After this aired, "Clares" parents were informed by the media for the first time. Just imagine if this was your daughter, who had finally spoken out against an incident that had left them emotionally destroyed after an incident that occurred seven years ago and the first person who told you was a journalist who had just entered the headlines, "She bragged about it". This is what has happened in the past week, whilst football fans are petitioning to return one of the participants to a football show, lives are torn apart.
Women need to know that if their bodies are invaded by those without consent, that they have a right to be treated with dignity and equal access to justice. The excuses that are made for the participant were appalling and degrading. Much like the excuses made by Father rights groups about child sexual abuse.
The Fact that if these women were to become pregnant from this incident, the Family Court can order them to become victimized over and over again. As rapists have rights to children too. As the shared parenting bill was brought in by a similar bunch of thugs, a "Unsubstantiated" was redefined as "False allegations" and if the victim or the victims parents could not accumulate more than what is required for a homicide, they were ordered costs to the alleged sex offender. What is an outrage is that child and domestic violence advocates have been saying for years have provided a basket full of solutions in providing more evidence, but seldom has been done. Years have gone by as more laws to protect abusers have been created against women and children whilst their lives have become unbearable and intolerable.
The football supporters who have been apart of this violence supportive culture is a mere reflection on why rapists are walking around whilst a majority of the women's jail cells contain rape victims. They have lost faith in society as a community and a disenchantment with the law that bred the in-just circumstances. Australia's male dominated police force is ready to charge women but when it comes to situations such as rape and violence, somehow their evidence is "not important". The criminal justice system breeds injustice when there are more laws and clauses that can charge costs to police for raising a complaint that was "not important". What is more important to this system is "fraud and deception", the biggest crime from women. How many have resorted to these acts to escape a perpetrator is not publicly known or even acknowledged.
Posts
10 comments:
Hi. Thanks for leaving a comment on my facebook post.
I think your article is interesting, however it takes a pretty big jump in logic to get from the incident that has been at the center of public discussion -- and your critique of Fathers rights groups, the police and the criminal justice system.
I think it's really difficult to paint all of these groups with the same brush. I think it's a horrible insinuation to suggest that every person involved in the criminal justice system, the police or fathers rights groups are all out to degrade or negatively impact on the rights of women.
I think your analysis is rather unsophisticated on this point.
Although I do like your first two paragraphs where you talk about the actual incident involved.
In summary, I would suggest you avoid rantish tirades, and stick to the topic. :)
Thank you for your comment Matthew. As someone who has more information available about both of these cultures, there are many similarities including the inability of the police to substantiate forms of violence against women. I would suggest you do further reading on fathers rights groups and how deeply violence against women is entrenched in our society across the board. I have been studying fathers rights groups for quite some time now that I can say confidently that the intent has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with privilege above women and children's rights. Find out more about the origins of Parental Alienation and perhaps you will understand why and where I am coming from here.
Mathew, as a woman who has faced both types of stereotyping/victimization I can tell you that the thought processes underlying each are the same.
Women who face abusive/controlling/narcissistic men in Family Court and women who face abusive/controlling/narcissistic men who play rugby each face a very similar set of circumstances. In both groups of men, you have a person who feels that nothing exists outside of himself. It is apparent when you view the "training session" on consent with the room full of rugby players.
At the end of this training session clip, you see one young man who still does not get it. Rather than believe - oh we must treat these women better after we take advantage of them, why not treat them well and NOT take advantage?
The same underlying principle is abundant with father's rights groups as well. In the typical FR mind, the woman have left/abondoned him (and this "might" be true in a few cases, but generally this is not true), and as such she ceases to esxist as a person. During the marriage/relationship, this woman was his wife. Therefore when they cease to be involved she is no longer - anything.
I find this evident with the FR type when they deal with their own children as well. Either these children are left with unimaginable inappropriate age responsibilities, or they are treated in a condescending manner - as if they were incapable of anything or "babied". This too is because these FR types see children - much like their previous wife/partner - as extensions of themselves, rather than as individuals.
The two scenarios might appear on face value as apples and oranges, but the underlying priniciples are very much bananas and bananas.
Interesting responses, and I thank you for taking your time to respond to my points.
I am engaging in this discussion in order to provide my feedback, and I hope that we can continue to have a mutually respectful and constructive conversation around these issues.
That said, I find that comments such as "As someone who has more information available about both of these cultures..." merely detract from your credibility.
You do not improve the credibility of your arguments by saying "Because I know more about the topic than you...". This is especially the point when you are conversing with someone whom you have no idea of their level of engagement, so the claim is fundamentally flawed.
Moreover your argument about PAS and it's 'origins' is controversial particularly considering that there are a number of studies that suggest that PAS and it's origin are non-gender specific, with either parent able to play a key role in the formative psychological development of PAS in children.
Coming back to the point at hand, it is my belief that just as feminists have some very important and valid criticisms of the family justice system, so do fathers' rights advocates.
I do not dispute that gendered based violence is deeply entrenched in our society. Nor do I dispute that there are some men who do awful things to their children.
I do not believe that all mums are beyond criticism either.
I disagree in you analysis which suggests all male members of the police force, and all fathers involved in fathers rights groups have a complete incapacity to have a positive role with respect to gender based violence.
Callous aspurtions as to the nature of every person involved in a group, by definition of that group is not only erroneous, it only further segregates our community.
I want to if I can, turn my attention to Glen's Cult's comments.
Again you undermine your own credibility by prefacing your comments with "as a woman who has faced both types of stereotyping/victimization I can tell you that the thought processes underlying each are the same."
I totally sympathize with your experience. Note I haven't used the term empathize.
The types of stereotyping, and victimization that occurs is sad, and horrible. Regrettably it affects both men and women.
However, my understanding from my experience is that being the victim of such behavior, however horrible it can be, does not give you clairvoyance or insight into the psychology of the perpetrators. Although perhaps your personal circumstances are different, and I'd be happy to be corrected if you wish to provide more details.
Nevertheless, you are right to point out that men who are "abusive/ controlling/ narcissistic" can be exactly that, whether or not they are in the Family Court, or on the rugby field. Their location does not change that.
However, it is not correct to make an assumption that men become "abusive/ controlling/ narcissistic" as a consequence of being in the Family Court, or because they play rugby. There are good men involved in the Family Court, and good men involved in rugby. We should celebrate those men who do play a positive role in society, just as with should admonish those who carry out the horrible behavior seen recently by the Sharks and Matthew Johns.
I think it is particularly problematic for you to decry your experience as stereotyping, but not see the hypocrisy in your comments about "FR Types".
Perhaps you ought to dwell on the impact of stereotyping men, just as you have been stereotyped.
Matthew, to accept that your statement has substance to it, is to undermine the sweat blood and tears that has been put into fully understanding this culture. My comment was in no way intended to attack your credibility, but to provoke more thought and question more about what you think you know. Just by revising a couple of scholarly articles on PAS, does not make you an expert. I requested that you pursue the origin, not the leftovers of PAS as most of these are intended to appear socially acceptable in hope that it will be included in the diagnostic and statistical manual.
Much is to be questioned behind the motives of any group that seeks to undermine the protections available for women and children. The effects of degradation of them are visible but not to the untrained eye. Humanity has done well to recognize the effects of white supremacy, but not fully grasped the definition or effects of patriarchy. I wish you well on your research endeavors and I hope that you can come back with something a little more in depth.
"To accept that your statement has substance to it, is to undermine the sweat blood and tears that has been put into fully understanding this culture"
It is sad to see that you unable to accept legitimacy of a contrary argument, merely because of the emotional investment you have in another.
Your inability to divorce yourself from your emotion means you are able to construct arguments with great passion, but are unable to do so critically. Which is your vice in this instance.
I feel that you are completely unwilling to engage in this topic in a meaningful manner, as you will not allow yourself to examine ideas with fresh eyes, and come to the debate with galvanized opinions, rather than allowing yourself to be swayed.
I have never claimed to be an expert on this topic, nor have I claimed that I am right. But this no longer becomes an argument, but instead becomes a recital at the minute you refuse to entertain my ideas as having any substance.
Coming back to my original note on facebook, I hope you join with me in reporting this disgusting and abusive facebook group which has emerged.
http://tiny.cc/SOgp7
Mathew I would love to address your comments. I am not stereotyping all men, all FR groups/men, nor all rugby players. I am however saying that men who are in these two types of groups who make comments such as those I expose on my blog (please click my name to browse my site if you so choose) and the comments of some of the players and players supporters on the video presented (and sadly I had to go to youtube to view this cideo as Australia - or the news station responsible for the creation of this video - seems to think that again this should be hidden).
Why should this be hidden from world view? This again parallels what abuse victims (both mothers and chidlren) face when dealing with an abusive FR type. This is a family issue - why do we bring it public. This is one instance in which the two circumstances parallel each other.
As far as commenting on my own personal scenario, that will not happen for quite a long time (if ever). There are some very misguided and seriously sick individuals out there who would love to know my identity. Thankfully I have not been privy to death threats as some dv advocates have, but I know they are quick in coming. Right now I simply get verbally assaulted when I present the actual words of these FR's and add my commentary to those words.
They blame me for their mouths.
I did want to clarify something further (a point briefly discussed in the video, that I feel needs more attention). This has to do with the training session for the rugby players about consent. When shown the video of the drunk man who allegedly did not consent to homosexual activities, the look of horror on the faces of the players (on all of their faces, not just same) was evident. They feel this empathy for a man raped by another man who used this guy's lack of consentability to "his" advantage, why is there not this same empathy for the female who agreed to sexual relations with one man, then was horrified when both had sex with her? Again as I stated in my previous post and as said on the original video, there is much work to be done.
This is not stereotyping, this is indeed telling the truth and shining the light.
As an advocate I must shine the light when I see wrongs.
Matthew, it is not that I am unable to examine the other side, its because I have already done that quite some time ago and examined all there is to be examined. What is left now is hope that children and women will still be heard when there are circumstances of rape, child abuse and domestic violence. Not emotionally investing is the core of reason as to why ethics in society get lost within the great war between the thinkers and the feelers. The ironic thing is that both is dependent upon one another. Without compassion for one another, humanity would be extinct. Without wisdom, humanity would be extinct too. Emotional Investment is just as important in determining human course. Without it, we open the flood gates for more reasoning and rational processes on human behavior.
I further note the intentions to sway the argument in a condescending tone and thus due to this not succeeding you have to abandon this argument rather than lose face in one matter.
Surely being a law student, this could be not that difficult for you?
Post a Comment