attacks was the question of what, exactly, the perpetrators thought they'd accomplish by targeting what basically amounts to a celebration of human tenacity. If anything, the tragedy in Boston will further solidify the bond between runner and spectator. And when the Chicago marathon happens this October, I'll show up to run harder, and they'll show up to cheer louder. If anyone thought this attack would discourage the runners or the watchers, they've clearly never been to a marathon.

Canadian feminist activist receives death threats and other abuse after being targeted by Men’s Rights Activists


And so the MRAs have found yet another woman to hate.

Earlier this month, as many of you no doubt know, a Men’s Rights group sponsored a lecture at the University of Toronto. The event drew protesters, and the protesters drew MRAs with video cameras. One of the MRAs filmed a confrontation between a red-haired feminist activist and a number of MRAs who continually interrupted her as she tried to read a brief statement.

Her crime? She wasn’t exactly polite in responding to the interrupters. And so, after video of the confrontation was uploaded to YouTube, and linked to on the Men’s Rights subreddit and elsewhere, she became a virtual punching bag for the angry misogynists of the internet.


A Voice for Men, naturally, led the charge, running an article by Canadian MRA Dan Perrins labeling her “Little red frothing fornication mouth” and commenting on her breasts. The Amazing Atheist weighed in with a video I couldn’t bring myself to even watch.

Since being targeted by angry YouTube misogynists and MRAs, the red-haired activist has received death threats, rape threats and literally hundreds of other hateful and harassing messages. She’s also been “doxxed” — that is, she’s had her personal information plastered all over the internet, including on A Voice for Men’s forum. Ten days after being uploaded to YouTube, the video of her faceoff against the MRAs has garnered more than 300,000 views, and YouTubers are still leaving threats and insults and crude sexual comments.






http://manboobz.com/2013/04/15/canadian-feminist-activist-receives-death-threats-and-other-abuse-after-being-targeted-by-mens-rights-activists/

Rick Ross Offers Formal Apology For Rape Lyric


After being dropped from a lucrative endorsement deal with Reebok over his date rape lyrics; “Put molly all in her champagne, she aint even know it, I took her home and I enjoyed that, she aint even know it,”, Rick Ross finally offers a real apology…

“Before I am an artist, I am a father, a son, and a brother to some of the most cherished women in the world. So for me to suggest in any way that harm and violation be brought to a woman is one of my biggest mistakes and regrets. As an artist, one of the most liberating things is being able to paint pictures with my words. But with that comes a great responsibility. And most recently, my choice of words was not only offensive, it does not reflect my true heart. And for this, I apologize. To every woman that has felt the sting of abuse, I apologize. I recognize that as an artist I have a voice and with that, the power of influence. To the young men who listen to my music, please know that using a substance to rob a woman of her right to make a choice is not only a crime, it’s wrong and I do not encourage it. To my fans, I also apologize if I have disappointed you. I can only hope that this sparks a healthy dialogue and that I can contribute to it.”

–William Roberts (a.k.a “Rick Ross”)