Tuesday, March 2, 2010

John Perkins on the Lack of Power of Elected Politicians, and on Being an Economic Hit-man

[image is from here]

Please note:
It's the lit light side of John Perkin's face that gave him the power to do what he did--commit atrocious economic crimes against humanity.

A few things follow.

1. A short video of white het guy, and anti-corporate whistle-blower, John Perkins. (This is to prove that I don't equate being a white het man with being evil. It's all in the behavior, folks. Perkins used to be evil, but he changed his ways.

2. A piece by John Perkins on the lack of power of the U.S. presidencies--past and present.

3. A piece that has an excerpt by Mr. Perkins, on being an "economic hit-man", as it is called.

4. Links to more of John Perkins' important work.



I'll tell you right now that I don't consider John Perkins to be radically profeminist, at all, but I do think he has a heart and gets a lot about systematised, normalised violence against oppressed people. He should, because he's committed this violence and then realised the horror of his own ways, and wrote everything he knows about Western white het male supremacy. Racist capitalist patriarchy. "Empire" is the term that he and many lefty, non-pro-radical feminist (if not also anti-radical feminist) whiteboys use, which at least indicates a consolidation of abusive power, but takes the race and gender out of the phrase for what particular and predominantly white men do.

I also don't like it at all when whites write about people of color and compare them to whites but don't mention that the white guy--or woman--is white, but do point out the race of the guy--or woman. Note below, how in the structure of the sentence "African American" is in place of "oilman" as if "oilman" is a race. President Obama, before becoming president of the U.S. was a Civil Rights attorney and a U.S. Senator. That's what should be in place of "oilman". Whatever. Whites, usually, will show their euro/white/anglo centrism in some way, and this is John Perkins' way. He doesn't get it. But he gets a lot, as you can read below.

Politicians Will Not Change the World
[by John Perkins, found here]

Many of you have asked how I feel about the Obama administration . . .

In short: the fact that we moved from a conservative Republican oilman from Texas to a liberal Democratic African American from Illinois, and yet change plods along at a snail's pace – if at all – is a confirmation of what I discuss in detail in my "HOODWINKED."

Our president has little real power.

In recent years, geopolitics have shifted; the corporatocracy rules. Democrats and Republicans alike fall under the thumb of the multinational corporations.

We have entered a time of realignment not unlike that when city states joined together to form nations. Except this time it is global; countries are becoming less relevant. The emerging rulers are corporate CEOs, members of the corporatocracy.

Like huge clouds swirling around the globe, their conglomerates reach every continent, country, and village. They are unrestricted by national borders or any particular sets of law. Although many are headquartered in the United States and call upon the U.S. military to protect their interests, they feel no sense of loyalty to any one country. They form partnerships with the Chinese and the Taiwanese, with the Israeli and Arab nations, with Brazilians, Australians, Russians, Indonesians, Congolese—with anyone who possesses resources or offers markets they covet. As we have seen with Halliburton, they think nothing of relocating to places like Dubai, where they pay fewer taxes.

They hire a vast army of lobbyists who influence every politician in Washington and every other capital. They either own the mainstream media or control it through their advertising budgets.

The good news: for the first time in history this new empire has been created not by military force, but through the sale of goods and services. And the marketplace is democratic—once we decide to see it as such. It is the ultimate polling booth. Corporations exist only because we vote for them in their stores, at the malls, and over the Internet.

It is up to us to decide which companies will succeed and which ones will fail.

Politicians will not change the world, because they are beholden to the big corporations. AND the corporations are dependent upon you and me.

About a hundred fifty years ago we as a nation voted for Abraham Lincoln, and then we fought a Civil War to get rid of slavery. Later our women picketed Woodrow Wilson everywhere he went over women's suffrage; they would not allow him to send troops into WWI to defend democracy in Europe "until we women enjoy democracy here at home." We held teach-ins for Richard Nixon to educate him and the country on the travesty that had become the Vietnam War. We won those struggles, because we the people forced our leaders to change. In recent decades, we forced corporations to clean up polluted rivers, do away with ozone layer destroying aerosols, and remove trans fats from our foods.

Today, we the people are called upon to speak again. When we impact bottom lines, we change stock prices and attract the attention of boards of directors. Those boards influence the decisions made in the halls of legislatures.

We must not look to President Obama to change the world. We must do it – we must force those in control to adopt a new goal for the people of our planet: creating a sustainable, just, and peaceful world for all who live on this special space-station we call home.

Perhaps President Obama's greatest gift to us will be that he taught us a lesson in democracy. We the people must take charge. We cannot look to a president to change the world. It is up to each of us to do it.

* * *

Here's an excerpt from one of John's books. Click on the piece's title for the link back to where I found it.

The Secret History of the
American Empire- Excerpt


Saturday, May 5, 2007
The Secret History of the American EmpireJohn Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" has followed up his NY Times best-seller with "The Secret History of the American Empire."

Here's an excerpt- "Hired Guns in Guatemala"

The elevator door opened. Three men stood inside. Unlike Pepe and me, they were not wearing business suits. They were dressed casually in slacks and sweaters. One wore a leather jacket. What got my attention, though, were the guns. All three carried AK- 47s.


“An unfortunate necessity in Guatemala these days,” Pepe explained. He ushered me toward the waiting elevator. “At least for those of us who are friends of the United States, friends of democracy. We need our Maya killers.”

I had flown from Miami to Guatemala City the day before and checked into the city’s most luxurious hotel. It was one of those few occasions when Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) asked me to do something for them, other than refraining from writing about EHM. Pepe Jaramillo (not his real name) had signed a contract with SWEC agreeing to help the company develop privately owned power plants in his country. He was one of the most powerful members of a small group of rich elites who have controlled the country since the time of the Spanish conquest. Pepe’s family owned industrial parks, office buildings, housing complexes, and huge agricultural estates that exported to the United States. The important thing from SWEC’s perspective was that he had the political clout necessary to get things done in Guatemala.

I had first visited Guatemala as an EHM in the mid- 1970s. My job was to convince the government to accept a loan for improving its electric sector. Then, in the late 1980s, I was invited to join the board of directors of a nonprofit organization that helped Mayan communities organize microcredit banks and other grassroots endeavors aimed at pulling themselves out of poverty. Over the years, I had become very familiar with the tragic violence that had torn this country apart during the latter half of the twentieth century.

Guatemala had been the heart of the Mayan civilization that flourished for roughly a thousand years. That civilization already had entered a period of collapse that many anthropologists attribute to its failure to cope with the environmental damage caused by the growth of its spectacular urban centers, when the conquistadors invaded in 1524. Soon Guatemala became the seat of the Spanish military authority in Central America, a position that lasted until the nineteenth century and resulted in frequent clashes between Mayan and Spanish populations.

By the end of the 1800s, a Boston- based company, United Fruit, had beaten the Spanish at their own game and established itself as one of the most powerful forces in Central America. It ruled supreme and essentially unchallenged until the early 1950s when Jacobo Arbenz ran for president on a platform that echoed the ideals of the American Revolution. He declared that Guatemalans ought to benefit from the resources offered by their land; foreign corporations would no longer be permitted to exploit the country and her people. His election was hailed as a model of the democratic process throughout the hemisphere. At the time, less than 3 percent of Guatemalans owned 70 percent of the land. As president, Arbenz implemented a comprehensive land reform program that posed a direct threat to United Fruit’s Guatemalan operations. The company feared that if Arbenz succeeded he would set an example others might follow throughout the hemisphere, and perhaps the world.

United Fruit launched a major public relations campaign in the United States; it convinced the American public and Congress that Arbenz had turned Guatemala into a Soviet satellite and that his land reform program was a Russian plot to destroy capitalism in Latin America. In 1954, the CIA orchestrated a coup. American planes bombed the capital city; the demo cratically elected president was overthrown and replaced by a brutal right- wing military dictator, Col. Carlos Castillo Armas.

The new government immediately reversed the land reform process, abolished taxes paid by the company, eliminated the secret ballot, and jailed thousands of Castillo’s critics. A civil war erupted in 1960, pitting the antigovernment guerrilla group known as the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Union against the United States– supported army and right- wing death squads. The violence intensified throughout the 1980s, resulting in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians, mostly Mayas. Many more were jailed and tortured.

In 1990 the army massacred civilians in the town of Santiago Atitlán, located near the high- altitude Lake Atitlán, renowned as one of the most beautiful spots in Central America. Although just one of many massacres, this one made international headlines because it happened in a place popular among foreign tourists. According to eyewitness reports, it began when a group of Mayas marched to the gates of the military base. One of their neighbors had been abducted by the army and, fearing that he would join the ranks of the thousands officially classified as “disappeared,” they demanded his release. The army opened fire on the crowd. Although exact numbers are disputed, dozens of men, women, and children were seriously wounded and killed.

My trip to visit Pepe Jaramillo came shortly afterward, in 1992. He wanted SWEC to partner with him and obtain World Bank financing. I knew that the Mayas believe the earth is a living spirit and that places where steam gushes from the land are considered sacred. I suspected that any attempts to construct a power plant over geothermal springs would result in violence. Based on the United Fruit experience—as well as more recent ones I was intimately familiar with in Iran, Chile, Indonesia, Ecuador, Panama, Nigeria, and Iraq—I believed that if a U.S. company like SWEC called for help in a place like Guatemala, the CIA would show up. The violence would escalate. The Pentagon might send in the marines. I already had enough blood on my conscience; I was determined to do everything I could to prevent more mayhem.

A car had picked me up at my hotel that morning and driven me into the circular driveway of one of Guatemala City’s more impressive modern buildings. Two armed doormen ushered me in. One escorted me on the elevator to the top floor. He explained that the building was owned by Pepe’s family and all eleven floors were occupied by them: their commercial bank on the ground floor, offices for various businesses on two to eight, and family residences on nine, ten, and eleven. Pepe met me at the elevator door. After coffee and a brief introductory conversation, he gave me a quick tour of his building, except for floor nine, which he said was reserved for the privacy of his widowed mother (I suspected additional reasons). If the intent of the tour was to impress SWEC’s representative, it succeeded. Following a meeting with him and several of his engineers on floor five to familiarize me with the geothermal project, we lunched with his mother, brother, and sister on eleven, then headed for the elevator and a visit to the proposed site. We boarded the elevator with the AK- 47–bearing men.

The elevator door closed. The man in the leather jacket pushed the bottom button. No one spoke as the elevator descended. I kept thinking about the AK- 47s. I realized they were there to protect Pepe and me from the Mayas, the very people I worked with through the nonprofit. I wondered what my Mayan friends would think of me now. The elevator stopped. When the door opened, I expected to see the afternoon light through the portico where I had entered earlier. Instead, I saw an immense concrete garage. It was well lighted in the extreme and smelled of damp concrete.

Pepe’s hand gripped my shoulder. “Stay here,” he commanded in a soft voice.

*          *          *

HOODWINKED (Random House) is available in all the stores. You can order the book through your favorite Internet shop – although if you go through http://www.dreamchange.org  , a % of the sale price will be contributed to the nonprofit I founded nearly 20 years ago.

Please follow me on Twitter - @economic_hitman .
I hope you'll also take time to listen to this recent interview I did with Wayne Hurlbert of BlogTalkRadio.com - http://tinyurl.com/yzckhmr  .

And I know I have mentioned the film "Crude", an amazing and beautifully filmed documentary about the critical lawsuit filed on behalf of 30,000 Ecuadorian people in the Amazon against Texaco/Chevron. A MUST SEE! I wanted to note that it is now available on DVD through http://www.crudethemovie.com  .

I'm also looking forward to seeing you at one of the many upcoming speaking events. The list for all events can be found on my website – http://www.johnperkins.org  as well as on my Facebook Fan Page – John Perkins Author .

John Perkins
New York Times bestselling author of "CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN" and "THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE"
http://www.JohnPerkins.org
http://www.dreamchange.org

Monday, March 1, 2010

Question: When Catharine A. MacKinnon speaks truth to power, what do dick-whipped white het men in power call the reality she addresses?



Answer: Dick-whipped white het men don't deal with the realities feminists describe.

Question: Why don't they deal with reality?

Answer: Because they're too busy misunderstanding and misquoting radical feminists, and they're too busy benefiting from the privileges and rights, entitlements and lack of stigma that they enjoy. Including the right and entitlements to systematically misquote and misrepresent people who aren't white het men. On their own websites, they get to be racist, homophobic, misogynist jerks who don't get called out for behaving this way by other WHM. Because they're so dick-whipped, they can't speak against each other! They're "victimised" all right: by each other. That's why you never see them call each other out publicly on the fucked up CRAP they do. Misogyny, racism, and homophobia are all big jokes to these boys. That's why they're so often seen as nothing more than an internet joke.

And a key entitlement is that they get to see and name reality as they wish. They don't know they're dick-whipped, or how controlled by other het white men they are. So when feminists critique THEM, and their privileges to do this, those boys ain't happy campers. They get irritable and moody. Sometimes they threaten the lives of those who criticise them. THAT'S how unstable, irritable, and moody they are. The life of the most privileged people on Earth isn't easy: they have to contend with all those people they oppress speaking truth to power.

Question: Why don't white het men organise against sexual trafficking? 

Answer: They're too busy protecting the rights of other white het men to stick their dicks in children and enslaved women around the world.


To read about sex tourism and human trafficking in San Diego, please see this article, *here*:


Now that My Birthday Month Has Passed: Ten Things I've Learned in the Past Year

 
[image is from here]


My birth month has now passed. I contemplate what I've learned this past year. Am I wiser than when 46? I've learned, or relearned a whole lot. But here's a list of ten things. They are in no particular order. 

1. Men will lie through their teeth if it suits their interests to do so. Example: John Edwards. What a lying prick he's been to his spouse, Elizabeth. But men with far less influence on society that him fuck over women and won't be honest about it.

2. Dick-whipped (pro-patriarchal/antifeminist) men don't wish to organise to stop the rape of children, most of which is committed by fathers and other males in the girls' families or lives.

3. Men are rarely honest about what we do that is abusive. We will not volunteer information if not challenged to do so, and when challenged to do so... see point 1.

4. Some white guys are nice. Like moguls skier Alexandre Bilodeau and bobsledder Steve Holcomb, from this year's Winter Olympics. Unassuming, not afraid to be outwardly caring, without egotism and arrogance. I love those qualities in white men.

5. Liberalism and libertarianism, along with sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, and beliefs that "male" hormones and genitals control one's capacity to behave ethically, are stubbornly in place, preventing men from grasping the simplest things about why we abuse others. Things like "we can", "we want to", and nothing terrible will happen to us if we do.

6. Rapists don't think they are rapists, and procurers of women in prostitution can believe prostitution is harmless.

7. White folks won't own or understand white privileges and entitlements. And we won't, collectively, be responsible about ending genocide.

8. Targeting a single oppressed person as being a danger to society is fucked up unless they are a mass murderer, serial rapist, batterer, child molester, or incest perpetrator. If the person is a woman, the campaigns to go after her and "prove" she's a danger are misogynistic. If the person is of color, the campaigns are racist. If the person is a woman of color, the campaigns are both.

9. Don't believe any white person who says I'm not racist. Don't believe any man who says I'm not sexist. Don't believe white guys who say "I'm not sexist/racist". Ever. If we say it, that's proof enough that we don't understand how white and male privileges, entitlements, status, and power operate structurally and interpersonally.

10. Men don't want to understand radical feminist and womanist writings because men don't want to know what we do and why we do it. We'd rather be ignorant and arrogant. We'd rather think we know more than women do about everything, including feminism.

When Women Tell the Truth about Men's Violence and Men with Judicial Power Don't Believe Them

 [image is from here]

Two articles are below. Both speak to the matter of women not being believed in court when what they have to say is naming a man as an abuser. Click on the titles to link back to their source. With thanks to Marcella at Abyss2hope, Stacy Moore, and Joan Dawson.

Women Lie Narrative Overwhelms Man's Admission Of Violence Costs Young Boy His Life

From the Hi Desert Star:
TWIN PEAKS — Sunday’s murder-suicide was the culmination of months of threats and online and text rants from Stephen Garcia to Katie Tagle of Yucca Valley and her family. [...]

At that hearing, on Jan. 12, Tagle went before Judge David Mazurek in the Joshua Tree courthouse to show cause for a restraining order.

“…On Dec. 31, we were doing our exchange, and he proposed to me, and I said no. He got angry and stole my phone and pushed me down. I made a police report about that,” Tagle told the judge, according to a transcript.

Garcia told the judge the report was “falsely made up.”

Mazurek denied Tagle the restraining order.

“If I grant the restraining order, how do you think that’s going to help with respect to you two being able to raise Wyatt together or work together to make sure Wyatt grows up happy and healthy?” the judge asked, according to the transcripts.

“He would have both of us still,” Tagle responded.

Asked about an e-mail in which he confessed to hitting Tagle, Garcia told the judge he had slapped her during a fight, but it was Tagle’s fault for “pushing and pushing and pushing until she could get something from me.”

Tagle pointed out she was nine months pregnant when Garcia hit her.

“I kind of get an idea of what’s going on,” Mazurek said.

He denied the restraining order, saying, “I don’t think that Mr. Garcia poses a threat to Ms. Tagle.” Mazurek went on to suggest Tagle might have ulterior motives for alleging domestic violence.

“I get concerned when there’s a pending child custody and visitation issue and in between that, one party or the other claims that there’s some violence in between. It raises the court’s eyebrows because based on my experience, it’s a way for one party to try to gain an advantage over the other,” he said, according to the transcripts.
If this boy hadn't been murdered then this case likely would have been added to Judge David Mazurek's perceived experience with one party (the mother) trying to gain an advantage over the other in a custody dispute. Then it too could be used to rationalize disregarding testimony which was truthful and accepting testimony which was false.

Judge Mazurek had a man who confessed to committing an act of violence in an email and who then repeated that confession to him directly and yet that judge still couldn't see this woman's allegation as even possibly true. All he could see was his stereotypes about those who report violence when there is a pending child custody issue.

This judge had a man who claimed that the allegations were falsely made up confess to violence and that judge couldn't see any reason to criticize that man for his actions. The fact that violence can interfere with a mutual agreement on child custody and can lead to a dispute doesn't seem to be even a possibility on Judge Mazurek's radar.

When the truth isn't viewed as a possibility that is bold-faced incompetence.

But the reported mishandling of this case continued. After this hearing Stephen Garcia sent Katie Tagle a text message telling her to check her email where she found an email sent anonymously which contained a story with 2 endings which she correctly viewed as a threat to her son's life if she didn't do what this man demanded.

The deputy who responded to her 911 call is to be commended for seeing this as a serious matter and working to get her an emergency restraining order. But the judge who reviewed this emergency order, Judge Robert Lemkau refused to uphold it and ordered this woman to immediately give her son to a man who had threatened indirectly that he would murder that boy.
Transcripts from that hearing are not yet available, but family and friends who were in the court that day with Tagle said the judge appeared not to have read the evidence she presented, including the “Necessary Evil” story and the emergency restraining order obtained by a sheriff’s deputy.

“Just from the very beginning, he didn’t want to listen,” said Rick Tagle, who was in the courtroom. “He started out by saying, ‘One of you is lying and I think it’s you,’ and pointing at Katie. ”The judge also allegedly warned Tagle there would be consequences for lying.
Stephen Garcia didn't immediately murder their son but these false accusations from 2 judges caused this concerned mother to stop fighting the system which had clearly sided with her abuser. She was likely afraid that if she continued to tell the truth that her son would be taken from her permanently.

In the end that's what these judges actions did. These 2 ruling took this innocent child from his mother forever and ended any chance this innocent child had of growing up happy and healthy or in growing up at all.

Both of these judges should be immediately blocked from hearing any cases where abuse is alleged pending the completion of ethics reviews and review of all their domestic violence cases. If the reported bias in evaluating the evidence or failing to evaluate the evidence is confirmed then both these judges should be removed from the bench. If either of them are also attorneys they should face ethics reviews by their state bar associations.

This case shows clearly that lives can be at stake when judges make their decision based on bias rather than evidence.

*          *          *

Women are Unbelievable! (In Family Courts)

Note: Cross posted from [wp angelzfury] Battered Mothers-A Human Rights Issue.

Permalink

Women are Unbelievable!
Accusations of False Allegations Result in Dangerous Consequences
Joan Dawson (joanied40)


“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”
“Women are unbelievable!” Really. I mean that quite literally. Don’t believe me? I was prepared for that. I will share with you what I have learned over the past three or four years of my research: Women today are not believed in court. This is nothing new, actually. Women’s credibility has always been questioned, historically as well as currently. But today, with the aid of the Internet, the propaganda that fuels this bias can be churned out quickly and efficiently. Public perception can be changed readily. This includes changing the perceptions of the media, policy makers, law makers, and, yes, even judges, impartial as they’re supposed to be.

Domestic Violence Claims
When women allege domestic violence in family court, often, they are not believed. In fact, they may even be punished. In today’s courts where “friendly parent policies” and fathers rights reign, women that allege abuse appear “unfriendly” and unlikely to share parenting responsibilities. Heck, if they’ve been battered, they may even look “unfriendly.” They may have depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress syndrome. Battered women often present poorly, while batterers, on the other hand, may actually appear quite charming. If she seems “unfriendly,” though, the judge may decide to award custody to the parent most likely to share parenting: Often, the batterer.

If she cannot provide sufficient evidence of her abuse, she can be fined, jailed or lose custody for making “false allegations.” Of course, it can be difficult to produce witnesses or evidence of abuse. She may not have reported the abuse to the police before, and, when a woman alleges abuse for the first time in family court, a huge red flag comes up. They think she is a “vindictive liar,” trying to “manipulate the court.” The abuse, however, may have been the factor that pushed her into divorce proceedings. Moreover, separation is a dangerous time for women and it may be the first time the violence had taken place. None of these reasons point to vengeance.

If she alleges abuse and is not believed, she may take matters into her own hands. She may go to jail instead of turning her children over to an abuser. She may flee the state, or even the country to protect her children.
If she takes no action, further abuse or murder may ensue. Just recently, a case of a murder-suicide hit the news. The woman sought a restraining order from THREE different judges. None of them believed her. The result? The father killed their nine-month-old infant and himself.

Now, keep in mind, too, that this is family court we’re talking about. This is where couples with conflict and interpersonal violence come to settle their custody decisions. Most couples (~85%) don’t need family court; they make their parenting plans themselves. Thus, the cases that go to family court often have some kind of conflict, yet there seems to be a reluctance on the part of the family court system to admit this.

Child Abuse Claims
The allegation that women make false child abuse claims out of vengeance circulates widely on the Internet. An overlap exists between domestic violence and child abuse. Many batterers are abusive towards their children (and pets), too. And, just bearing witness to a mother’s abuse causes sufficient harm to children.
However, these days, if women make claims of child abuse in court, they are often countered with claims of parental alienation syndrome (PAS). PAS is the idea that one parent (typically the mother) poisons the mind of the child against the other parent. It has many flaws:

? It was created by Dr. Richard Gardner, considered pro-pedophilia
? It was self published by Dr. Gardner
? The American Psychological Association notes the “lack of data” and raises “concern” about the term
? Dr. Gardner thought “vengeful wives” and “hysterical mothers” were the cause of problematic relationships between fathers and their children
? It is far too simplistic and does not consider other plausible explanations for a relationship breakdown in divorce
? It can be used without any evidence in court
? It masks child abuse (Has the child been abused or has the child been alienated?)
So, the woman claims child abuse and the man counters with PAS (men almost exclusively use PAS). Who does the judge believe?
? Evidence from Harvard shows abusers use PAS and get away with it. 
? The Leadership Council on Child Abuse estimates that 58,000 children each year come into unsupervised contact with parents that have physically or sexually abused them.

Research shows around 1-9% of child abuse allegations are deliberately false and somewhat more than that are mistakenly false. Research (see Bala & Schumann) also finds that men actually make more false allegations (the most common allegation being neglect of children) than women in family court. Nonetheless, stereotypes have more branding power than research.

Rape Claims
Last and somewhat unrelated to family court but still pertaining to violence, women who allege rape are often not believed. When I attended a rape crisis training last year, the first thing we were taught was to believe the individual (man or woman) because one of their biggest fears is that they won’t be believed. Indeed, statistics bear this out.

In the US, only 13% of rape charges will end in conviction. (In the UK, it is only 5.7 %.) Rape survivors are aggressively questioned as if they were the assailants. They are generally mistrusted and often judged more by bias than by evidence. If she was married (and the perpetrator was her husband) or drunk, her odds of being believed plummet even further.

In cases of rape, which do have the highest number of false allegations, the rates, depending on who you ask, waver between 3-8%. Yet, we hear more about false accusations of rape than information on how underreported it is. Sympathy has shifted from the abused to the accused.

So, yes, women are unbelievable. I have studied this topic for several years now, seeking evidence of women being “vindictive liars” or “deceptive” or “malicious.” I’ve come upon plenty of anecdotal evidence from angry men. But, I’ve never heard anyone question *their* credibility. Why is it that they are believed when they claim that women falsely accuse them? Does anyone bother to ask: How many men would admit to using violence? Research shows batterers deny their abuse and it’s not until they admit it that, much like an alcoholic, they can change.

I’ve happened upon sites, and there are many, devoted entirely to “beating false allegations” or discrediting women. Most of them are downright misogynist, like this one that proclaims:

"False memory, false sexual abuse claims, vengeance, are all the diseases of women." (www.canlaw.com/rights/fathers.htm )

Even the Innocence Project, an expert in the area of helping innocent prisoners, does not mention intentionally false accusations as a leading cause of wrongful convictions. In contrast, they do list “false confessions” in their top seven list. If women were such vindictive creatures that “falsely imprison innocent men,” you would think the Innocence Project would be on to this, wouldn’t you?

Now, all of this is not meant to say that there are never any false allegations in court. (There are…and they are from both men and women…and they are not as common as they are purported to be.) What I am saying is that women’s credibility is being harmed, with disastrous consequences (for both women and children). We cannot give women justice in courtrooms that are heavily biased against them to begin with.

And, this is not to say that fathers don’t have their own issues with divorce and custody proceedings. Believe me, I have read all about them. Nor is it an opportunity to paint all men as abusive ? they are not. However, family court is handling allegations of abuse unjustly and this should be a concern to both men and women alike. None of us want to see children come into contact with a parent that physically or sexually abused them. And, nobody wants to see a parent punished for making a good faith accusation in order to protect their children.

Even the Innocence Project, an expert in the area of helping innocent prisoners, does not mention intentionally false accusations as a leading cause of wrongful convictions. In contrast, they do list “false confessions” in their top seven list. If women were such vindictive creatures that “falsely imprison innocent men,” you would think the Innocence Project would be on to this, wouldn’t you?

Now, all of this is not meant to say that there are never any false allegations in court. (There are…and they are from both men and women…and they are not as common as they are purported to be.) What I am saying is that women’s credibility is being harmed, with disastrous consequences (for both women and children). We cannot give women justice in courtrooms that are heavily biased against them to begin with.

And, this is not to say that fathers don’t have their own issues with divorce and custody proceedings. Believe me, I have read all about them. Nor is it an opportunity to paint all men as abusive ? they are not. However, family court is handling allegations of abuse unjustly and this should be a concern to both men and women alike. None of us want to see children come into contact with a parent that physically or sexually abused them. And, nobody wants to see a parent punished for making a good faith accusation in order to protect their children.

All allegations of abuse should be taken seriously. They should be documented, investigated and given weight in court. And, even without the sufficient evidence, individuals who report in good faith should not be punished for failing to provide enough witnesses or evidence. Punishment deters reporting. This has horrific consequences for our justice system and the nation’s public health.

The majority of women are not intentionally fabricating stories to harm men. I have yet to see evidence of this. On the contrary, I have read research that states the majority of claims can be substantiated. And, moreover, I’ve heard from women themselves who’ve been abused and not believed. Women who have not only been battered but who have also been fined, jailed or denied custody. I’ve heard from women, who, like myself, don’t even bother to report rape. These women can be any one of us. Martin Luther King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” The injustice of this unfair stereotype that women are unbelievable is an injustice to us all and can thwart any woman’s pursuit of justice in the courtroom today. Yes, women are unbelievable, but it should be for the many accomplishments and positive traits they possess!

All allegations of abuse should be taken seriously. They should be documented, investigated and given weight in court. And, even without the sufficient evidence, individuals who report in good faith should not be punished for failing to provide enough witnesses or evidence. Punishment deters reporting. This has horrific consequences for our justice system and the nation’s public health.

The majority of women are not intentionally fabricating stories to harm men. I have yet to see evidence of this. On the contrary, I have read research that states the majority of claims can be substantiated. And, moreover, I’ve heard from women themselves who’ve been abused and not believed. Women who have not only been battered but who have also been fined, jailed or denied custody. I’ve heard from women, who, like myself, don’t even bother to report rape. These women can be any one of us. Martin Luther King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” The injustice of this unfair stereotype that women are unbelievable is an injustice to us all and can thwart any woman’s pursuit of justice in the courtroom today. Yes, women are unbelievable, but it should be for the many accomplishments and positive traits they possess!*

For further information:
www.stopfamilyviolence.org
www.leadershipcouncil.org
www.innocenceproject.org
The Stephen Garcia case: http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/order-17122-bid-rejected.html

*Note: Cross posted from [wp angelzfury] Battered Mothers-A Human Rights Issue.

Child Molestation: How to Help Prevent It, Hopefully, and Knowing Who To Watch Out For: Clue--Men who are around your children

 
[image is from here]

I haven't read either book, and if anyone has, I'd be interested to know how helpful they are. I am always dubious about things like this, after watching an Oprah show. As you may know, Oprah Winfrey is a survivor of child molestation and incest and has worked to make sure predators are caught and arrested.

The program featured mom's who had done all the right things in teaching their daughters about child sexual abuse and came to find out that their daughters were survivors, because the perps had threatened, shamed, humiliated, controlled, and terrorised the girls.

And I HATE the term "pedophile" as much as I'd hate the term "gynophile" for "serial rapist". The term, if we're going that route, is "misopedist". But "child molester" or "incest perpetrator" or "raper of children" suffices. Information on two books follows. I'm not linking to the site where I found this because it's weird. What comes next is all from *here*, as is the image above.

Child Molesters

Predators and Child Molesters: What Every Parent Needs to Know to Keep Kids Safe

Predators and Child Molesters: What Every Parent Needs to Know to Keep Kids Safe robinsax.com
Predators and Child Molesters by Robin Sax is the first book to be awarded Amber Alert Book of the Year Award.
There is no crime not even murder that worries and sickens parents more than child sexual abuse. Parents wonder how to protect their children when almost every day the news reports another incident of someone in authority arrested on suspicion of child abuse from clergy and teachers to family members themselves. Even law enforcement has had trouble defining the problem and only recently has the Department of Justice begun recording statistics of sexual assault against children. Amid the confusion generated by sensational news reports and uncertainty regarding the nature and extent of child sexual abuse, what can parents do?
In this straightforward, clearly written guidebook, veteran sex-crimes prosecutor and Los Angeles deputy district attorney Robin Sax answers one hundred questions that she has most often encountered in her fifteen years of experience. From the definition of abuse to the profiles of a predator to how to report an incident and to whom, Sax provides practical, reassuring, and appropriate information.
For ease of use, the book is organized into six major sections:
-Recognizing predators: molesters, pedophiles, and opportunists

-Talking to kids about risks and identifying potential problems

-Recognizing abuse

-Reporting sexual abuse

-Going to court

-Healing and moving on
Sax makes it clear that protecting children begins with every parent in the home. Parents must view protecting children from the potential of sexual assault as a priority. Teaching children preventive measures should be viewed as important as teaching kids how to dial 9-1-1.
Sax concludes by emphasizing that the best defense against sexual offenders is information. Her book provides realistic answers to empower parents and educators, even in the face of one of life's scariest threats.

Author: Robin Sax
Paperback:  179 pages ISBN13: 9781591027126, Condition: NEW, Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Company: Prometheus Books  (2009-04-21)
ISBN: 1591027128
List Price: $17.98
Amazon Price: $6.11
Used Price: $5.10


Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, And Other Sex Offenders

Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, And Other Sex Offenders A world-renowned expert provides a psychological profile of serial sex offenders-how they think, how they deceive their victims, and how they elude the law. What motivates sexual abusers? Why are so few caught? Drawing on the stories of abusers, Anna C. Salter shows that sexual predators use sophisticated deception techniques and rely on misconceptions surrounding them to evade discovery. Arguing that even the most knowledgeable among us can be fooled, Salter dispels the myths about sexual predators and gives us the tools to protect our families and ourselves.

Author: Anna Salter
Paperback:  288 pages ISBN13: 9780465071739, Condition: NEW, Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Company: Basic Books  (2004-03) (2004-03-30)
ISBN: 0465071732
List Price: $17.95
Amazon Price: $8.10
Used Price: $7.01




Sunday, February 28, 2010

A Sexual Liberal Reconsiders Devaluing Andrea Dworkin, after reading Dworkin's writing

 
[image is from here]

I have often noted that when people actually READ Andrea Dworkin's work--you know, like a whole essay, or a whole collection of essays, or--gasp--a whole book or even three or four of her books, and don't assume what her writing already means they might actually value it. But usually the reader arrives at her work having taken in what significantly biased, anything-but-objective, anything-but-logical, anything-but-rational, anything-but-intellectual, anything-but-reasonable white male supremacist, antifeminist, dick-whipped men tell us Andrea Dworkin means so we don't have to figure it out for ourselves, or be open to it, or take what is valuable from it and leave the rest. You know--they way we are trained to do with white men's writings. We assume there's some value in there and if we can't find it we assume we're not reading it right. Not so with women's writings. We assume it has no value unless it has demonstrated an allegiance and alliance with white male supremacist values and practices. So the woman writer who extols the virtues of pornography--we like her. But the anti-pornography feminist? Naaah.

But what if it's the case that those dick-whipped doods are wrong? OMG, did I just type that OUT LOUD???

Consider, for a moment, how much more visibilised male supremacist harm to women is now that "obscenity" was radically redefined in Canada due to Andrea Dworkin's work. She doesn't use the term in her work (obscenity), except to critique it as you'll see below, but Canadian officials wanted to hold onto it. Unfortunately.

What follows is from the blog, The Bradlington Post. Bradley's interests are listed below.

All of the rest of this post is from *here*.

The Bradlington Post


- Interests to me including the political situation of the times and the CULTURE WAR raging in the U.S. - Religion and especially how and why Christianity is being forced over the people of the U.S. - CULTURE WAR issues such as pornography, extreme and 'deviant' sex practices - And how all these things are relative.

- An area of especial interest to me regarding extreme and 'deviant' sex practices and the phenomena by where the prevalence both in practice and acceptance, occurs highest in the most advanced and highest egalitarian standard of living, lowest crime rate and societies and cultures in the world, not to mention least religious.

Canada's Ruling on Obscenity Constitution

The below quoted information comes from:
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/other/ordinance/HillSilverOrd1.html

“In February 1992 Canada's Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that obscenity is to be defined by the harm it does to women and not by what offends our values.”

"In the United States, the obscenity laws are all about not liking to see naked bodies, or homosexual activity, in public," commented University of Michigan law professor Catharine MacKinnon, who helped write the law brief and along with author Andrea Dworkin has pioneered the "harm to women" approach to antipornography legislation. "Our laws in the United States don't consider the harm to women. But in Canada it will now be materials that subordinate, degrade or dehumanize women that are obscene."

************************************************

This is an excellent article which I happened to stumble upon. I was always a bit frightened of Andrea Dworkin as a kid. This is the best thing I've ever read regarding her, and it has changed my opinion a fair amount. I wonder if she was still living she'd eventually gotten similar legislation passed in the U.S.

This all really resonates with me personally, nearly everything in the article and theories behind the ruling.
I personally have never had any inkling for bondage or humiliation, not in any art I output or that I enjoy, nor ever will that I can imagine. It’s not only of disinterest, it has unpleasant connotations to me as well as a variety of other unpleasantries.

I am fascinated that gays/lesbians have such a tolerance and at times seeming obsession with and for bondage/humiliation imagery and sex. It’s basically obligatory any more that ‘edgy’ gay sex include some kind of bondage. [This person is speaking for all of lesbian and gay people's interests, and believe me, no gay or lesbian person I know, and no gay man I have dated, was ever into--let alone obsessed with--bondage and humiliation. Sorry to disappoint the homophobic writer. -- Julian]

I think in actuality, heterosexuals have probably almost as large an interest in it (especially males) however heterosexuals are much more closeted in their sexual variances when off the considered norm.

The obsession with this realm of sexuality is I'm assuming based very deep in our fairly early developmental days and thus ingrained in our genetic inheritance even still actively, like so much else. I need to investigate some on any origin theories which may exist regarding the matter.

Why Can't David Read, or Shut Up and Listen: WHM Supremacist Privileges and Entitlements in Action

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.