Why the Trump Administration Threatened to Veto a UN Resolution on Wartime Rape

by Nomad

Ever since the human species climbed out of the jungle trees and began throwing rocks at one another, one of the recognized spoils of war was pillaging of the villages, the looting of the valuables and the raping of the women.
For those who subscribed to the adage that might makes right, it was only logical that the weakest should pay the price of the barbarian conquest. 

Throughout our history, women were always at particular risk of sexual victimization during conflict. "To the victor go the spoils" has long been a war cry, and female bodies generally have been classified as part of those spoils of war.

Person of the Year Hypocrisy: How has Trump Escaped the Sex Scandal Avalanche?

by Nomad

Since October, Americans have witnessed an unprecedented and- some think- disturbing- spectacle. Sexual accusations against some important names have been flying from all sides. From celebrities to business figures, from journalists to politicians from both sides of the political spectrum.

So far, however, one man has managed to escape scrutiny that's been a long time in coming - the President of the United States.

The Weinstein Rumblings

The conflagration all seemed to begin with the stomach-turning revelations of Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein back in October. That's when the New York Times and the New Yorker published the statements of a large number of women claimed that they had been sexually harassed or assaulted by the 65-year-old Weinstein. It was a disgrace litany of predatory behavior.

Initially, Weinstein went into denial mode with lawyerly threats to sue the news outlets. However, the accusations - lurid tales of forced massages and promises to advance careers in return for sexual "favors"- were both detailed and damning.

It seems like it was an open secret in Hollywood. Literally, hundreds of people must have known about the Weinstein problem and for decades, nothing was done about it.

In his own forced mea culpa, director Quentin Tarantino told reporters:

"I knew enough to do more than I did."

The fact that nobody wanted to speak out had as much to do with the privilege of power as the social dynamic of male-female relations. Weinstein could make things very difficult for an ambitious filmmaker or actor.
For that reason, nobody wanted to cross this very powerful Hollywood player. And so, if the stories are true, Weinstein carried on for years. Or should I say, he was permitted to carry on for years. 

Outrage and Indifference: Comparing Sex Scandal Claims against Spacey and Trump

by Nomad

Spacey's Disgrace

In the past couple of weeks, there's been understandable outrage over revelations regarding House of Cards actor Kevin Spacey.  

This sordid tale began when a fellow actor, Anthony Rapp, alleged that Spacey at an after-hours party attempted to seduce the then- 14-year-old Rapp. 

Irrespective of Circumstances: Pro-Life Rubio Thinks Abortion Shouldn't be an Option for Rape Victims

by Nomad

GOP establishment might be banking on Marco Rubio but his total-restriction views on abortions actually represent a mere 19% of the American people.  

No Exceptions Marco

Last year a Gallup poll suggested that a narrow majority of Americans (51%) felt that abortion should remain legal under certain circumstances. Twenty-nine percent, however, said that abortion should be legal under all circumstances. 

The lowest percentage of the respondents (19%) said that abortion should be illegal under any and all circumstance. Ordinarily, this absolute limit refers to conditions where the mother's life is in danger or pregnancy following a rape or incest. 

That absolutist restrictive poition has always been the extremes of the pro-life movement. In fact, the SCOTUS' Roe vs. Wade decision originated from a rape case. (The ruling, however, did not revolve around that particular circumstance.)

On Sunday, the GOP establishment's latest hope, Marco Rubio revealed that, if elected- he would only very reluctantly sign a anti-abortion bill that provided an exception for rape and incest cases. 

His position pits the candidate against a full 81% of the American electorate.

America's Stunning Hypocrisy on Indian Marital Rape Laws

 by Nomad

After a judge in India decided that rape laws could not be applied to married couples, it was easy in the West to sneer at the utter backward-ness of the world's largest democracy. Clearly women are still treated as second class citizens.. there.
Yet how much difference is there between Indian laws and laws in the US regarding spousal rape? The answers might surprise you.

In India, issues related to rape have in the last few years been, for the first time a matter of public discussion. In a sign- perhaps- of a flourishing democracy, ideas on this subject are evolving at a rapid pace. Yet, in some respects, public attitudes might seem hopeless trapped in the past.

For example, the question of recognizing rape within the bounds of marriage, marital rape or spousal rape, is still a thorny one in India. The syndicated news story below provides us with an example.

Marital rape is officially legal in India

A judge in India has officially confirmed that rape laws do not apply to married couples — once you’re legally wed, forced sex is no longer a crime.

What’s especially chilling is that the judge, Virender Bhat, was hearing a case in which a woman alleged she had been drugged, then forced to marry, and then raped — in other words, she hadn’t consented to the marriage or the sex. Bhat said there was no evidence that the accuser had been drugged, but he also said that if the woman’s husband (identified only as Vikash) had forced himself on her, that wouldn’t qualify as rape under Indian law....

This isn’t the first time marital rape has been an issue in India. Recently, after a student was raped and murdered in Delhi, a committee headed by former Indian Supreme Court chief justice J.S. Verma made a number of recommendations for improving India’s rape laws, including doing away with the marital rape exemption. According to the Verma Committee’s report:

Under the Indian Penal Code sexual intercourse without consent is prohibited. However, an exception to the offence of rape exists in relation to un-consented sexual intercourse by a husband upon a wife. The Committee recommended that the exception to marital rape should be removed. Marriage should not be considered as an irrevocable consent to sexual acts.

The country strengthened its sexual assault laws based on the committee’s recommendations, but the marital rape law remained unchanged — and this new ruling just reconfirms it.

This story- replete with the colorful images of India- made a few waves on the vast Internet sea.  But it was really only half of the story.

Before we get on a high horse and "tsk, tsk" at that backward India, it is important to add a little perspective. India is not any more backward in this respect than the 38 other countries where marital rape is not recognized as a crime. This includes nations like Nigeria, Kuwait, Singapore, Uganda, Mongolia, Iran, China and Saudi Arabia. From Afghanistan to Zambia, the laws, in effect, do not allow wives to refuse their husbands' demands for sex.

Here's something else you might find surprising.

Blaming the Victim: Republicans and America's Rape Culture

by Nomad

Recent remarks by a Wall Street Journal commentator reveal that there are still people who are confused about the subject of rape. A high level of intoxication of both the victim and the rapist, he claimed, makes them both responsible for the crime. 

The Sheikh and the Outrage

Let us start in another country and another culture, not to pass judgement but to reveal a widespread mentality in its most obvious expression.

For hundreds of years, the West has always held a peeve with the way strict Islam deals with its female followers. This is particularly true when it comes to the burka or the scarf-like hijab.
When a prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly made a remark about immodestly dressed women were inviting trouble. During a Ramadan sermon in a Sydney mosque, Sheik al-Hilali implied that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame. 

According to one article:

There were women, he said, who 'sway suggestively' and wore make-up and immodest dress "and then you get a judge without mercy and gives you 65 years. But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he said, referring to the women victims.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."Women, he told his followers,  who do not cover themselves are like 'uncovered meat' who attract sexual predators.

So, by the Sheikh's reckoning, it is the men who are prey to those predatory temptresses with their pretty naughty traps. Women, the Sheikh also stated,  were 'weapons' used by Satan to control men.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat."

As soon as these words hit the tabloids, there was the predictable outrage throughout Australia and eventually the globe. It was tainted with that kind of attitude we often hear when discussing other cultures.
It runs something like: "It's an outrage! At least, we are better than that!"

In any case, it also sold lots of newspapers. And while the Sheikh eventually apologized but it's hard to believe he thought what he said was absolutely wrong. And why should he apologize, it is after all a standard teaching of the religion.

(It is normally not stated in such graphic terms.)

In the Islamic publication, "Could Not Answer" it says:

The harm given to youngsters, to people and to the State by women who go about naked, and with strong smells of perfume, and wanton ornaments is worse and more threatening than that of alcohol and narcotics. Allah has commanded that women and girls to cover themselves lest His born servants fall into disasters in this world and vehement torments in the hereafter.

Many Islamic scholars have an elaborate (some would say labored) rationale. Women, they would say, are precious that they must be protected. Putting their bodies on display for all the world to see is a form of disrespect for women. 

For example, another cleric in Copenhagen created his own storm by carrying the teaching to the next level when he told his followers:

“Women are not entitled to respect when they walk around without a Hijab. They are to blame for it when they are attacked”

He also said:

“All the crimes that occur against women is because they are not covered. When they are not covered, you have no respect for them.”

It is the West that disrespects women by allowing them to prance around, swaying and all, revealing their bare midriffs, or wrist, or chins. 

It is probably not all that shocking to learn that this particular cleric was reportedly later arrested for sexual assault, accused of pulling his penis out and chasing a 23-year-old woman around in a park in Sweden. I wonder how this woman brought this attack upon herself. (That's sarcasm, by the way. )

In any case, according to this line of thinking, women who do not cover themselves reduce themselves to irresistible temptations for hapless men who are unable to control themselves.
As I said, that's another culture and does not represent mainstream Muslim culture. But what about American culture? Are there really some people who still hold women responsible when they become victims of rape?

VAWA: A Closer Look at Five Republicans who Said No

by Nomad

Let's take a closer look at five Republicans who voted against the renewal of a bill which gives legal protections to women who are victims of violence.  

After the vote on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the prospect of taking control of the Senate just became a little more remote. 

As The Daily Caller noted, many of the Republicans who have considered or who have announced plans to run for the Senate decided to vote against the bill. 

That legislation provides 

"$1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposes automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allows civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. The Act also establishes the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice."

The bill covered many important topics such as human trafficking, domestic violence (including during pregnancy) sexual slavery, forced abortion, sexual violence, marital rape and many other crimes that tend to target women. Any no vote would logically require some kind of explanation to the public. 

In this post I would like to shine a spotlight on five Congressmen and women who have dreams  of a revered Senate seat but who also decided to deny women suitable protections against violence.

Mitt Romney's Latest Headache: Rep.Todd Akin’s Rape/Abortion Remarks

by Nomad
Just when you may have thought the Republican party couldn’t get any more ignorant and hypocritical, in one fell swoop, a remark by the Tea Party nominee in the Senate race for the state of Missouri has demonstrated that the party has untapped reserves of both.

On a recent St. Louis TV program Rep. Todd Akins was asked about women’s reproductive health issues, and whether his anti-abortion stand included an exemption for rape. He replied that it did not. Why? Because in those cases, he claimed, a woman’s body will somehow know to end the pregnancy itself. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

There was immediate outrage by women’s groups, which is a fairly predictable result whenever a politician- especially a male one- is foolish enough to put the words “legitimate” and “rape” together in the same sentence. (It's also an effective way to isolate yourself at a cocktail party, I might add.)  

Apologists for the Congressman- where they could be found- shrugged off the remarks as just a poor choice of words and (c'mon guys!) an artificial controversy.