Sorry for the rambling that is ahead of you, I am still trying to mull out some ideas and would appreciate any input.
Nature and natural human urges are what people use to explain a lot of things. For example MRAs have used it to explain the double standard where women are valued for their mongamy and men are valued for their polygamy. Known today as not sleeping around vs sleeping around. This is absolute bullshit. Their logic seems sound until you think about it a little more. How primitive cultures functioned was not based in the family system we have today. Today it is an imperative of the male to know if the offspring is his because he goes to work and brings home the resources needed to keep the child alive. He consequently wants to know he is working to further his own seed.
However this is just not how previous human cultures worked. When the menfolk went out to bring down an elephant they would be providing meat for their entire tribe not just their nuclear family, because this family structure simply didn't exist in the way it does today. So they didn't have much concern for what children were theirs and what children weren't because it didn't involve them having to put in any further labour like it does today. This is not nature, this is how our society functions
This brings me to my second point. If you can look at the past and present of human societies and see various "natural" imperatives driving the function of these differing groups then I think the only thing you can say that is natural about human behaviour is that it adapts. For instance in this context you can say it is natural for men to want to know its their offspring in this society, because that is what is beneficial for them, however this too has its flaws.
Which brings me to my third point. One must recognise that humans are and have always been social creatures. We are driven by a desire to improve our society, whatever that society may be, not necessarily our individual lives. When speaking of "nature" you are reducing humans to mere animals (non human animals) and ignoring our cultural imperatives and our higher level of consciousness. What is natural and helpful for an animal isn't necessarily natural and helpful for us. In the example of the promiscuity double standard it can in fact be seen as unnatural for a man to care if his off spring is biologically his because that isn't beneficial to society and may in fact be harmful.
I suppose what I am trying to say is anyone can make up any bullshit and say "nature did it". This is no better then religious nuts saying "god did it".
Human nature-we change
Thats about it.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Are lesbians beholden to the chivalry code?
I won't elaborate on this much, that is basically my question to anyone who is still around.
I will say however in my personal experience when I have been with a woman I automatically behave in a way that could be classed as consistent with chivalry. I like to pay for everything, etc.
When this is presented as oppression of men I was wondering if in a lesbian interaction if chivalry applies and if so are lesbians oppressed as a result in the same way men allegedly are?
I will say however in my personal experience when I have been with a woman I automatically behave in a way that could be classed as consistent with chivalry. I like to pay for everything, etc.
When this is presented as oppression of men I was wondering if in a lesbian interaction if chivalry applies and if so are lesbians oppressed as a result in the same way men allegedly are?
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Critique of the MRM
Stubborn Refusal of Facts
When they encounter someone who calls themselves a feminist, the woman bashing is unleashed and considered justified. A view asserted by a feminist even if it is in agreeance with them is completely disregarded and instead, if they aren't in a good position to censor the immediate response is to talk over the top of that feminist with the statement "you're sexist". This seems to occur often in the absence of any evidence for misandry. It is interesting and creates the first article for why MRM will just chase it's own tail until humanity is extinct. They are so hell bent on labelling feminism as misandry that they refuse to admit that it is possible to believe in gender equality and not in fact hate men or hate women (although they aren't good at demonstrating that). What a waste of time it is to throw unfounded accusations at people when the actual issues could be discussed.
Misogyny
They reject the notion of MRA women playing a major role in their organisation, a few seem to reject the idea of women playing any role in the MRA movement. This one should be self explanatory. Women make up over half the population, a movement is not likely to succeed with half its potential supporters thrown out. This leads into the next point.
Hypocrisy
While claiming to be opposed to bigotry, they purposefully perpetuate misogynist sentiments. This undermines their position as it becomes the exact same position they accuse feminists of having.
Traditional Gender Roles
They are the champions of traditional gender roles. Longing for the good ole days where women did as they were told and referring to women only as "a good woman" if she wants to live out the gender roles of old. No matter there are many good reasons for smashing "traditional" gender roles and the "traditional" marriage. Marriage is the heart of bigotry, and sorry MRA it is slowly filtering out of society, nothing you can do to ruin peoples happiness and freedom.
Intellectual dishonesty
Quoting statistics from one stand alone study with flawed methodology as though it was gospel. Yes I am referring in particular to the study allegedly proving that 41% rape accusations are false. Give it up, people can see through these lies.
Bitterness
They allow their bitterness to impact on their political leanings. They refer to feminist men as manginas and yet they are the ones acting like the stereotypical woman, with their hysteria and minimised ability to think about things rationally. This was demonstrated on one site where a MRA asserted that "we can start considering gender equality when as many women as men have died in war." What if a feminist said "We can start thinking about gender equality when as many men as women have died in child birth." Yeah it doesn't make the slightest amount of sense.
Equality in Suffering
Rather then seeing an organisation as a source for making the lives of people better the MRA see their role in making people suffer as much as they allegedly have. That is just gross.
Apolitical
All these things result in them having a stance that is largely apolitical, where it isn't just plain confused, backwards or nonsensical.
Sorry guys, you just aren't going to succeed this way. Shape up.
When they encounter someone who calls themselves a feminist, the woman bashing is unleashed and considered justified. A view asserted by a feminist even if it is in agreeance with them is completely disregarded and instead, if they aren't in a good position to censor the immediate response is to talk over the top of that feminist with the statement "you're sexist". This seems to occur often in the absence of any evidence for misandry. It is interesting and creates the first article for why MRM will just chase it's own tail until humanity is extinct. They are so hell bent on labelling feminism as misandry that they refuse to admit that it is possible to believe in gender equality and not in fact hate men or hate women (although they aren't good at demonstrating that). What a waste of time it is to throw unfounded accusations at people when the actual issues could be discussed.
Misogyny
They reject the notion of MRA women playing a major role in their organisation, a few seem to reject the idea of women playing any role in the MRA movement. This one should be self explanatory. Women make up over half the population, a movement is not likely to succeed with half its potential supporters thrown out. This leads into the next point.
Hypocrisy
While claiming to be opposed to bigotry, they purposefully perpetuate misogynist sentiments. This undermines their position as it becomes the exact same position they accuse feminists of having.
Traditional Gender Roles
They are the champions of traditional gender roles. Longing for the good ole days where women did as they were told and referring to women only as "a good woman" if she wants to live out the gender roles of old. No matter there are many good reasons for smashing "traditional" gender roles and the "traditional" marriage. Marriage is the heart of bigotry, and sorry MRA it is slowly filtering out of society, nothing you can do to ruin peoples happiness and freedom.
Intellectual dishonesty
Quoting statistics from one stand alone study with flawed methodology as though it was gospel. Yes I am referring in particular to the study allegedly proving that 41% rape accusations are false. Give it up, people can see through these lies.
Bitterness
They allow their bitterness to impact on their political leanings. They refer to feminist men as manginas and yet they are the ones acting like the stereotypical woman, with their hysteria and minimised ability to think about things rationally. This was demonstrated on one site where a MRA asserted that "we can start considering gender equality when as many women as men have died in war." What if a feminist said "We can start thinking about gender equality when as many men as women have died in child birth." Yeah it doesn't make the slightest amount of sense.
Equality in Suffering
Rather then seeing an organisation as a source for making the lives of people better the MRA see their role in making people suffer as much as they allegedly have. That is just gross.
Apolitical
All these things result in them having a stance that is largely apolitical, where it isn't just plain confused, backwards or nonsensical.
Sorry guys, you just aren't going to succeed this way. Shape up.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Why men think they are oppressed
There are several issues in which men see oppression of women completely backwards, seeing it as oppression of men. A main area they point to is the idea of men sacrificing themselves for their families, for women and children. A recent example of this is in Haiti where women and children were evacuated ahead of men. However the root cause of this ideology is sexism, sexism against women. This is further seen in the persisting "boys club" which is the military. These positionings of gender however stem from the idea of women being more vulnerable than men, being less able to take care of themselves and handle bad situations. This isn't some sexist ideology directed towards mens lives being less valuable. It is a direct result of women being viewed as inferior.
It is unfortunate in my eyes that the MRA crowd are unable to see the bigger picture. A lack of acceptance of how society is really structured in terms of gender means the struggle they launch is doomed to failure. One must identify the problem first, then it can be addressed.
It must also be noted that society was not always split this way, in the evolution of humans the human society was formerly more cohesive. There weren't always these lines drawn where women should have children and men should die in war. The difference in the physique of females and males was not always so pronounced either.
Women are seen as inferior, this is a fact. This fact needs to be challenged. Terming something "female privilege" is just a denial of the facts. It hinders progress that should be made. The MRA ideology is of course purely reactionary, purely emotional. Their questions are sound. "why aren't women incarcerated for the same lengths of time as men for the same crimes?". To answer this question it would make more sense to me to examine the whens and whys. Higher rates of male imprisonment definitely didn't coincide with the rise of feminism, with any of the waves. In fact I would argue feminism increased rates of female imprisonment. These inconsistencies between gender incraceration was of course caused by the underlying sexism towards women that has long been a part of our culture. Their terming it "the pussy pass" is just degrading towards women.
They rightly point out that without men it would be hard for women to have a functioning society. Well the reverse is also true, without women a society would be damn hard for men. Instead of following this to the logical conclusion of solidarity between the genders, they force more dividers between the genders. There is a greater issue at stake here and it involves the working class not men or women. Not gays or straights. Not blacks or whites. Anger with an unfair system is justified, anger with all women because of the legal system or because of a social paradigm is not. Please direct your anger wisely.
It is unfortunate in my eyes that the MRA crowd are unable to see the bigger picture. A lack of acceptance of how society is really structured in terms of gender means the struggle they launch is doomed to failure. One must identify the problem first, then it can be addressed.
It must also be noted that society was not always split this way, in the evolution of humans the human society was formerly more cohesive. There weren't always these lines drawn where women should have children and men should die in war. The difference in the physique of females and males was not always so pronounced either.
Women are seen as inferior, this is a fact. This fact needs to be challenged. Terming something "female privilege" is just a denial of the facts. It hinders progress that should be made. The MRA ideology is of course purely reactionary, purely emotional. Their questions are sound. "why aren't women incarcerated for the same lengths of time as men for the same crimes?". To answer this question it would make more sense to me to examine the whens and whys. Higher rates of male imprisonment definitely didn't coincide with the rise of feminism, with any of the waves. In fact I would argue feminism increased rates of female imprisonment. These inconsistencies between gender incraceration was of course caused by the underlying sexism towards women that has long been a part of our culture. Their terming it "the pussy pass" is just degrading towards women.
They rightly point out that without men it would be hard for women to have a functioning society. Well the reverse is also true, without women a society would be damn hard for men. Instead of following this to the logical conclusion of solidarity between the genders, they force more dividers between the genders. There is a greater issue at stake here and it involves the working class not men or women. Not gays or straights. Not blacks or whites. Anger with an unfair system is justified, anger with all women because of the legal system or because of a social paradigm is not. Please direct your anger wisely.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Religion and the patriarchy
It is in my opinion (not so humble) that religion contributes greatly to a state in society which can be referred to as the patriarchy. In my society christianity is the dominant religion so I will concentrate on that. You have a book that you believe is the divinely inspired word of god. This book tells you that a woman should obey you as you obey the church (god?). How can you view this as anything other than sexism? If a woman should obey a man simply because of the penis or lack of penis status that is the definition of sexism. This opens up in society the validation of basing relationships on forcing the woman into a submissive role. The result of having these "divinely inspired" gender roles is rape, genital mutilation and a less important status for women in general, both throughout history and in society today. I think those who support this ideology have a lot to answer for, as it stands atm I am absolutely disgusted by this position.
Christianity is at its core a purely selfish ideology. People who follow the teachings of the bible rarely seem to think about how it impacts on anyone else, they are concerned merely with attaining a heavenly status in the afterlife. It is a mentality of well god said it has to be this way and if it causes these problems that is because people are sinners. I would like to say, if you are a christian that supports this ideology and other similar ideologies found within the bible, you are morally bankrupt and fail to take responsibility for your own thoughts and actions. Please fly to the moon and never return. That is all.
Christianity is at its core a purely selfish ideology. People who follow the teachings of the bible rarely seem to think about how it impacts on anyone else, they are concerned merely with attaining a heavenly status in the afterlife. It is a mentality of well god said it has to be this way and if it causes these problems that is because people are sinners. I would like to say, if you are a christian that supports this ideology and other similar ideologies found within the bible, you are morally bankrupt and fail to take responsibility for your own thoughts and actions. Please fly to the moon and never return. That is all.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
The MRA position is ridiculous
I think it is obvious to most people that the MRA faction is merely reactionary and largely unneessarily. While it can be helpful to rally against FRA, it is actually going to be ineffective. You are better off spending your time rallying against the way in which justice is carried out, you need to be able to have a better alternative. "Don't lock up innocent people" is a worthy cause but how do you hope to stop that?
The main issue with MRA is they confuse personal issues with oppression. There is a distinction to make. To answer the question of many people on my blog. Men can be oppressed hypothetically, but they are not.
The main issue with MRA is they confuse personal issues with oppression. There is a distinction to make. To answer the question of many people on my blog. Men can be oppressed hypothetically, but they are not.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Why the idea that women have human rights in Australia is a joke
Warning: This post may contain traces of anger that many people have an intolerance to. This post will be a bit long, as in talking about human rights I think I have to show the legalities of international legislation on this issue. Please bare with me though, I think I raise some interesting points I would like responded to. If there are any MRA types that still frequent my blog I would also like your input here. I will start off with the UN declaration of human rights;
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedom set forth herein.
(sourced from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)
To make my argument for the lack of human rights in Australian (which applies well to other nations, such as America) and to show why FRA is not a violation of human rights, so irrelevant as a parellel to the question of the prevalence of sexual abuse I will draw primarily from these five articles;
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
In order to demonstrate my point I will take a personal reality and show how it is also a political reality. Firstly I will pose a few questions, Where were my human rights when I was being raped, sexually abused, emotionally abused and stalked? Where was my right to life, liberty and security of person? Where was my right to not be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment? Those rights didn't exist. As a consequence in a society where 1/6 women will be repeatedly sexually abused or raped (I seperate those two things because law does) where is the human rights of that nearly 20% of women? Where are the human rights of all women in society who are subjected to this constant threat which takes the form of further restriction of liberty. Such as freedom to leave ones house after dark without fear of and the very real possibility of assault.
When I was being raped I did not have those rights, I still don't have the rights to full protection from sexual abuse happening again which is demonstrated by its shameful prevalence. One in six women in my society have had their human rights directly violated, how can you reconcile this fact with the statement that women have human rights? In an above human rights article it also states that it is a human right to not be subject to incitement of discrimination. We live in a society which romanticises and constantly justifies sexual abuse in various forms, including saturation of the media. I don't doubt that FRA is wrong or a horrible experience, but it is not a human rights violation, as the UN outlines in its declaration everyone is entitled to a just hearing when accused of criminal activities and that is just what men accused of rape receive.
Even if it was a reality that FRA was a human rights violation. Nobody has been able to show that it happens as often as does sexual abuse. I doubt that one in six men are subjected to repeated FRA accusations. They get a just trial, and I believe I had a trial too, but not a just one. Society has deemed me as a woman, deserving of sexual assault, it has deemed this by encouraging it and normalising it to the widespread extent of today. Even as a person accused of rape human rights are upheld in this way, but I never got anything but an arbitrary decision that resulted in the ideology that I should be raped and consequently degraded and tortured.
I have been raped and sexually abused multiple times starting when I was 11. The oppression of women was made evident to me before I even became one. However despite the fact my human rights have been violated consistently over my lifetime I am not supposed to be angry, not angry with the system that allows these atrocities and not angry with the people who perpetuate it. I am sick of being told that I shouldn't be angry, that I should just get over it. How can I get over something that is still happening to the women around me, and how can I get over something which is likely to occur to me again in the future? I don't think I can without accepting that rape is just "shit happens". If that is the case I refuse to "heal" from my experiences, we need to stand up against this system and prevent this shit from happening anymore.
I don't understand at all how anyone can claim that one in six women don't have their human rights directly violated and how women as a whole aren't subject to a system which enforces this. If anyone can give me some answers on this I would be grateful.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedom set forth herein.
(sourced from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)
To make my argument for the lack of human rights in Australian (which applies well to other nations, such as America) and to show why FRA is not a violation of human rights, so irrelevant as a parellel to the question of the prevalence of sexual abuse I will draw primarily from these five articles;
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
In order to demonstrate my point I will take a personal reality and show how it is also a political reality. Firstly I will pose a few questions, Where were my human rights when I was being raped, sexually abused, emotionally abused and stalked? Where was my right to life, liberty and security of person? Where was my right to not be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment? Those rights didn't exist. As a consequence in a society where 1/6 women will be repeatedly sexually abused or raped (I seperate those two things because law does) where is the human rights of that nearly 20% of women? Where are the human rights of all women in society who are subjected to this constant threat which takes the form of further restriction of liberty. Such as freedom to leave ones house after dark without fear of and the very real possibility of assault.
When I was being raped I did not have those rights, I still don't have the rights to full protection from sexual abuse happening again which is demonstrated by its shameful prevalence. One in six women in my society have had their human rights directly violated, how can you reconcile this fact with the statement that women have human rights? In an above human rights article it also states that it is a human right to not be subject to incitement of discrimination. We live in a society which romanticises and constantly justifies sexual abuse in various forms, including saturation of the media. I don't doubt that FRA is wrong or a horrible experience, but it is not a human rights violation, as the UN outlines in its declaration everyone is entitled to a just hearing when accused of criminal activities and that is just what men accused of rape receive.
Even if it was a reality that FRA was a human rights violation. Nobody has been able to show that it happens as often as does sexual abuse. I doubt that one in six men are subjected to repeated FRA accusations. They get a just trial, and I believe I had a trial too, but not a just one. Society has deemed me as a woman, deserving of sexual assault, it has deemed this by encouraging it and normalising it to the widespread extent of today. Even as a person accused of rape human rights are upheld in this way, but I never got anything but an arbitrary decision that resulted in the ideology that I should be raped and consequently degraded and tortured.
I have been raped and sexually abused multiple times starting when I was 11. The oppression of women was made evident to me before I even became one. However despite the fact my human rights have been violated consistently over my lifetime I am not supposed to be angry, not angry with the system that allows these atrocities and not angry with the people who perpetuate it. I am sick of being told that I shouldn't be angry, that I should just get over it. How can I get over something that is still happening to the women around me, and how can I get over something which is likely to occur to me again in the future? I don't think I can without accepting that rape is just "shit happens". If that is the case I refuse to "heal" from my experiences, we need to stand up against this system and prevent this shit from happening anymore.
I don't understand at all how anyone can claim that one in six women don't have their human rights directly violated and how women as a whole aren't subject to a system which enforces this. If anyone can give me some answers on this I would be grateful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)