Wasn't it because enemy forces disguised themselves in Islamic veils? Even in Tunisia (lots of Muslims) hijab is discouraged. I'm not sure why.

I've heard cases about men wearing niqabs in airports to disguise themselves as women but isn't this similar to how burglars might wear thick jackets/coats to hide their guns underneath it? Does that mean people can't wear thick coats to the bank or something?

I completely support the Somalis. It's vital that the Islamists are defeated. I have no problem banning veiling if this will help. Things were far worse for women when the Islamist were in power (and will be if they get in again). It is a small price to pay.

"It is a small price to pay."

Unless you believe it is part of your duty as an observant Muslim to cover yourself. I'd say being forced to violate your own religious principles is a pretty big deal.

Can I point out that, well, there's a war going on there right now?

And that, like, really, really, REALLY bad things happen in war? 2000 dead in Mogadishu this year? 400,000 people 'displaced'?

That perhaps, just mebbe, if veils are all that the Somali troops are taking, perhaps that's restraint?

Complaining about the injustice of making women leave their veils at home in this context is a bit like wringing your hands over all the pets killed in Hiroshima!

Better to be 'forced to violate your own religious principles' than shot on sight, I say.

just to be clear, the hijab and a face-covering veil are different. As far as I understand this article, they are going after people tha cover there faces (things like the niqab, chador), not their hair (hijab). It is true that Islamic countries sometimes have difficulty with this issue, not just in Somalia, because it becomes a lot easier to evade identification when you're completely covered. That said, I do not agree with their actions.

Paul There's ALWAYS a good reason to violate someone's rights, according to the government. I do think you have a valid point about these injustices being common in war, but I think that's context not a defense of their actions.

Your argument about the dogs, though, is silly. The question here is about choice, and individual rights. And while in YOUR context, the veil may not be a big deal (like a dead dog at Hiroshima) to these women, the veil is a big deal. And women's rights are built upon women assessing their own moral circumstances, rather than having it imposed on them. These women have the right to wear their veil, and should not be persecuted religiously or otherwise for doing so.

Let me see if I understand.

Do you believe that the right of these women to wear the veil is a more important right than the soldier's right to live?

If you do, nothing I can say can help you.

But if you don't, then my comparison with the unfortunate pets of Hiroshima (or Coventry, or Warsaw) holds. Being incinerated is a very big deal to a pet, and we should do everything we can to prevent it. But in the context of 140,000 human beings irradiated and incinerated, it really doesn't rise.

Moreover, it's a friggen huge distraction. Let's all watch what happens on http://news.google.com over the next few hours. There have been (about) 3K stories today that mention 'Somalia' today. The first 'veil' story broke 11 hours ago.

I'm going out on a limb here to predict that the 'veil' story will come to saturate media coverage of this really tragic situation. Mebbe it will help to pull some attention , but it will also trivialize it.

You can use that argument for about anything in the world, Paul. "Do you think a person's right to ______ is more important than a soldier's right to live?" Where do we draw the line? Is a person's right to move freely more important than a soldier's right to live? Is a person's right to work more important? A person's right to practice religion? To have free speech? To live outside of an internment camp?

Also, I think the act itself suggests violence towards the population. They are not only forcing women to remove their veils, they are confiscating them and burning them. That seems pretty malicious. I do not particularly like the culture of covering up women, but we do have to consider context. I imagine that for many of these women, it would be comparable to an American woman walking down the street and having her shirt confiscated and burned by a solider. I doubt that we would tolerate that kind of violation of personal space and forced exposure, so why are we not outraged by it when its a foreign woman? Because she has darker skin than most American women? Because she probably doesn't speak English? Because we don't share her values?

Cara -

Um. Yes. We all make use of that kind of argument all the time. It's how we decide between courses of action. It's the basic question any moral agent must ask themselves.

I am utterly outraged by the fact that there is a huge war going on in that country (and nearby Dafur) that has gotten scant attention. Is forcibly removing and burning a veil 'an act of violence'? Hell, yes. But relative to (say) a 500lb air-burst anti-personel bomb above a village of grass huts, or a car-bomb in a market place, or the use of rape and rapine as a method of ethnic cleansing, it's really trivial.

Can anyone offer up how they would prefer the soldiers handle this situation?

This is kind of like the issue with the niqab during the Quebec election. I'm sure that given an option, most of these women would elect to cover only their hair, uncover at checkpoints, etc. Women are socialized to be co-operative, and most people don't like causing problems when there's a war going on. But it doesn't seem like anyone asked them.

So really, is this different from any other actions a government could take regarding women without any consideration for the opinions of the actual women affected?

prairielily -

the difference, in a nutshell, is that in Quebec, no one was using the niqab as a disguise in order to get close enough to soldiers to kill them.

I am quite sure that none of these soldiers wants to leave the relative safety of their sandbagged bunker to physically remove these garments. The fact that they are (frankly) amazes me.

Think about it. You're standing guard at a checkpoint, in a sandbagged bunker. Someone approaches you wearing clothes that conceal their face (and gender). You ask that someone to remove the mask. They comply? No problem. You ask again, perhaps shouting at them. No compliance? In a war zone? You shoot! A guilty conscience is a luxury for the living.

Exposing yourself in order to remove the head gear is something I'm going to guess some lowly private is ordered to do by a sargeant who doesn't like it one bit more than the private does.

Look - I'm probably coming across a bit more aggressively than the matter deserves. But last night I had a few beers with an ex-rugby buddy of mine cashiered out of the 82nd Airborne in 2005, deaf in both ears because he followed orders protecting a convoy. Now he's not the most sensitive or enlightened guy, but talking to him about his experiences really brought home the point that when things go really, really bad it's really, really hard to make any kind of judgement from a distance.

That and the fact that, in his opinion, women make better combat decisions than men do. Women may well be socialized to be co-operative, but they're not socialized to be macho.

Paul, you missed my point. No one ASKED the women if there was a compromise that could be reached. They're simply chasing them down, ripping off their veils, and burning them.

And look at the article:

Near the main Tarbuunka Square, a Somali woman was seen removing her face covering before approaching a government checkpoint where one soldier clutched several of the black veils, which cover the face and leave only the eyes visible.

The women are willing to co-operate, and hey, that would be a LOT safer for the soldiers, but it's a lot easier to make unilateral decisions without consulting the women affected, isn't it?

And if "the enemy" decides to start using women as suicide bombers? Plus, it's perfectly possible to tell whether someone in a hijab is male or female; it only covers the hair.

Paul-

Just out of curiosity, if it were a matter of grabbing at breasts to prove that they were real, or crotches to make sure there was no penis, would that be equally acceptable to you.

Though I understand your point of "things can be worse"- how much worse do things need to be before they're allowed to be miserable?

prarielilly -

No soldier would leave a sandbagged bunker to chase down someone running away from them. Custer's mistake. And the point about the original fine article was that this woman would NOT remove her veil ('to escape from being unveiled.')

Bearcat -

as I understand it, there have been and will continue to be suicide bombers who are women. At that point singling out women as potential suicide bombers would be foolish. Plus, as Steven and TFA point out, this is not the hajib that's being grabbed.

Danwell -

everyone in a war zone is miserable already. But to your specific question, in this case I don't think it would be acceptable. In this case there's a very straightforward way for the soldiers to meet their requirements that doesn't involve anything like that.

But I can see why, in other situations, a thorough and invasive frisking would be appropriate regardless of gender, and the lesser of two evils if complete exclusion is the alternative.

iono. It's a completely fubar situation. I'm about to see how widespread the 'veils ripped away' meme is in the mediasphere.

I was so tempted to say
"hey that is such a violation of womens rights," with my best mocking voice when I heard this, just to laugh at the silliness that not long ago, our culture was complaining about women having to wear veils in the first place.

However, regarding the question " if it were a matter of grabbing at breasts to prove that they were real, or crotches to make sure there was no penis, would that be equally acceptable to you,"

I might add that grabbing a guy by the package is standard stop and frisk procedure all over this fre and "liberated" country, and there has never been any outcry over that. Public outcry over tha routine violation would be newsworthy.

shorter hazmatix: What about teh poor menz?

Paul Your perception of the "rights of soldiers" is backwards, IMHO. The purpose of a military, in theory, is to defend the values and safety of the nation which they represent. If the soldiers are willing to trample over the civil liberties of their countrymen and countrywomen to save their own asses, not only do they betray their duty, they defeat the entire purpose of a military - to defend its people. And what would they be defending? From the people's perspective, the military is willing to turn their backs on GOD to achieve power. It's not true, but that's how it's going to be played out by the Islamists.

It is true that in war "hard choices" have to be made. But I'll tell you a simple fact - the Islamists forced women to wear the veil, the Somali's are forcing them not to - either way, the people are screwed. It's foolish to support either side in this part of the world. The actions of the "western backed" government will lead to one inevitable conclusion - greater support for the Islamists. It's not a smart strategic move, even if tactically satisfying.

hazmatrics - there's no contridiction between saying women should not HAVE to wear the veil, and saying that women should not have it forcibly removed.

The issue is choice, not whether the veil is worn. As such, I don't think it's a silly or odd position for feminists to be in - it's entirely consistant.

Steven - Hazmatrix is an odd concern troll/MRA/women-actually- control-the-world-and-hate-men sort of guy.
Do not look for logic in his comments.
Ninapendamaishi tried to argue rationally with him in the "women's unpaid labour' thread. You can read it and see how far it went.

Steven -

please read up on the war in Somalia. This is not 'troops defending their people'.

The 'security forces' in Mogidishu are mix of Ethiopian troops, African Union peacekeepers, and mercenaries. The 'nation' they represent is - roughly - the United Nations and the African Union. Not Somalia.

It's such a good thing to have Somalia mostly out of the hands of the Islamic Courts, that I'm hard pressed to oppose anything that stifles islam there. The veil is such gross expression of female suppression too. It's all but certain that the ICU will use increased amounts of suicide bombing against civilians to try to reassert themselves through terror. God, fanatical islam is such a fucking nightmare. My adopted son is from Ethiopia, and so there's some personal feelings pulling me regarding this part of Africa.

Islamic women don't see the veil as oppression Darwin66. As well intentioned as you may be, it is not good to replace one form of oppression with another.

If you are against Islam, then you should be against all religion.

"I might add that grabbing a guy by the package is standard stop and frisk procedure all over this fre and "liberated" country, and there has never been any outcry over that. Public outcry over tha routine violation would be newsworthy."

Hazmatix, in the US military it is standard procedure to have only women frisk other women (that is standard procedure). The outcry isn't that women are getting frisked, but that they are getting frisked (often unnecessarily) by men.

"Think about it. You're standing guard at a checkpoint, in a sandbagged bunker. Someone approaches you wearing clothes that conceal their face (and gender). You ask that someone to remove the mask. They comply? No problem. You ask again, perhaps shouting at them. No compliance? In a war zone? You shoot! A guilty conscience is a luxury for the living."

Complete total BS. A trained soldier never shoots at anyone unless there is opportunity, capability, and intent present, within the person they are shooting at, to cause harm to someone else (otherwise you would have to shoot at everyone). Only if the veiled person was obviously carrying a weapon, and acting threateningly near someone else, would a professional soldier pull the trigger. American soldiers never ask Muslim women to unveil, as policy, because they know it is hugely disrespectful to do so. An occupying army that disrupts the normal flow of things within the land they are occupying, will soon find itself in big trouble.

Ranter -

a) Ethiopan, African Union and mercenary troops aren't trained to the same standards as US troops. They're barely trained at all.

b) Read the fine article. The problem (as reported) is the enemy disguising themselves using using the veil. You are asking me to believe that US troops, knowing that the enemy were so concealing themselves, would not ask people to unveil?

c) I suggest you visit http://www.liveleak.org to peruse the fine set of videos which reflect the true face of US occupation in Iraq. US troops are in an alien environment, bored witless almost all the time and scared shitless the rest. They're doing the best they can, but the best they can do is savage and ugly. And they are the best in the world.

Of all the "problems" in Mogadishu, troops unveiling women is the very least.

Ranter,

Jesus you have a gift for making bad points.

Many islamic women in North Africa also don't see cutting out the clitoris of an 11-year old girl with the lid of a tin can as an oppressive act, but anyone with their head out knows that it is.

"if you are against islam you should be against all religion"

Gee, thanks for the fucking insight. Honest to christ you don't have to display your inane contrarianism just because you can. Fanatical islam is a nightmare. Pretending that it's no different from any religion is totally absurd. I am a 100%, life long atheist, but there are nutty religions and then there are nutty, contemporary death-cult, evil-right-now, expansionist, 8th century ungulate-fucking religions, and to ignore the difference defies rationality. Yes yes yes...we all know about the death-cult Crusades of pre-Enlightenment christian Europeans...but they went through the Enlightenment, and they've been much nicer ever since, and getting better every century. Please, for the love of little out-of-wedlock jesus in the manger, don't respond to this. I can't take any more.

anoraktic: as long as labels suit your fancy: anorak sounds like a social disease for geeks with anoraxia.

Why do you find it so meaningful to deligitimate my comments? Amongst my Somali friends, this veil topic ranges from humorous to inflammatory, and of course the American feminist view of it falls somewhere in between.
Your comment, of course, is clearly humorous.

Oh, yeah, and your " teh poor menz," comment reeks of southern racist white womens mockery of black vernacular.

hasmatix, you've reallly gone off the deep end at this point. "anorak" is British slang for "nerd" or "geek."

"teh poor menz" has nothing to do with racism. It's a jibe at very common bad internet spelling. "teh," you see, is a very common typo for "the" (common enough that Microsoft Word corrects it automatically), and "menz" is a send-up of the kind of crappy spelling and grammar that is endemic in internet-speak. Anorak is mocking you by portraying you as a laughably common internet troll with the same grasp of typing and spelling as a ten-year-old internet IM-er. Are you really so new to the internet that you don't know this? You might also, at some point run across "my hed is pastede on yay!" Should that happen, be assured that race has nothing to do with that kind of mockery either.

anorak: I will spare you the "internet dictionary of cool words to use on a blog so you sound like you know what the hell you are talking about," type of terminology that went around for you newbies a while ago 'concern troll...' hawhawhaw:
HGere is an original phrase4 to ruffle your veil:
you are just a label throwing shit starting and trite person who so far has exhibited exceptionally limited intellect, with authoritarian leanings and a general ineptitude at digesting non dogmatic thoughts.

Steven: if you want to read the thread anorak suggests,follow it to the end--and resist the knee jerk that fascist leaning lifeless zealouts like anorak have trained you into by applying labelism, instead of original thought.

Originality and creative use of language is exactly what Islamicist fanatics, and anorak are warring against.

And Ranter, and Steven: ever consider donating even one second of your time here at home for those same civil rights--rights that are eroded daily because of these labelist zombies? Rights like the stop and frisk procedures here at home that men and women 'perform' on primarily men?

It sounds like your tirade is personal there Darwin66. Do you want to crusade against all of Islam? Be my guess, but you will be fighting against nearly 2 billion people. Do you intend to put your life on the line to fight that war? If your not, don't ask our nation's youth to crusade for your insanity, because they can't win that war.
I'm Buddhist personally, and I'm equally appalled by Christianity as I am by Islam, but I am not about to tell Christian and Muslin women how they can worship, because that would be wrong.

Believe it or not Darwin66 a lot of women are very proud to wear the veil, and you would be the biggest idiot in the world if you tried to take that right away from them.

Actually Paul I have seen the faces of US troops up close and personal before and after they went to Iraq for the past 4 years.

Nothing scares me more than IEDs (because I might be a victim of one), but unlike you I have received some of the training to deal with IEDs, and asking an entire nation to go naked is not the best way to deal with men who disguise themselves as women.

No, American soldiers will not ask Muslim women to unveil, unless they have enough evidence to suspect that the women in question might be a fugitive, criminal, or man disguised (the key words in that sentence was enough evidence)

You are right, veiled women is the least of the problems for occupying forces in Mogadishu, which is why they should not be unveiling women at all, because unveiling women only compounds the problems they do have.

"And Ranter, and Steven: ever consider donating even one second of your time here at home for those same civil rights--rights that are eroded daily because of these labelist zombies? Rights like the stop and frisk procedures here at home that men and women 'perform' on primarily men?"

Hazmatix, I have donated over 11 years of my life to the defense of my country (actually I got paid it for it, so maybe donate is the wrong word to use). I don't really understand your question, and all I can say is that when it came to frisking women, I always asked one of my female coworkers to do the frisking, because that is the respectable thing to do.

What your problem with women man? I just don't get it. At first I thought your comments were just an act, but now I think you need serious help.

darwin66,

I'm a Muslim. If you want to make nasty comments about Islam and how fucking crazy we all are, why don't you direct the rest of your nasty comments towards me?

I mean, I'm sure you could dig through all my posts on this site and the others I comment on and note just how many violent, scary things I've said. Maybe the other posters can point you in the right direction.

And by the way, FGM is not and has never been an Islamic tradition. There's approximately 700 million Muslim women, the vast majority of whom have uncut genitals. I could show you my intact clitoris as evidence if you'd like, but that would be creepy in any belief system.

Hazmatix - I am from so far south the next stop is Antarctica.

I am ok with you hating my comments. I think you are out of your league posting here.
You don't speak the language, if you will.
I can't really be bothered explaining to you how you qualify as a "what about the men?" troll. I'm just gonna check it off my bingo card.

Maybe you should go to the feminism 101 blog.

This is a site for feminists to discuss feminist issues. There is no obligation on my part to educate you, that is your responsibility.

Misogyny is not original thought, hazmatix, it's pretty old and tired. Understanding that women are just as human as you are is the revolutionary thought.

Oh, yeah, and I'm with Ranter. That dude is on target on this thread.

prairielily, I'm not a muslim, but I totally back up what you say. ('Cause you need me to back you up, yeah right ;o) )
There is absolutely nowhere in the Koran that advocates FGM.
It is a cultural, as opposed to religious, phenomenon.

P.S. My excuse for posting so late is that it's 7:15 pm in my timezone, what's your excuse?

Plus, FGM is practiced by North African "Christians," and was by non-monotheists long before the introduction of Islam.

And, Paul, take a look at the AP's picture of the "veiled" women. They're wearing a particularly conservative version of the hijab, but not a niqab. Their faces are uncovered.

prairielily

As a proud US servicemen and a Buddhust let me be the first to say I have nothing against Muslins or their beliefs, and the day my country declairs war on the whole of Islam will be the day I quit the service. In my understanding Islam does not equal terrorism, and I will never be part of a holy crusade. Though I think it is in best interest of all Muslims that Islamic cultures modernize, I do not think (or want) modernization to be forced onto Muslims, because unnecessary force is against the interest of all our people.

leederick: I'm very confused by your comment that you back the 'Somalis' against the Islamists, and that things were far worse for women in Somalia when the Islamists were in power. Perhaps you are Somali, or have Somali friends? I have had the privilege of working with Somali refugees in various countries, so as I say, I'm confused by your comment. The Islamists were in power as little as a few months ago, and had been presiding over the only period of sustained peace in Somalia since the civil war. Sure, sharia law is a bitch, but in the context of what had been happening in Somalia since the early 90s, *any* law and order (which the UIC was indeed providing) is better than the constant and real threat of indiscriminate rape and murder by militias. People tend to vote with their feet - since they were toppled by the Ethiopian *invasion* in concert with the so-called 'Transitional Government of Somalia' (unelected, with no popular support in or control over the country), the fact that the hundreds of thousands or indeed millions of Somalis who returned to Somalia during the stabilisation period of the UIC were again forced to flee the mass outbreak of violence, does not immediately suggest that things are improving for women or Somalis as a whole. I have a feeling the new 'Government' will have its hands full brokering deals with warlords, stifling dissent against the unpopular foreign invasion, and exacting revenge upon its enemies before it decides to bring about the feminist revolution.

Tze Ming Mok, you're spot on. As bad as Sharia can be, war and chaos is always worse.

hazmatrix - i have no clue what you're talking about. what rights are being eroded? I've never heard a feminist argue to have a civil right of any other group eroded.

Paul - I agree, the forces in Somalia don't represent Somalia, and that's part of the problem. I was merely trying to discuss the issue within the framework of how civil liberties and military forces SHOULD function. The fact that Somalia is a failed state, is hardly proof that their civil liberties should be eroded, but rather, evidence that such erosions go hand in hand with the violent carnage going on there.

The western backed government troops are not supported by the people, and this move will only serve to widen that gap. What will emerge is a dictatorship.

But suggesting that these troops are nothing but AU and UN proxies only makes the case that they have no real "right" to do what they are doing, other than the pursuit of power. It's not "really" about self defense. It's not a movement, like the Islamists.

If I had to guess, the government-backed Somalia troops will eventually fall to the Islamist troops. Puppet governments have a short lifespan, particularly when they are out there alienating the people on a daily basis.

Just ask the Shah of Iran!

It seems that just a few stories down, the authors are advocating that criminals be GPS tagged so that their victims know where they are...

I do understand the concern in the veil story--that this represents an act of violence against somali women, who already have suffered needlessly. But, you could say that in a country at war, desperate measures may have to be taken--especially when people wearing face veils are killing so many people with suicide bombs.

Whereas, in a peace time nation like America, the real solution to the issue of abusers attacking their victims is probably intensive therapy & education in jail, followed by light monitoring & transfer to a hospital for the insane if they still exhibit violent tendencies after....

--no edit button--
Not criticizing--I realize this was just a quick story posted--my intent is to point out that we all have things we are willing to protect at the expense of our freedoms, and so arguing about this issue is ulimately not going to help anyone.

It would be better to spend the time thinking about other ways that safety could be obtained.

--no edit button--
Not criticizing--I realize this was just a quick story posted--my intent is to point out that we all have things we are willing to protect at the expense of our freedoms, and so arguing about this issue is ulimately not going to help anyone.

It would be better to spend the time thinking about other ways that safety could be obtained.

Prairielily and Anorak,

There's *plenty* of FGM by muslims, particularly in North Africa, but also in Saudia Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and a recent Christian Science Monitor piece found solid evidence of FGM in Iraq. True, it predates Islam, and is not in the Koran, but my illustration of FGM happening to a North African child is not unrealistic. Check out this UNICEF report: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/FGM-C_final_10_October.pdf.

Prairelily...I most certainly did not say I thought muslims were crazy (nor would I foolishly predict you'd say hateful things) as you seem to indicate, rather, I think islam is a crazy theory and story. I'll stand by that one. Not more crazy than catholicism, buddhism, or scientology, but crazy nevertheless. And, in its modern expression by a tiny, fanatical minority, it's horrifically dangerous.

Oh yeah, Prairie...
I am very happy for you and your intact clitoris. Enjoy in good health :)

Cheers

anorak: only in your misandrist,gender stratified and authoritarina world do men either:
a) not qualify as feminist

b) have no right to an opinion unless it echoes the authoritarian branch of your castrati feminism, and its vernacular

c)drink Fosters Lager and look at women/beings prettier and younger than you, causing you massive competitive angst,self hatred, and hatred for men, which spins you onto this board for your griping, and label throwing.

Yeah,Ranter, while you were getting paid to carry a gun, haz was here at home truly donating my time to social causes without pay, and social 'wars' that have gone awry, chiefly because of this bizare union of people like you( paid mercenaries for nationalism) and idiots like anorak ( male haters who will, however, negotiate a piece of or accept your paycheck for a little....um....time spent in wonderful conversation, enticing you to their selfish causes).

I truly donate my time,quite often, but I won't indulge in the "here's my how I help the people card" dropping.

And I work free,until you guys with the guns and the girls that lov ya( and sent ya) come to lock me up.

First they came for those with open minds( but not until after all of the others who could be labeled as 'against ther movement' were safely silenced, murdered or locked up).....and I am certain Ranter, you would be one of those 'just following orders'with a gun.

I will be the partisan, taking pot shots at all of you fascists, and writing poetry on the bellies of my loved partners in the cause of the moment,to sustain us on crumbs of bread and laughter at the marriage of the right wing gun toters and the left wing feminist authoritarianas. That marriage worked well in National Socialist Germany, and it is doing a great job in the Anglo bloc nations today.

Oh, except for that one little detail: I still have the freedom of partisan opinion on blogs. You and Frau anorak haven't yet figured a way to silence partisan speech other than to use pc labels, and infer that "I don't speak the language" of the new emergent fascism.

EG: wow spelling errors. I feel like my sixth grade teacher Ms. Franzen is still trying to lodge herself between my butt cheeks--out of concern for me of course.
"teh poor menz" and your defense of it, is here in the US almostr a direct rip from old racist literature, no matter what stodgy Brits say.
Also, EG, "anorak sounds like a social disease for geeks" Get it EG? I know what anorak means. Why is it that such non creative minds collect here on this thread? I mean, I can face up to my bad spellimg, if you can face up to your "nuncreative" ability to comprehend the finer points of i-net banter, despite the errors.
Maybe I should turn on 'spel checker', and then, you would still not get it.

Steven: It started here, just like it did in any other fascist scenario, with the image of a man as a scary boogieman, and using fear as the tool of unification. Then it built jails, invented labels to stratify the 'masses' into 'good men' and 'bad men', with women being seen as good no matter what.Basic game theory.

Then, they took the movement 'global' in some sense, and built the fear into every mechanism(bomb foreign country first because you fear them, and their men, liberate women, no matter what. And, men who are against the bombing-- are bad, no matter what).
Etc, etc. No time today for a history of fascism 101, but just follow anoraks thought and Ranters military experience based logic,and you will see the fascist ideological marriage explicated quite well. These are the people who are the machinery of "World Wide War".
Oh, and lest I forget: I love good women, pluralistically, and they certainly love me;-)

Actually Ranter, considering that hazmatix begins to sound considerably more relaxed and sane once he has succeeded in getting a thread off topic, and he knows what the heck "Swarthmore" and "Carleton" are and he uses "cool" and talks about needing to do chores, my guesses are A) he's young B) he comes from a family with a high level of education and C) he may very well be an act, at least partially.

That being said, I do sort of wish the moderators would intervene.

"I am a 100%, life long atheist, but there are nutty religions and then there are nutty, contemporary death-cult, evil-right-now, expansionist, 8th century ungulate-fucking religions," -darwin66

darwin66: are you /really/ a professor?

"teh poor menz" and your defense of it, is here in the US almostr a direct rip from old racist literature, no matter what stodgy Brits say.

I'm an American, you silly person. It's an American internet phrase. I'm fairly familiar with the history of old racist literature, and no, "teh poor menz" sounds nothing like it.

Also, EG, "anorak sounds like a social disease for geeks" Get it EG?

Ah, my mistake. I thought you were ignorant. It turns out you juts have a lame sense of humor.

"First they came for those with open minds( but not until after all of the others who could be labeled as 'against ther movement' were safely silenced, murdered or locked up).....and I am certain Ranter, you would be one of those 'just following orders'with a gun. "

Hazmatix

Once again I have no idea what point you are trying to make, or what you are trying to imply. All I can think to say is that I have followed more orders than I could ever count, but I can honestly say I have never followed an unlawful order (fortunately I have never been given an unlawful order).

Basically I think what you are trying to say in your ramblings is that liberals are fascist, but let me remind you that the fascist of pre WWII Germany, Spain, and Italy were all considered conservatives.

Yes Nina, Hazmatix does have the air of upper class in his writing, but just because he rambles on does not mean he is intelligent.
His points are very convoluted, and he makes remarks that skirt his implicit point that liberals are the problem. I respectfully disagree with him, and it seems to me he throws out a lot more labels than he receives.

"Etc, etc. No time today for a history of fascism 101, but just follow anoraks thought and Ranters military experience based logic,and you will see the fascist ideological marriage explicated quite well."

I am a non-ideological, Buddhist, liberal, realist you fool, and I believe I have made that aspect of my character clear in my comments.

Actually I do have one ideology, and that is that people should embrace love, romance, and sex more (in a healthy manner).

If anyone spouts ideology here, it is you. Let me guess; you're a card carrying member of the Heritage foundation, or the American Enterprise Institute?

my point Ranter, was that although we can't know for sure I think haz may be a HS or college kid playing around and his thing may be an act

If that were the case he would still be irresponsible, but you're not going to gain much through responding to him in a serious way. Admittedly, he is going to a lot of effort, whatever his motivations. Hopefully if he continues being so convoluted and so detracting from the thread he will get banned.

I certainly hope so Nina.

But I hate being accused of being a fascist, a bad soldier (I'm not a soldier), or following an ideology.

I meant I hope that Hazmatix is just acting, not that he gets banned. No one should get banned (when I was acting I was glad I was not banned), but I don't think Hazmatix realizes how insulting he is.

You shouldn't have been acting, you were pretty insulting while you were acting too. Whether or not hazmat is aware he is being insulting, he's taking away from the overall point of this site, IMO. I think moderators have a perfect right to ban people who are being disrespectful and deliberately convoluting. Posts use up bandwith.

Nina,

Since you asked. Yes, for realsies. I'm a youngish, just tenured, equity feminist (ala C. H. Sommers)-leaning professor. I have a ph.d. in biological anthropology from a good university, and absolutely love teaching and research. Sarah Hrdy is probably my favorite feminist anthropologist, if that helps clarify my school of thought. I teach a human sexuality class that is part of the curriculum in the womens studies program at my school. Heck, I won a top teaching award last year, in spite of having a reputation as a demanding, hard instructor.

I don't filter casual internet postings through a pc check, or a spell check for that matter, as I'm sure has displayed itself :) Obviously, I'm really critical of religiosity in general. I do find pastoralist-born islam particularly nasty, in no small measure because of the propietary and oppressive treatment of women. I'm equally critical of atheistic idealism, aka, Mao, Marx, Ayn Rand. In fact, I'm working, on the side sort of thing, on a paper arguing that Marx and Rand have a lot in common (man, would that piss her off). They both operated on a totally bogus notion of human nature--an idealistic one.

Fire away Nina--I'm sure there's something in the above to object to.

I've spent several hours, maybe a dozen in the past month combing through feministing.com, sort of taking the pulse of the discussions. I've learned some valuable things, and have seen some really good commentary mixed in here.

Darwin66

For a biological anthropology you seem to have a very low amount of respect for small cultures and local beliefs. And I was really appalled when you seemed to advocate launching a crusade against Islam.

"I'm working, on the side sort of thing, on a paper arguing that Marx and Rand have a lot in common (man, would that piss her off). They both operated on a totally bogus notion of human nature--an idealistic one."

So who do you think has a "realistic" idea, Machiavelli? Adam Smith?

I just think people on this thread want you to carefully distinguish your problems with fundamentalist Islam from the many other sort of Islam people can practice. You may have noticed this, but a tremendous amount of anti-middle eastern racism has sprung up in this country since 9/11. Hate crimes against people of middle eastern descent have risen a lot too.

I'm also really, really surprised that for a women's studies prof who teaches a course on human sexuality you didn't know more about crimes of sexual violence. It's a really important part of women's studies, and most of what I've learned is just as a volunteer but most of my women's studies undergrad friends have learned a lot of similar information in courses. I recommend trying to learn more about that (of course, maybe by now after that Hate Crime thing you have...)

Damn! I go away for a few hours and the lunatic is calling the tune.

"idiots like anorak ( male haters who will, however, negotiate a piece of or accept your paycheck for a little....um....time spent in wonderful conversation, enticing you to their selfish causes)."

Is this really the sort of thing we should have to put up with in OUR little corner of the internet?
I can hear that bullshit in a kagillion other sites, which is why I come here.

Nina, I think you're right that he's a young kid.
That doesn't mean it's not upsetting when he totally lashes me.
I've been commenting here for about a year, and reading for about a year before that, and although it seems somewhat counter-productive to try and defend myself against a flaming troll, I'd like the record to show that I believe men can be, and are, feminists.
I just don't think Hazmatix is, which is why I suggested he's in the wrong place.

Hazmatix has not added any real content to any thread he's posted in, and I'm not going to respond to him again.
Do y'all think you could do the same?
If we ignore him he will eventually leave.

He has dominated this thread which is about Somalian women. Somehow I don't think he's a Somalian woman, nor has he contributed anything to the discussion.

Ranter - Dude, you were such a prick before you started getting real!
I'm glad you stayed and relaxed, because you're now adding value to the discussions. :o)

Nina

Few things give me more pleasure than seeing you reacts to people you find fault with. That why was I was acting, so that I could bring out people like you.

"Few things give me more pleasure than seeing you reacts to people you find fault with"

I totally don't know how to interpret that...

Should I come back pretending to be someone else and start bashing soldiers, to see if I could get you worked up?

No I would rather you bash conservatives, and anti-feminist because you are doing a really good job of it.

okay I guess I can accept that... ;P

P.S. My excuse for posting so late is that it's 7:15 pm in my timezone, what's your excuse?

anorak, I'm just a loser.

darwin66,

I am a 100%, life long atheist, but there are nutty religions and then there are nutty, contemporary death-cult, evil-right-now, expansionist, 8th century ungulate-fucking religions,

It's just SHOCKING how someone could be offended by that, isn't it? And it's just completely out of left field that a member of said "death cult" would be annoyed about you painting 1.4 billion people with the same terrorist brush.

Ranter,

Islamic societies ABSOLUTELY need to modernize. I mean, just look at the way the tech industry has taken off in India, but not in Pakistan. I see the same thing in a lot of conservative Southern states, actually. Why undertake a path that affects your citizens so negatively, when it's absolutely unnecessary? Why make your nation/state the butt of jokes that discourage investment and encourage your best and brightest to leave?

I would be the first to join in a REASONED criticism of the current state of Islam, the hypocrisy behind many male Muslim leaders, and how to support the many Muslim women in these areas who are working VERY hard to exact change, and even succeeding, albeit slowly.

But the virulent hate towards Muslims and Islam in recent years doesn't do any of that. A couple of years ago, I had to end a friendship because he made a comment about how the US should just drop a few nuclear bombs on the whole region. This was after I'd told him that I didn't appreciate him acting like American lives were worth more than foreign ones. There's just so much hate out there. I can't speak up against all of it, but I can speak up on here.

Ranter,

Again, top honors for making zero sense while referring to things never said.

Nina,

I think Adam Smith was close, but Charles Darwin more to the point. I do think the marketplace is a wonderfully clear expression of human psychology, however. Sexual violence frequencies certainly aren't my specialty, but I would put money on my estimates over your estimates any day of the week. That said, I admit that I've been remiss in exploring that literature. That is something I'm grateful to have learned from our discussions. I did think my back of the envelope F.B.I. estimates were helpful, and probably ballpark reasonable. Sexual violence, in the context of my courses, is addressed at a more fundamental level. Why are humans capable of this horrific behavior? What kind of ape forces sex? Orangutans, Chimps, and humans are documented capable of forced copulations. Ducks, dolphins, baboons, scorpian flies too....plus a zillion others. What patterns in the evolutionary history can we discern that help us understand the evolved psychological mechanism at play here, etc.

I personally know rape victims, as we all do. I would like for us to reduce the frequency to as close to zero as possible. To do this, we need to know the root cause. Just like fighting cancer requires knowledge of the underlying mechanisms. This is where science and reductionism can help. Yes, I used reductionism in a positive light, because it's a good thing, contrary to what you might hear from my socio-cultural anthro colleagues.

Anyway, I'm off to walk the dogs.

Pairielily - you are NOT a loser! An insomniac maybe, but not a loser.

It is interesting for me, because I live in a country that is opposed to the invasion, (NZ) but there is still a fair amount of anti-Islamic feeling here. Nothing as extreme as what you guys have, but certainly some xenophobic bullshit.

It's just so crazy. I hate to break the old don't-bring-up-the-Nazis rule, but damn! don't these people remember what happens when you allow an entire caste (or religion) of people to be vilified?

It's true that I don't support religious lore being law, but I also recognise that Islam is a diverse religion with adherents who have made incredible contributions to world culture by way of poetry, architecture and philosophy.

I too think Darwin66 is out of line in his pronouncements, and as much as he tries to justify his xenophobia, I think he needs to take a good long look at WHY he feels the way he does, and why he is so vocal in his condemnation of this group.

I too am an atheist. I too despise fanaticism. But I know enough to not paint 2 billion people (sorry I don't know the exact number) with the same brush.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Islam was about both men and women being humble and modest in their actions and thoughts. This is then reflected in their dress. Somewhere along the way, small numbers of muslims have twisted the original basis to allow for the oppression of women, and these groups have come to power in certain countries. This does not mean that the minority of fanatics represents the majority of adherents.

It brings to my mind a certain President who kowtows to fundamentalist Christians.

"I did think my back of the envelope F.B.I. estimates were helpful, and probably ballpark reasonable."

Like I said, do some more studying. Talk to some Sexual Assault Support Centers. Talk to some feminists who study the stuff. Anyone who calls information "rubbish" before actually doing any work to look at it all, has displayed their bias pretty obviously.

"Why are humans capable of this horrific behavior? What kind of ape forces sex? Orangutans, Chimps, and humans are documented capable of forced copulations. Ducks, dolphins, baboons, scorpian flies too....plus a zillion others. What patterns in the evolutionary history can we discern that help us understand the evolved psychological mechanism at play here, etc.

I personally know rape victims, as we all do. I would like for us to reduce the frequency to as close to zero as possible. To do this, we need to know the root cause. "

I think that presumes we are ever going to find the root cause. When in reality, there can be many root causes. How do you think that boiling it down to genetics would help us fight it? Some scientists think most men have the potential to rape, some try and boil it down to a minority of individuals. It's really irrelevant to me rather there is a biological/genetic basis or not, because human beings are /so flexible/.

You call Marx unrealistic in comparison with Adam Smith: yet what about the cultures around the world that lived in relatively equitable communal settings? Like farming communities in 17th century Denmark, or Mayan indians throughout much of the Yucatan?

I think you oversimplify and underestimate socio-cultural anthropologists when you say they think reductionism is a bad thing. Sure, some of them do. Some of them however just think you're never going to be able to perfectly analyze biological bases for human behavior, and that anyhow doing so is not particularly useful.

"but Charles Darwin more to the point" [in reference to human nature]

Wait, do you mean to say you /agree/ with Darwin's particular theories on /human sexual selection/? Most biologists today consider him to be pretty off-base on that part, thus it's not usually taught in courses.

Nina: "egra'aliho--a'amus,"
"once he has succeeded in getting a thread off topic," it is this sort of casual verbal slander that ruins threads.Remeber last time, how it all started with anorak's attack? Equally, your consistent bashing of me as a male doesn't help either. Oh, I know the statistics: I should just shut up and take your female verbal violence like a real man and all,even after you hit me, but sorry, I can't and won't appease the verbal abusers in the crowd.

Now go do your homework, and notice that my original comment, which drew name calling flak from anorak, was right on topic for the thread. Sorry if your casual verbal assault here is just another stone thrown at ol haz. It is actually your verbal violence directed at my comments, in combination with anoraks steady assaults that ruin the thread. STOP NAME CALLING, and be respectful of alternative opinions, and no problem, voila! Thread on topic;-0
Can you do that? And what was all of that askin me for personal info last night? Weird...niow you are cyber stalking me, and talkiong about me like I am the town pump or something
;-( I feel so, um, retro misogynized, but with a female doing the hating this time.
Does it help you to know that I grew up eating dog food? Or that I spent years as a homeless person while working for social justice? Prolly not, but thanks for the rich kid nod $;-)

anorak: "egra'aliho--a'amus,""it's not upsetting when he totally lashes me," please keep your fantasy life out of my intentions( I never wanted to talk to you, until you flamed me in the other posts, and now this one), but stop insulting me, my intellect, my dyslexic spelling, and everything else you are doing FIRST.In language you might understand, "you started it," and any adult within earshot can go back to the thread where you labeled me, and attacked me and my spelling before I had ever heard of you.

This is the second time I have asked you to knock it off with the verbal violence, and the second time you have assaulted me FIRST--and I wasn't even adressing you. Your comments are not only vapid, but mean, and whacked, and designed in the way of all fascist weaponry: attack first, blame victim, then go on PR campaign about why it is victims fault.Then blame victim for steering things off thread.

EG: she "thought you were ignorant. It turns out you juts have a lame sense of humor."
At least I have one of those, EG. Hope you get one soon ;-)Maybe hateful anorak can help you when she mocks your spelling of 'juts'.

Ranter: the affirmation that these posters who flame you first and call you names before, during and after they attack you, must give you the warm fuzzies?
Almost as warm as a cell in Guantanamo, just because you are a male Somali, doing his damndest to protect the women in his life from bonobo like Americans who can't wait to get under those veils to examine those Somali clits.

Oh, and my response to your comment was based on you saying you had 'donated' but had actually been paid for 'service to the nation.' So I guess that leaves me in the quandry of not knowing what that phrase means, because getting paid in the service of the nation is a military co-option of the idea of what constitutes service.

And, since you brought it up( like the rest of this off thread stuff) I am a leftie cut from the mold of the IWW, Joe Hill, Meridel Le Seur,et al, and a centrist when it comes to moderating the dialogues of the new right wing left and the true right. You are way off in your 'guestimate' of me, as is nina--nina who was asking me where I like to spend my time, and asking me about romantic poetry on a thread about labor rights.
Oh, and re:"you were such a prick," --WTF!? What are you ranter, a human misandry sponge? Prick is the eq. of cunt in male language....

Currently I love the work of C.H Sommers, the first feminist to break the faux feminist imposed-ala-anorak and ilk-fascist feminist silence--and I am sitting next to two women in head scarfs in a public library --one of whom found the title and picture to one of the articles here to be a laughable thing;-)
In this library, I regularly admonish their noisy sons "egra'aliho--a'amus," with a finger to my lips. um....WTF??!!

at least darwin66 has an ally here such as hazmatix.

I didn't know who C. H. Sommers, was, but I have since discovered this: http://www.vms.hr/ethic/sommers_.htm

She reads to me like Allan Bloom, with the same elitist generalizing tone (and I would argue, innacurate view) towards today's youth. She talks about the "right war" from the armchair, and over-idealizing the political and moral climates of our nation's past. Is this essay typical of her style though?

Nina,

Re: Darwin’s sexual selection theory

You said "Most biologists today consider him to be pretty off-base on that part, thus it's not usually taught in courses."

Most emphatically no, wrong. Darwin's theory of sexual selection has never been stronger. It's part and parcel of any basic biology textbook, and unless the creationists are right, must apply to humans as well. The literature and empirical research on sexual selection's expression in human psychology is mountainous and really terrific. Again, Sarah Hrdy is tough to beat for a well-written introduction. She's an evolutionary biologist whose specialty is the evolution of female sexuality. Helena Cronin is another great scientist, and she wrote The Ant and the Peacock, an outstanding introduction to sexual selection. Other feminist evolutionary scientists are Barbara Smuts, Marlene Zuk, Anne Campbell (philosopher), and Patricia Gowaty.

The best, powerfully feminist intro to evolutionary thinking about sexual coercion and other male attempts to control females is from Barbara Smuts of University of Michigan. She’s awesome, personally and professionally. Hardcore “sisterhood� advocate. Her early work was studying baboon female solidarity. I was very inspired by her work, and ended up doing fieldwork and my master’s thesis on a study of female primate social behavior.

- Smuts, Barbara 1992: Male aggression against women: an evolutionary perspective. Human Nature 3:1-44.
- Smuts, Barbara (1995) The Evolutionary Origins of Patriarchy, Human Nature 6(1): 1–32

Nina,

Curiosity got the better of me with the rape statistics. I went and got a separate set of numbers. You may be utterly bored with this, but I kind of got into it again thinking about your assertion that between 1/5 and 1/10 men have committed rape at some point. An assertion than set off my "rubbish" alarm. I stand by my rubbish statement even more now.

Skip to bottom if you want, but I'll put it all here in as succinctly as possible.

Consider NOW's (Nat'l Org. Wom.) numbers:

132,000 women report rape *or attempted rape* every year. We’ll treat them as the same thing, though, of course, they’re not.

150 million females live in America (pop./2).

Let’s say only 50% of these women are of age to be susceptible to rape.

So, 132,000/75,000,000 equals .00176.

NOW says that the actual number raped is between 2 to 6 times more than this.

Let’s split the difference and say it’s 4 times then.

.00176 times 4 equals .007

or about 1 in 140 according to NOW’s estimates. The F.B.I. reports (not estimates, but actual tallied reports) says it’s 1 in 2500 per year.

Let’s say the F.B.I. is full of shit, and that NOW has better access to crime data and go with 1 in 140.

So, the odds over 20 years calculated more precisely and statistically accurately than my last back of envelope calculations = ( (1-.007) to the 20th power ) are the odds of *not* being raped. This equals .87. So, 13% of women will be raped over 20 years.

.13 x 100……….1 in 13 women will be raped over their most vulnerable years.

So, again to my point about you assertion that between 1/5 and 1/10 men have committed rape.

/If each and every single/ of those rapes had been done by a different male, you’d still be too high in your estmates (again, according to NOW’s numbers). However, having done little to no formal reading on rapist profiles, I understand from casual reading that many rapists are serial offenders, having committed many rapes over years.

Bottom line: There’s no way your estimate is correct. My informed hunch of “rubbish� is more than confirmed.

What’s a better estimate? That’s a separate, but interesting question. I’d bet a week’s salary (a modest bet, admittedly) it’s not more than 1/25. That’s just a guess, but I’m a good guesser Nina.

Insert Pet Detective victory dance here. :)

Insert Jim Carrey's Pet Detective victory dance here. :)

Hey darwin66, it's cool you're putting a lot of effort into this, but I question this part of your analysis:

"Let’s say only 50% of these women are of age to be susceptible to rape."

I wonder how you came to this conclusion. If only it were true. Babies are raped. Women in their 80's are raped. That is what makes it such a big deal. There is no "get out of fear of rape" age you can be.
So, by doubling that number, you'll get something like 1 in 7 and a 1/2 women (what's a half woman?), exactly the range that Ninapendamaishi first suggested.

I would do a victory dance, but thinking about my raped friends and relations sort of puts a dampener on things.

"Hardcore “sisterhood� advocate. Her early work was studying baboon female solidarity,"
I couldn't have said it better myself. Now, since the monkeys are out of the barrel,can we talk about bonobos since the thread has weaved out of control, and into rape rather than mere veil pulling?( a great example of how a lie, once told, grows to gros proportions)

Hardcore sisterhood is the matriarchal bonobo kinship group--the only known primate that has a matriarchy-like ethos in place. In fact bonobos have sex with everybody, to build, maintain, and ensure power, and some say, to avoid violence.
Why, bonobo mothers, they even have sex with their own daughters, but fortunately, not with their sons. Sex is indeed a tool of power, and control in bonobo culture, but with females weilding said power. I mean, sure, because when a female performs sex acts with hers or another bonobos child, it is not rape, right? it is merely matriarchy. But when chimps use coercive measure to gain sexual favor, it is rape right?
Lets talk about bonobos coercive and manipulative sexuality, and why it is that inflicting said sexual deviance on their young is ok. Fact: the only bonobo that suffers violent threats, starvation, and other acts of coercion on a regular basis is the male whose mother died and left him to the group. Everyone picks on him.
Well, anyways, sure, we all likely know someone who has been raped--and probably by the FBI definition of 'with a penis'. Moreover, I am certain, we all know someone who has no reporting mechanism in place for when they are raised by bonobo like females, without any males to protect them from coercive sexual 'nurturing.'

So"Let’s say the F.B.I. is full of shit," rings hollow considering that the whole "anti-rape" lobby built todays FBI using fear of men as the tool of the builder, and the prisons grew, and the best they can come up with today is domestic wiretapping, mentally ill people who are coached by them into terrorist acts--like playing paintball-- and anthrax scares that eminate from their own laboratories. Oh, and did I mention the latest on political hiring, and planted evidence, falsified and 'missing' documents, and coverups that reach all the way to the top offices? And did anyone wver find that mysterious 'third man' from the OK city bombings? Oh, yeah, that's right, he's back at his desk job in Detroit....
Makes me long for the days of J Edgar, when it was ONLY gay people that the FBI was 'after'.( double entendre' moment)

So while bashing folks is the thread focus, here is a resource of all the pre 1993 FBI blackout of collecting gender data in dom. viol. statistical works--a compendium of pre 1993 domestic violence cause and effect stats. They might surprise you;-)
http://www.batteredmen.com/fiebert.htm

adorable, relatively non violent, highly sexual bonobos;-)
http://primates.com/bonobos/index.html

and the evil--almost as evil as my favorite butch -->>Camille Paglia kind of evil;-)
my current controversial favorite evil feminist---> Christina Hoff Sommers
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Stole-Feminism-Women-Betrayed/dp/0684801566

Anorak,

You've got the problem backwards. By pretending that only 50% of women are of vulnerable age, I was actually being conservative in the direction of OVERESTIMATING the rape frequencies. Doing it your way would drop them in half, not double them. No biggy, but important.

Also, the victory dance thing is just fun. Please don't intimate or assume I find rape anything but a deplorable, heinous, cowardly crime, and I am very serious about reducing its rates. That said, false frequency claimsdon't help our cause.

In reading my post, I see that I made a
stupid arithmatic error at the very end. 13% is more like 1/8 over twenty years. However every step along the way was done with very conservative numbers. So, especially considering the serial rapists, there's absolutely no way 1/5 of men have raped at some point in their lives.

Hold on, my maths isn't so good. How does eliminating half the subject group give you a bigger number?

P.S. I didn't mean to insinuate you thought rape wasn't serious.

Oh, I get it! It makes the frequency greater for a smaller group! (My brain just kicked in!) I still think you can't reduce the target group by 50%, 'cause that's not really how it is...I am impressed you are paying so much attention to this issue.
Here in N.Z., women's organisations tend to say that for every reported rape there are 9 unreported ones.

Believe me I've had my share of backwards math moments. I'm glad you know I do take rape seriously. It's affected my family's life, and it's a big deal.

I'm also glad for the conversations here that got me searching for data. One thing is for sure, there's a lot of claims out there, but very little of it refers directly to really carefully collected data. I'm sure the underreporting is huge. Also, there are conflicting definitions of rape. It's complicated.

What I love to see is all the proactive self defense and rape-avoidance literature. What a great service. I know it's widely available for college students, but I wonder if sex crime safety is discussed in high schools? It should be.

New Zealand is high on my list of places to visit. I'm friends with an American guy who taught psych. there for 10 years. He absoluely loved N.Z., but he and his wife had a baby, and they wanted to be closer to both of their families.

I have quite a few American friends here who are waiting for regime-change before they'll go home!

In my perfect world, rapists wouldn't rape because they would be scared of the beatings their victim would inflict. I am very pro self-defense for women. Knowing how to kick arse if you have to is a pretty "empowerful" tool.
Of course, this doesn't work in all situations, but how cool would it be if every woman knew how to fight properly?

If you are ever planning a trip down here, I can tell you of some really beautiful places to visit.

Yerah, Camille Paglia would agree with both of you--arm yourselfs and prepare to fight, individually, when necessary;-)
And I go one further, and say that we all share a stake in violence, and protecting ourselves with proactive skills, not reactive police state mentality.

on the other hand, enveloping phrases like "sex crime safety" tend to eviscerate the idea that consensual sex is good, healthy, possible, or natural, because it enshrines sex as a negative, rather than a positive possibility.

Nina, I have to agree with darwin66 on the sexual selection thing. I doubt you could find a single scientist who believes in evolution but doesn't believe in sexual selection. In fact, a lot of scientists have gone further than Darwin did.

"Nina, I have to agree with darwin66 on the sexual selection thing. I doubt you could find a single scientist who believes in evolution but doesn't believe in sexual selection. In fact, a lot of scientists have gone further than Darwin did."

No No No! Darwin wrote a whole bunch of stuff on human sexual selection in particular, that most people don't even talk about anymore because it's not credible. Like he talks about how women are selected for their looks, and I think he talks about how sexual selection primarily acts on women more than men and stuff like that (or maybe it's vice versa, I forget).

"Bottom line: There’s no way your estimate is correct. My informed hunch of “rubbish� is more than confirmed."

You're still selectively choosing which studies you look at. There are plenty of studies out there that have focused on just the men, and come up with number of around 1 in 11 for college men or something like that. Did you at least bother to look at the studies I posted that talked about that? No we can't know for sure, but there are studies surveying the men themselves that indicate that 1 in 5 or 6ish husbands have at some point sexually assaulted their wives, and 1 in 10 or 12ish college boys have at one point raped someone.

So saying there's no way my numbers are possible is just "rubbish" because there are studies that support them. They may not be accurate for our nation as a whole, but there's no way you can say that for sure.

"but I’m a good guesser Nina."

No offense, darwin 66, but your tone has consistently reminded me of that kid in the back of the class who raises their hand all the time and is way too proud of it because for them their identity sort of revolves around bookish stuff. I'm at a pretty good school too, but I don't take a whole lot of personal pride simply in arguing over statistics. Many people have worked with these statistics already, and I believe people who put these studies together probably know more about how they're done than either of us (although did you read the UN's document which describes more about methodology? The UN document discusses a lot of different studies, and I dare say I trust the UN and WHO even more than I trust NOW (although really, who knows))

Also, just out of curiosity darwin66:

Do you think we have to find biological causes to deal with such problems as oh, murder and theft? What about drunk driving?

I will be the partisan, taking pot shots at all of you fascists, and writing poetry on the bellies of my loved partners in the cause of the moment,to sustain us on crumbs of bread and laughter at the marriage of the right wing gun toters and the left wing feminist authoritarianas. That marriage worked well in National Socialist Germany, and it is doing a great job in the Anglo bloc nations today.free online games