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

[Peter Mahlangu]

Mandi,

I apologise profusely if I offended you in any way.
That was never the intention.

Perhaps I must recognise that there is no way a rape
survivor can discuss this issue without taking it
personally, hence the anger you express. I apologise
for causing the anger. But because it is an issue of
natioanl importance, we need to debate it.

Responding to the gist of you post, you mention the
Sabine women (which, I'm led to believe, is Roman
mythology). But even if it was fact, it happened in
the context of war. Same goes to the Huns and the Rape
of Nanking, for which Japan shamelessly still refuses
to apologise to this day. My issue with the theory of
rape as a form of power is not concerned with war, but
peacetime, like we have in SA. In war, mass rape is
orchestrated at the highest level, by generals. How do
men in peacetime orchestrate rape as an instrument of
power, oppression and humiliation? Doesn't
non-ejaculation also occur in consensal sex? What has
this got to do with whether or not the sex was
consensual or rape?

On the issue of "No", you answered a question I did
not ask. I meant, not in a rape situation, but in the
context of a loving relationship. Is it difficult to
conceive a woman saying "No", but later consenting
after much pleading and begging from a man? The myth
that "No always means No" will mean that millions upon
millions of law-abiding men should be doing multiple
life terms in prison right now.

The Theron advert was quickly withdrawn after male
outrage was directed at it, becuase of the
insinuations and innuendos implicit in the ad. 

You can have your views about whether or not I take
rape seriously, but I have nothing to prove.

I am prepared to, and do, read research on this issue,
but I am not prepared to renounce my right to
criticise and rebut propaganda and myth-making, even
in furtherance of a noble cause. This is a right I
will exercise until I can breathe no more.



--- Mandi Smallhorne <mandiwrite at icon.co.za> wrote:

> The dominant school of thought according to WHOSE
> reading of the comments
> and writings on this issue, Peter? You are so filled
> with bias on this issue
> it warps your thinking and understanding!!! I have
> NEVER heard any reputable
> South African 'feminist' 'rape activist' or whatever
> utter such distorted
> views. NOBODY says that men are the problem.
> Charlize Theron did not even
> say anything like what you interpreted her as
> saying.
> If you think that rape as a tool of domination
> escaped generations of
> colonialists, imperialists and other conquerors, you
> have read hardly any
> history. From the rape of the Sabine women to the
> Huns (the original ones)
> right down to the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese in
> the last century (never
> heard of it Peter? Of course not! Yet it is one of
> the worst atrocities of
> the last hundred years), rape has been used
> repeatedly and almost as a
> matter of form to subdue conquered peoples and
> humiliate them. Of course
> most women who are raped are of reproductive age -
> most women are of
> reproductive age (that argument is like saying most
> cirminals before court
> are black, therefore crime is somehow related to
> them being black). That is
> no counter to the argument that rape is primarily
> about power. If you had
> read the stats and knew how often a rape does not
> lead to ejaculation, you'd
> realise there's something else going on here.
> Men are NOT serious about rape - no, sorry, I will
> not be lured into that
> kind of generalisation: my husband is serious about
> rape, my best friends'
> lovers and husbands are serious about rape, my
> colleagues are serious about
> rape, my publisher is serious about rape, but many,
> many men, like you
> Peter, do not believe that the issue is real,
> damaging or serious. They have
> to be shaken awake, otherwise the scourge will never
> be dealt with. In an
> article I have written which will be published in
> June, I have said that
> this IS a man's issue, since we can never make
> headway unless men take it
> seriously: "It is ordinary men on the street who can
> do the most to beat the
> evil of rape, however. We need to make rape
> unacceptable, and in this, men
> must play a far more active role, indeed, the
> primary role. There are many
> more decent men who would never contemplate such an
> act than there are
> rapists. These men need to speak out. " Does this
> sound like another
> feminist tarring all men as rapists, Peter? No? Yet
> this is the way people
> at POWA, the CSVR etc speak, did you know that?
> Don't bring the issue of negotiating condoms into
> this, Peter, it is another
> issue and has little to do with this argument.
> And for your information, Peter, in 47 years of life
> which includes a long
> and active sex life, I have ONCE, yes ONCE, said No
> first, then Yes. That
> was when I was raped, and I said Yes merely to get
> out of the situation with
> a whole skin.
> If I sound angry about this, it's because I bloody
> am. I have been raped,
> and it has echoed through my life in so many ugly
> and damaging ways ever
> since. I am not alone; every time I bring the
> subject up in confidential
> discussion, and in my career as journalist and
> counsellor, I have discovered
> just how many women have been sexually assualted.
> We've been there, Peter;
> we know what it feels like, and we know how bloody
> insulting the disbelief,
> in the teeth of EXCELLENT evidence, of sideline
> theorists like you is. I
> don't blame people who want to tell you to shut up.
> I don't, because guess
> what? I believe wholeheartedly in the freedom of
> speech I fought for when
> you were likely just a toddler. But I would BEG of
> you to open your mind and
> learn some facts, some truths, talk to a rape
> survivor or three, talk to
> rape counsellors, before holding forth.
> And think about this, to all the men out there: none
> of us believe that ALL
> men are involved in any conspiracy, in case there
> are any men who fear being
> tarred with the label rapist. But if just .5% of
> South African men are
> rapists, that means there are 220 000 men out there
> who are rapists. If just
> half of them rape once a year, that's 110 000 rapes
> a year - close to the
> figure that many surveys indicate, if I remember
> rightly. Is that OK? Is
> that not something all men should be fighting, if
> they care deeply about the
> health and freedom of our nation?
> Mandi
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Mahlangu" <tshankimahlangu at yahoo.com>
> To: <debate at lists.kabissa.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 9:09 AM
> Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: Rape & the Men on this List
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DEBATE mailing list
> DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
> http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>