[DEBATE] : Re: Rape & the Men on this List

Tue Apr 25 08:09:55 BST 2006

The dominant school of thought on this issue (a view
held by the likes of POWA, 1 in 9, CSVR and the
majority of list members, a view with which I have
fundamental differences) is that rape, firstly, is
about power and violence, and never about sex per se.
Examples of gruesome rapes rapes of toddelrs and very
old women is cited as proof. This view conveniently
forgets that the overwhelming majority of rape
complaints come from women of reproductive ages, say
15-45.

The second dogma is that men, as a group, are the
problem. This assumes a grand conspiracy by patriarchs
of all tribes, races and clan, issuing an edict to
young men to rape women as a means to "control" them.
To neofeminists who hold this view, it doesn't occur
that women happen to be our mothers, sisters,
daughters, friends, girlfriends and wifes, for whose
honour some of us will literally lay down our lives,
despite some regarding this as paternalistic. I don't
agree with this Alice-in-Wonderland view. Rapists from
different walks of life have different motives for
committing this heinous crime, and no amount of
generalising and propagandising will change this fact.

Thirdly, there is the view that MEN are not serious
about tackling rape, and their "silence" contributes
to the problem (I remember a Charlize Theron advert,
where she effectively accused "silent" men of being
rapists by their silence). This view ignores the fact
that, even in the age of female leaders and MP's, men
are still the majority in parliaments and
dictatorships of the world, and that they pass
draconian laws, with mandatory life or death sentences
for rape. Also forgotten is the fact that "vigilantes"
who necklace alleged rapists are overwhelmingly men.
If this is "silence", I don't know what else is
expected of men.

The fourth dogma, in the context of AIDS, is that
women have no power to negotiate condom use. I still
grapple with the basis for this view, propagated by
all relevant groups, including TAC, LoveLife and
UNAIDS. These groups simply refuse to accept that
women DO voluntarily have "unprotected" sex with
strangers or first time lovers, or that some of them
just don't want condoms.

What is needed for debate on this issue and the
broader struggle against sexual violence is an honest
re-appraisal of the theories that inform this
discourse. It does not help to impose ideological
dogma's that say "rape is about power and violence",
"rape is not sex, and sex is not rape", "no always
means no". This views, with respect, can only be held
by those with insufficent experience in the act of
sexual intercourse, or those who play sexual politics.
I challenge anyone on this list to say they have
never, ever voluntarily had sex with their wife,
husband or partner after initially saying "No".

We need honest debate, leaving no room for political
correctness or sacred cows.

--- eharvey <eharvey10 at telkomsa.net> wrote:

> I have decided to add this hugely controversial,
> provocative
> and revealing issue about the intricacies of
> rape-consensual 
> sex, the gamut of behavioural and sexual subtleties,
> conventions,
> machinations and their accompanying ideology and
> politics to
> my list of future articles, but I do not think Peter
> W is right in his
> strident attack against Peter Mahlangu below. No
> matter how feels irritated
> and bored by Peter M he has no right to be so
> derisive of another
> contributor. NOBODY on this list has the authority
> and right to speak with
> such belittling disdain of another contributor to
> debates. If Peter M comes
> across as whatever let his arguments be the basis
> upon which others weigh
> and assess the quality of his contributions. In fact
> this is not the way you
> set a more matured and perspicacious example: by
> smug derision. I resent
> this supremacist attitude. If Peter M's approach,
> debating style and views
> are wrong or problematic to you and others then is
> there not a better way of
> talking about this than these vindictive attacks?
> And then, to have the
> nerve to talking of blocking him! Who would want to
> continue to be on this
> list if this type of deliberate exclusion of people
> has to happen on it.
> Imagine every time we get pissed off with a
> contributor we decide to block
> him or her? This would defeat the purpose of debate
> and eventually result in
> the demise of this often useful list. There is no
> need to agree on anything.
> In fact it is easy agreements that I find boring.
> The more you sweat and
> toil with the likes of Peter M. the more rewarding
> will debating
> results be finally. However, for this you need
> patience and stamina.     
> 
> The fact is that many times I just squiz through
> much on this list
> because they are simply not interesting and
> intellectually stimulating to 
> me - and this is my right - and this is often NOT
> from Peter M. But I don't
> get irritated, contemptuous of these contributors,
> attack them and so on. I
> just glance at what they write and move on. Though I
> credit Peter W. with
> being probably the most productive contributor on
> this list - despite the
> fact that I have some big differences with much of
> his views and also admire
> so much time and energy he can find to invest on
> this list - he is blatantly
> wrong to so derisively attack Peter M. Though
> stubbornly steeped in his
> views, which I too find often frankly abominably
> backward and often
> reactionary, it is his right to have these views. In
> fact the purpose of
> these debates should be to constructively win over
> those we think are so
> badly wrong about their views rather than
> trenchantly alienating them. In
> fact Peter W. was right when he said that one could
> sharpen one's own
> arguments against someone like Peter M. but even
> that approach will exhaust
> itself when arguments become circuitous.  What to do
> then: drop out of the
> debate and let it fizzle out, with hopefully
> contributors having learnt
> something while it lasted. BUT WHAT IS THIS
> ANTI-INTELLECTUAL SHIT ABOUT
> BLOCKING PEOPLE? This is the antithesis of debate.
> Intolerant and 
> haughty bureaucrats react like this, not a list that
> has some fine
> intellectuals.     
> 
> Final point: I hear some impatient people angry in
> fact that so few of 
> debaters are contributing to the debates on sexual
> matters (around Zuma's
> case), especially men, almost as if we are
> deliberately not contributing and
> starving the list of apparently great minds. Why? I
> have come to realise how
> exhausting and time-consuming contributing to this
> list can be. You can end
> up spending many hours a week on this list and as a
> result other work you
> have suffers, not that developing these debates are
> not important. They are
> VERY important. But things must take shape
> rhythmically and according to
> what is possible given time constraints we all have.
> But my sense is that
> this impatience and clamouring for more voices is a
> healthy indication of 
> vibrantly searching for answers and greater
> understanding of what will go
> down as probably - despite all the ugly scenes we
> have seen - the most
> useful and edifying public-cultural debate this
> country has seen since 1994:
> the Zuma rape allegation saga. No issue has been
> more discussed by ordinary
> people than this one. Picture Peter M's views and
> those of yourselves as
> just that: contributions to the debate. And relax,
> we'll chip in when we
> can! In the meantime let the pearls of wisdom and
> discursive juices keep on
> flowing into our computers!  
> 
> EH
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Waterman
> [mailto:p.waterman at inter.nl.net] 
> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 9:02 AM
> To: debate: SA discussion list
> Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: Rape & the Men on this List
> 
> I am increasingly bored and irritated with Peter
> Mahlangu, who appears 
> on this list only to respond, in a conventional
> bourgeois liberal 
> patriarchal mode, to serious issues raised by those
> identified with or 
> exploring alternatives to such.
> 
> Although response to him might conceivably sharpen
> our own arguments, my 
> increasing feeling is that we can better do this
> amongst ourselves, or 
> with conventional bourgeois, liberal, patriarchal
> people who are capable 
> of responding positively rather than simply
> stonewalling. He should 
> really take himself off to some such site as those
> represented by the 
> Oxford Union (a student debating society where
> performance was more 
> important than beliefs or values). In so far as he
> has clearly abandoned 
> any such identities or beliefs that might have been
> associated with 
> liberation struggles, he will do well in his career
> and probably end up 
> as an ambassador, a UN functionary or university
> vice chancellor (with 
> no understanding of vice).
> 
> In so far as he has not done this, but prefers to
> 'epater la 
> anti-bourgeoisie'  (provoke the anti-bourgeoisie), I
> am obliged to 
> deploy my personal ultimate defence: blocking him.
> 
> Peter W.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DEBATE mailing list
> DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
> http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> 