Thursday, 15 July 2010

How many times do we have to say it? NO ONE ASKS FOR RAPE

Garth George does it again. (Warning, possible triggering around rape and sexual assault in his column)

His key points appear to be:
  • Andy Haden should not have been a Rugby World Cup Ambassador in the first place because he is a straight-talker rather than "trained in the art of dissimulation and practised at long-winded circumlocution by which they spend hours saying nothing at all."
  • Haden shouldn't have made the racist statement he did earlier in the year because it was "patently wrong" and, as a good Kiwi Bloke (TM), he should have used a local racial slur rather than the imported "darkies".
  • Haden's comments about women asking for rape were "fair enough", but shouldn't have been said publicly.
  • Robin Brooke's alleged behaviour was bad "since at the time he was newly married."
Then there are these really really awful statements from George, which I'm putting after the fold because they may be triggering for some:
"Surely it is perfectly logical to acknowledge that if female groupies attach themselves to sportsmen, drink with them and take them home, chances are they'll end up screwed.

...The perennial publicity given to the off-field behaviour of testosterone-fuelled rugby - and particularly Australian rugby league - players in recent years should surely have warned any sports-loving young woman to stay well away unless she is prepared to go all the way.

And, once again, one has to wonder why it has taken well over a decade for this complaint to be made and why the media should make such a meal of it.

One has to wonder, too, at the naivete of rape victim advocate Louise Nicholas who said that rugby players needed to be prepared for groupies and walk away from situations that could go awry.

Surely, in this day and age of prolific casual sex, she has to be joking. Don't women have as much, if not more, responsibility for keeping themselves away from unwelcome male attention?
So when it comes to rape the onus is actually on women to avoid it. And to encourage men to think about their own behaviour is "naive." Robin Brooke's main sin, from what's been alleged to date, is cheating on his new wife.


You won't be surprised to discover that George has managed to get through this whole column without using the word rape, except when using it to describe Louise Nicholas' role for Rape Prevention Education.


I shake my head in disbelief.

If it's not politic for Andy Haden to say these things in public, as George himself seems to be agreeing with, why is it ok for Garth to put them in his Herald column, indeed expand on them and imho state them in an even worse manner?

Where do you start with someone who is so hard-wired to blame women for rape?




38 comments:

A Nonny Moose said...

The difference for misogynist a-holes like GG and AH is that they see what happens in these situations as "normal sex".

Rough, forced, drunken, drugged, group sex MUST be posited as normal for them, otherwise they're not allowed it, or at least not allowed to fantasize about it.

Note to GG et al: You can have rough/drunken/group/drunken but there must be implicit consent every step of the way. A skirt, a flirt, a buying of drink, a taking home, even certain sexual acts (eg: blowjob) does NOT full consent make. There is no sliding scale of "she said/wore/did this, therefore she meant that".

Sheesh, how hard is this to understand GG? Take YOUR dick out of the equation for once.

Anonymous said...

Where do you start with someone who is so hard-wired to blame women for rape?

Where do you start with someone who is so hard wired for abortion to discuss abortion laws.You and Garth are as bad as each other. Pot. Kettle.Black

Julie said...

This is not a thread about abortion, stick to topic. It's not as if you don't have dozens of other posts here to witter about that on.

Sophia said...

Thanks to GG, I spent a large part of my drive to work constructing a snarky and sarcastic email to him in my head.

Anonymous said...

Of course nobody ever asks to be raped, if they did then it would be consensual and therefore couldn't be rape.

But I dont think the writers point is that the women went out to purposely get raped, I think his thinking is more along the lines of "what were they doing there in the first place, and what were they thinking?"

Lets say for example your neighbours dog is untrained, barks at everything, bites anything it can, has previously bitten people, is widely and publicly known for its actions and its owner doesn't care.
Forewarned with that knowledge would you still try and pat it?
You may not want it to bite you, but would you go ahead and pat it anyway.

So the question being asked is why would you enter that situation? Are you after the publicity? do you think you're a dog whisperer? or are you just plain dumb?
Personally I'd call the ranger, its much easier than hospitalisation!

So while the actions of some players is completely unacceptable, and there are cases to be answered.
Some doubt must also lay with the actions of the women who knowingly place themselves in that situation.

Should an allegation of rape be made then it is the judges duty to assess both the defendant and the plaintiff to ensure that what is being said is truthful and that nothing is being embellished.

You cant cry rape and expect it to end there, the defendant has every right to refute your allegation. without that we might as well just change the law so everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

I think the real questions here are:
1. Are we actually talking about the subject of rape? if so why are we limiting the conversation to just sports stars?
2. Are we talking about sports stars poor behaviour in general? because rape is just one small part of the wider problem of "god-syndrome"
3. Are we talking about people who place themselves in dangerous situations and expect they will come out the other side unscathed?
4. Or are we just complaining because the media will publish anything controversial, especially if it upsets a very vocal group?
Which leads to the question: Are you just pandering to the media's need for controversy and anger?

Anonymous said...

So rugby players are like dogs? Animals with little to no self awareness or self control and no concept of the difference between right and wrong?

Either your analogy is deeply flawed, or your view of rugby players is extremely disturbing.

A Nonny Moose said...

"what were they doing there in the first place, and what were they thinking?"

Having a good time? Meeting interesting people? Drinking/partying because it's fun? Having sex, if they so desire, because they like it?LIVING THEIR LIFE BECAUSE THEY CAN?

"Some doubt must also lay with the actions of the women who knowingly place themselves in that situation."

Why is it so hard to understand? The women don't rape themselves - the rapist rapes. Why is the onus completely on the woman to check her activities, when it should be on the man to restrain himself from not committing a crime?

"You cant cry rape and expect it to end there, the defendant has every right to refute your allegation."

You make it sound like the judicial system is fair, balanced, and not at all prejudiced towards women and rape claims. Women take rape claims public because they don't get satisfaction in the courts.

The Questions:
1. Of course we're talking about rape. How more blunt do we have to be? Do you want sky writing or something? As for the sports stars - yes, in this instance we are talking about sports stars, but models of behaviour should be seen society wide.

2. See above, and rape is no "small part". It affects a victim for the rest of their life, so you have no right to call it "small".

3. See above about a women having the right to live her life how she sees fit. Say it with me - THE RAPIST RAPES.

4. and follow up: Oh classic bingo spots. Why are you so ANGRY? Haven't you got anything BETTER to do? There are BIGGER problems in the world.

Angry - because people treat rape with such contempt. Better things to do - not really when women are half the population, and I can multitask. Bigger problems - sheer mountains of assholery can be quite wearying, but we carry on; and anyone who dismissed rape as a "small problem" has the privilege to do so - you've never had it happen in your sphere of influence, you don't know how trying, how DESTROYING it can be...or you're invested in making sure that those with the power still maintain their power, so that the little piece of power they feed YOU retains status quo.

Julie said...

What is it, Rape Apologists Awareness Month? Thank you for your heavy lifting Moose, and your supportive comments Sophia and Anon at 12.38pm.

Anonymous said...

Somewhere in this country there is a person/people who has/have read this article and they are patting themselves on the back saying:
'See? Even this man (and the herald who published him) thinks that it wasn't my fault what happened last night.What did she expect would happen?' They may go on to rape again feeling fully justified in their actions.

Somewhere a victim/s has read this article. All the strength that they had gathered up to report what had happened to them has just left them. They just want to forget it now.

Hopefully someone will be reading this post on the Handmirror and the comments and they will hear that IT IS NOT OK. IT WAS NEVER OK and IT NEVER WILL BE.

I hope that a rapist will read this and stop raping. I really hope that a victim will read this and stop blaming themselves.

I wish I hadn't read his article. Whenever I read shit like that it's like I'm being raped all over again.

A Nonny Moose said...

Thank you Anon for your strength to say that.

Forgive me for c&p your words, but it really bears repeating:

"Whenever I read shit like that it's like I'm being raped all over again."

You hear that apologists? Are you so cognitively dissonent in your denial that you feel justified in victimising raped women over and over again? Does that make you feel good?

Damn straight we're angry, if you think it's acceptable to abuse women like this.

Anonymous said...

No problem A Nonny Moose!

I watched the movie MILK earlier in the year and there is a part where he calls for everyone to 'Come out, come out, wherever you are!' because he believed (and rightly so) that once people saw how many people they knew friends/family/colleagues were gay, they would have to support gay rights.

If sharing my experience helps change minds I'll gladly share it.

Alana
(I'm always anon because I'm a bit of a techno-retard)

Hugh said...

Should have used a more authentically Kiwi term to denigrate black people rather than the imported darkie? Oh man, that's too fuckin' funny.

Anonymous said...

don't read the comments on the Herald...it is scary the amount of people that think women need to take responsibility for being raped. WTF???

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your post and NM and Alana for your comments and truth.

I've been thinking (between fuming) about this a bit and I've been struck by the contrast of the media portrayal of the All Blacks as good guys;playing with kids and eating wheetbix etc etc and this portrayal of them as dangerous animals. Because that is what AH and GG are saying - sports players are dangerous animals who we must protect ourselves from.

I really don't understand how a dangerous animal gets to be a role model. If it was a dog I think it'd be put down. Just saying - not advocating.

Anonymous said...

While rape is unacceptable, so to is offering sex to celebs and deciding the next day to call rape because of a change of heart.
People who do that do not help the cause of the real rape vicitms, because it's exactly people like that who get GG's attention.

Sandra - too heavy to stand on a soapbox, but undeterred said...

This is so deeply disturbing that I'm unsure that I can convey how disturbing through words.
Consensual relations between men and women is something we fought for. For a long time. For the opportunity to socialise in mixed company by our own choice, not merely by the choice of the men or elders who married us off. It is a freedom I would never give up.

One of the aspects of getting to know people is that there is a dance to it. A little forward, sometimes a lot, some learning and a reshuffling. We do it all the time and not just in sexually charged situations. Sometimes I meet a person and strike up an acquaintance and then realise we have less in common and I take a step back.

This happens in sexually charged situations, only more often. In my experience of men (and I'm torn about describing it as privilege as it is only what all women, all people, deserve), sometimes something sexual which started out as a great idea becomes less so, for a huge variety of reasons. My choice, or change of direction, has always been respected. I hope I have given others I have met in such situations the same respect.

And yet, according to soem very disturbed people hitting the media at the moment, the All Blacks cannot behave respectfully. I will say that again. The team of sports players which receives more money from our taxes than an entire suburb of dpb recipients, the team of sports players who carry our national image across the globe every year, that team are unable to behave respectfully in their relations with women?

The tone of such people haters is deeply, horribly disrespectful towards New Zealand women and also towards New Zealand men. To condone and to go further and validate the behaviour of the All Black on trial recently, is to insult all of us who believe in dignity and respect and aim to live that dignity and respect.

Anonymous said...

Several years ago I went home with a young man. We went back to his place to have sex. That was very clear. We got back to his place and in due time got around to having sex. After a while I changed my mind and decided to no longer have intercourse. I made some excuse about why I had to leave. We said things along the lines of 'I'll see you around' which we both knew were crap because the sex was crap which was why I was doing a runner.

I got dressed and left.

Why shouldn't I expect a rugby player to let me do that?

I changed my mind in the middle of sex. Because I can. Because you can. The occupation of the other person involved has nothing to do with my right to do so.

Anonymous said...

Are you a rape victim Anon Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:47:00 PM?

If not, I'm telling you that as a rape victim I did not give you permission to use me to justify GG's action.

If you think that my heart does not go out to the young woman/women who's characters are continually slandered because they actually thought that a person who is held in such high regard must surely treat her like a human being you are very much mistaken.

My rape wasn't taken seriously because I'm a woman and he was a man.

Alana

A Nonny Moose said...

Anon at 7.47. Yes, false rape claims are problematic, but their number is blown all out of proportion to actual rape numbers. It's one of the many reasons used as justification to question and blame a victim. As GG is doing here.

People who use this justification do not take the time to understand the nuances of sexual relations, as Sandra has pointed out. It may be that a victim has partaken in a consensual sexual act within the same time frame that the rape happened, but a rape still happens if the rapist forces you to do something against your will. I said it before - there is no slippery slope of consent.

It strikes me that anyone who doesn't take the time to understand the vagaries of sexual relations is adverse to talking about sex full stop. If you can't even talk about sex, how the hell are you supposed to be able to talk about rape?

David S. said...

The dominant attitudes that exist about sex are still incredibly one sided and at worst misogynistic. The main problem that I see is that the expectations that are placed on people conflict with basic good sense. The only rule I have with regards to sex (and actually, everything else) is that it's good to consider the consequences first, but that isn't really promoted at all. Woman are meant to be chased, but not too chased, men are meant to be 'players' (again- these are dominant attitudes I'm talking about, not the only ones). The word "slut" can never be used to seriously insult a man. If it's a man's goal to sleep with as many woman as possible, understanding the consequences must come second to that in some circumstances.

Here's where I start to see some degree of the motivation that leads to Haden's little rant (minus the implied threat which I'll talk about later). Human beings are often distastefully opportunistic, and I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that a woman would cry, "rape", when no rape had actually taken place, for reasons of money, attention etc. A deplorable act, that could destroy an innocent persons life. The point that jumps out at me though, and one that is all too often missed is that a man would have to be an idiot to have sex with someone who might give consent in the evening, and then wake up the next morning and accuse him of rape.

Does a guy deserve to spend time in jail, and be known as a sex offender for the rest of his life for making such an idiotic decision? No, not really, but the risk exists none-the-less, and people would do well to consider such possible consequences.

I'm of the same opinion when it comes to people who drink so much in public that they lose control over their actions. If a woman gets so drunk that she is incapable of avoiding a dangerous situation, she may not deserve to get raped, but she's still an idiot.

There will most likely always be people who will take advantage of a situation. Taking responsibility for your own safety will always be a good idea. Right now I think that, when it comes to sex at least, most of the responsibility is lumped on woman, whereas a man's responsibility doesn't extend very far beyond carrying condoms.

Haden's comment though isn't just one sided, it's threatening. Rape is a hard crime to prove at times. Saying that woman who bring false charges against men do so "at their peril" could easily incite hatred against woman with genuine cases, and given the current climate I wouldn't be surprised if most of them are.

nznative said...

I believe that up until the late 1960's or even the early 1970's that a husband could not be charged with rapeing his wife ............ even if he was rapeing her.

Wife's could be and were committed to mental institutes for not providing sex to the man/husband in her marriage .............. because you know, it was his bloody right to root and even smack around his mrs.

Good respectable medical doctors committed women into mental institutes as punishment for not providing sex on demand to their husbands.

There's still large pools of this woman hateing sickness in dear old little NZ.

Rugby heads like brooke and Haden, big stong men that they are, are a pathetic disgrace and they have shown they are not safe to
be around.

Add the drug alcohol to such ugly aggressive personality types and watch them create victims and commit crimes.

............ which could be why New Zealand has a alcohol caused crime wave every weekend.

Ugly personalities, poor morals and values plus the aggressnogenic drug alcohol.

Its no excuse for the existing anti woman sentiments that such rugby heads often harbour ........... but the drug piss does seem to be the catalyst for many sexual assults and rapes.

James said...

"How many times do we have to say it? NO ONE ASKS FOR RAPE"

True....but a lot of people,especially Women, DO ask to be treated violently and abused sexually because they enjoy it.And before the usual hysteria starts Im saying that there are those Women who get off on submitting to dominant men who treat them like crap and this covers the gambit from mild submission to virtual rape in everything but the non consent.Check out the pages of Women wanting to be abused on ALT.com or Collarme.com sometime if you don't believe me.

I remember seeing a personal add in some paper by a Woman who wanted a man to take her to the woods,strip her,hunt her down and do whatever he wanted withn her.Made my stomach turn a bit thinking of the very possible negative consequences of engaging in that activity but there you go,people are strange.

Some people get off on wierd stuff...go figure.But things are not black and white re Women and sexual force as you seem to think

James said...

What did GG say...?

"Surely it is perfectly logical to acknowledge that if female groupies attach themselves to sportsmen, drink with them and take them home, chances are they'll end up screwed."

It is and non refutable.

"The perennial publicity given to the off-field behaviour of testosterone-fuelled rugby - and particularly Australian rugby league - players in recent years should surely have warned any sports-loving young woman to stay well away unless she is prepared to go all the way."

Again fair call.Up there with avoiding dark alleys if you fear getting mugged.Shouldn't HAVE to do so...but facts are facts.

"And, once again, one has to wonder why it has taken well over a decade for this complaint to be made and why the media should make such a meal of it."

Well aside from the obvious involvment of an All Black it was the flatmate who broke the deal she made with Brooke for money (blackmail?).

"One has to wonder, too, at the naivete of rape victim advocate Louise Nicholas who said that rugby players needed to be prepared for groupies and walk away from situations that could go awry.Surely, in this day and age of prolific casual sex, she has to be joking. Don't women have as much, if not more, responsibility for keeping themselves away from unwelcome male attention?"

Certainly they have an equal responsibility to manage themselves and think about the consequences of their actions...the same as men do.Going out to snag a famous person,get blind druck and then end up in bed with them fails the test as far as rational thought and respect for consequences go's.

Anonymous said...

James - again tell this to a professional.

A person said...

"Certainly they have an equal responsibility to manage themselves and think about the consequences of their actions...the same as men do."

No James. You don't seem to think men should have much responsibility at all. You seem to think that if a man rapes a woman who is passed out drunk then it's partly her fault. It's not. How would you feel if you got drunk and a man raped you after you passed out. Would you feel that you were asking for it and it's your fault for not thinking about the consequences of getting drunk?

If you saw a woman who was too drunk to consent sex being dragged out of a bar by man would you help her? Or would you join in? Is it her fault for getting drunk? Does she need to face the 'consequences'?

Boganette said...

James either you're trolling or you need to be put into preventative detention. Seriously. It's scary that you don't seem to understand consent. Shit IS black and white dude. YES vs No. But I don't think you really believe what you're saying. You're just trying to wind people up on here. And it's working I suppose. You certainly make me feel ill.

A Nonny Moose said...

James. You're an violent abuser and a rapist.

Just going on the flimsy evidence I have from the vile spew you're chucking in this thread, it sounds like the only way you could possibly defend rape and abuse is if you partake.

Oh ha ha, only joking.

Or am I joking?

Pissed off at my baseless accusations?

Welcome to the world of being a woman.

James said...

Again with the hysterical attacks on what I NEVER said or meant...

"How would you feel if you got drunk and a man raped you after you passed out. Would you feel that you were asking for it and it's your fault for not thinking about the consequences of getting drunk?"

If I had pursued the man,got intoxicated,got into bed with him,had sex with him etc etc then I would have the good grace to feel some guilt and responsibility for what happened after.Wouldn't you?....oh wait....look who Im addressing.

"If you saw a woman who was too drunk to consent sex being dragged out of a bar by man would you help her? Or would you join in? Is it her fault for getting drunk? Does she need to face the 'consequences'?"

Yes I would because that is a totally DIFFERENT situation.There is no consent offered or even implied...unklike the Brooke situation.You do know that rape is UNCONSENTING sexual intercourse don't you?And thats what I'm trying to work through in this particular instance re Brooke.Was there consent in effect....? Can anyone be sure there wasn't?

"James. You're an violent abuser and a rapist.

Just going on the flimsy evidence I have from the vile spew you're chucking in this thread, it sounds like the only way you could possibly defend rape and abuse is if you partake."

Actually I'm a rights respecting Libertarian who works in a area of law enforcement in South Auckland and I have dealt with more than a few very drunk Women who I could have had anywhich way if I was so inclined but instead made sure they got home safely and weren't violated as their self inflicted intoxication made them prone to being.I,unlike some people, have ACTUALLY prevented rape (Im positive on this in the context of the situations I witnessed),One such incident involved having to shepperd three very drunk 13 year old European girls home from a park in Papakura where they were off with the fairies and were basically sitting their waiting for "it".I made sure they hurled their sorry backsides the 70 odd meters home and made sure the most sensibly one knew to make sure the comatose one wasn't left alone to choke on her own vomit.

So my conscience is clear as crystal....and Im KNOW what Im talking about so you keyboard handwringers can go get stuffed.

Anonymous said...

Oh my gosh, you are a cop? That is scary.

A Nonny Moose said...

I think we've all been sufficiently mansplained to death.

If only us silly ladies would just LISTEN and not get DRUNK and didn't wear those SLUTTY CLOTHES.

Yeah yeah James, come back to polite society when you've got over your nice wee cocktail of Troll and Rape Bingo.

As for being in "law enforcement"...well, anyone can and will say anything on the internet. After all his vile woman hating bollocks, he tries to justify it with "I'm in a position of authoritah, and you should respect mah authoritah because OMG I'm only doing it to save yourselves from yourselves!"

Someone has serious control issues. And this is not the space to use them James. This is a safe space for women, and your sexual power differential control freak ways won't work on us.

stargazer said...

Actually I'm a rights respecting Libertarian who works in a area of law enforcement in South Auckland and I have dealt with more than a few very drunk Women who I could have had anywhich way if I was so inclined

wow, so someone in our "law enforcement" sector thinks he "could have had" drunk women, while on the job. forget about all the other issues, i'm seriously thinking that this is now worth a police complaint and proper enquiry. someone who thinks like this shouldn't be anywhere near law enforcement (if he is actually telling the truth about this).

Julie said...

James I think your time in this thread is over. You do have form in this area too, it may have been three years ago, but don't think it's forgotten. Kindly leave this thread.

And thank you to all those who have challenged James. While it may not have changed his mind it may hopefully have prompted some thinking in others lurking.

Hugh said...

I'm pretty sure when he says he's in law enforcement he means he's a security guard.

stargazer said...

don't see how that's relevant hugh. still a totally inappropriate view for someone in that line of work (well, in anyone really) and he is stating that the fact he doesn't harm them is a favour he is doing to them.

Hugh said...

Stargazer, what makes you think I was defending or excusing him? I just meant to say that the Police Complaints Authority might not be the way to go.

James said...

Last post Julie and then Im finished...promise


You people just want to keep attacking shit I never said or implied so why should I bother to offer a viewpoint at all...this is just an echo chamber for concrete bound mentalities it seems.

So the partyline here is that Women can get as drunk and vunarable as they like but heaven forbid they have to take even a smidge of personal responsibility for doing so...? Good luck living with that mindset.

Stargazer:"wow, so someone in our "law enforcement" sector thinks he "could have had" drunk women, while on the job."

I COULD have....and thats the issue you all miss.Women are putting THEMSELVES in these potentially dangerous situations by their OWN actions.If I go get rat faced and collaspe in a dark alley and get robbed or worse then sure...the crim is still in the wrong for what he does...but Im also at fault for putting myself in the situation.I made the choice to overindulge and one obvious potential consequence was ending up in harms way...its the law of cause and effect people...look it up.

Stargazer: "don't see how that's relevant hugh. still a totally inappropriate view for someone in that line of work (well, in anyone really) and he is stating that the fact he doesn't harm them is a favour he is doing to them."

Uggh! How dumb can you be? No Im not saying nor ever said that..Which part of "if I was so inclined" did you numptys not understand? That means that I am NOT that way inclined...and it was damm lucky for those Women I wasn't because the next guy along could well have been and would have had a field day.I work as a mobile security patrol officer on the night shift in South Auckland and have done so for the past 10+ years. I've seen plenty of shit that would make your eyes pop out and I am proud to have assisted those Women and kept them from harm as well as foil a few burglaries and save at least one life by administering CPR. so Im perfectly happy to stack my morals and conscience against anyone of yours.

If you want to keep kicking me regardless thats fine...but Im not coming back to see it so have fun.

James

stargazer said...

@hugh, i didn't say Police Complaints Authority, i said a complaint to the police.

@ james: and if you did or anyone else did them harm, they would be committing a criminal act, deliberately and with malicious forethought. they are fully 100% responsible for that. seems to be a point you just can't manage to get, so i second julie in saying please don't bother to comment here anymore.

Hugh said...

Oh right Stargazer, seems I misunderstood you. Sorry.

And James, while it's true that closed minded people won't be open to your arguments, it doesn't follow that everybody who isn't open to your arguments is closed minded. Your arguments might just be unconvincing.