Don’t Wring Your Hands.

Written By: - Date published: 4:17 pm, November 5th, 2013 - 282 comments
Categories: child abuse, crime, culture, sexism - Tags: , ,

The attitudes put on display by the young men calling themselves the ‘Roast Busters’ aren’t a glitch or the product of some unsavoury sub-culture. Those young men and the attitudes they hold are the product of  very long and complex processes whereby some very fucked up shit has become normalised.

Here’s the bottom line – patriarchy is about power. And all systems of power include multiple and sometimes overlapping components that encourage the dehumanisation of those it seeks power over.

I don’t think those statements are controversial – though I daresay somebody else could have worded them better.

Anyway, by coincidence, I received a facebook post the other day about a study done at the University of Surreyin England. Part of the study involved taking statements from ‘Lad’s Mags’ and statements from convicted rapists and then asking people to identify the source of each statement.

Unsurprisingly – though tellingly – people couldn’t identify the source with any accuracy beyond that which you’d expect from chance. The fact that participants identified with some of the statements, well yeah… that’s a worry.

I’m not going to go into any longwinded analytical breakdown of either the study, ‘Lads Mags’,  patriarchy or rape culture. Instead, I’m simply going to suggest that the old maxim “We reap what we sow” should be expanded to include –  ‘and some of us get reaped by what’s been sown’…

The ‘Roast Busters’ episode is, I believe, indicative of a problem far, far deeper and more insidious than some supposedly fucked up young men,  inadequate police responses and inane mutterings of politicians. And as such it deserves a more thorough and ongoing response than the one that is likely to transpire.

Meanwhile, here are the statements given to the participants in the study.

1. There’s a certain way you can tell that a girl wants to have sex . . . The way they dress, they flaunt themselves.

2. Some girls walk around in short-shorts . . . showing their body off . . . It just starts a man thinking that if he gets something like that, what can he do with it?

3. A girl may like anal sex because it makes her feel incredibly naughty and she likes feeling like a dirty slut. If this is the case, you can try all sorts of humiliating acts to help live out her filthy fantasy.

4. Mascara running down the cheeks means they’ve just been crying, and it was probably your fault . . . but you can cheer up the miserable beauty with a bit of the old in and out.

5. What burns me up sometimes about girls is dick-teasers. They lead a man on and then shut him off right there.

6. Filthy talk can be such a turn on for a girl . . . no one wants to be shagged by a mouse . . . A few compliments won’t do any harm either . . . ‘I bet you want it from behind you dirty whore’ . . .

7. You know girls in general are all right. But some of them are bitches . . . The bitches are the type that . . . need to have it stuffed to them hard and heavy.

8. Escorts . . . they know exactly how to turn a man on. I’ve given up on girlfriends. They don’t know how to satisfy me, but escorts do.

9. You’ll find most girls will be reluctant about going to bed with somebody or crawling in the back seat of a car . . . But you can usually seduce them, and they’ll do it willingly.

10. There’s nothing quite like a woman standing in the dock accused of murder in a sex game gone wrong . . . The possibility of murder does bring a certain frisson to the bedroom.

11. Girls ask for it by wearing these mini-skirts and hotpants . . . they’re just displaying their body . . . Whether they realise it or not they’re saying, ‘Hey, I’ve got a beautiful body, and it’s yours if you want it.’

12. You do not want to be caught red-handed . . . go and smash her on a park bench. That used to be my trick.

13. Some women are domineering, but I think it’s more or less the man who should put his foot down. The man is supposed to be the man. If he acts the man, the woman won’t be domineering.

14. I think if a law is passed, there should be a dress code . . . When girls dress in those short skirts and things like that, they’re just asking for it.

15. Girls love being tied up . . . it gives them the chance to be the helpless victim.

16. I think girls are like plasticine, if you warm them up you can do anything you want with them.

282 comments on “Don’t Wring Your Hands. ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. greywarbler 1
    5 November 2013 at 4:54 pm

    Interesting Bill.
    The question is what do the girls think that boys think about those short skirts and so on. I have the feeling that girls are thinking about attracting male attention a lot of the time.
    It would tend to explain why they throw on their string shoulder tops in winter, as soon as the sun shines for half an hour. It will be freezing but they will be out with bare shoulders. I am covered and glad of it.

    And some boys seem to hear and see everything through a mindset that places sexual meaning over everything. It becomes difficult to have an ordinary conversation if they start sniggering at words that are about everyday mundane matters.

    I wonder what girls had to say about the questions, their answers, what they expected the answers of the boys would be and what they thought of the boys answers.

    • QoT 1.1
      5 November 2013 at 10:43 pm

      I have the feeling that girls are thinking about attracting male attention a lot of the time.

      Ding ding ding rape culture.

      Funny, I never see anyone ponder if the dudes from the South Island who insisted on wearing shorts and t-shirts in the midst of winter at Victoria University were “thinking about attracting female attention a lot of the time”.

      • pillywog 1.1.1
        6 November 2013 at 6:51 am

        Probably were QoT.

        I have the feeling that men are thinking about how to attract sexual attention no matter what they’re wearing.

        Flattery feeds the ego.

  2. Tracey 2
    5 November 2013 at 4:58 pm

    I keep thinking about the funding cut to that high school self defence programme that was proven to increase girls self confidence and likelihood to report inappropriate sexual behavior toward them.

  3. Tracey 3
    5 November 2013 at 5:02 pm

    Greywarbler… that some girls tie their self esteem to lettibg boys f#$# them is a sure sign things have gone backwards since great strides made in 80s and 90s.

    but then we have had 20 years of villifying feminism and making assertive women seem unattractive and whinging from people that life has got unfair for white men…

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      5 November 2013 at 5:17 pm

      Tracey. Several overseas research studies have shown that women have become relatively less happy and less satisfied over the last 40 or so years, not more happy and more satisfied.

      Whatever progress you think has or hasn’t happened, it’s not resulted in women reporting substantially more happiness and satisfaction in their lives.

      • McFlock 3.1.1
        5 November 2013 at 5:22 pm

        Several overseas research studies have shown that the world is 6000 years old.

      • MeToo 3.1.2
        5 November 2013 at 5:35 pm

        “Several overseas research studies have shown that women have become relatively less happy and less satisfied over the last 40 or so years, not more happy and more satisfied.”

        All feminism’s fault much?

      • weka 3.1.3
        5 November 2013 at 6:25 pm

        “Several overseas research studies have shown that women have become relatively less happy and less satisfied over the last 40 or so years, not more happy and more satisfied.

        Whatever progress you think has or hasn’t happened, it’s not resulted in women reporting substantially more happiness and satisfaction in their lives.”

        Citation needed, and it better be bloody good.

        I’m not sure what your point was CV, esp in relation to Tracey’s comment. Perhaps you could clarify.

        • Tat Loo (CV) 3.1.3.1
          5 November 2013 at 6:51 pm

          No probs weka. These are findings from the US General Social Survey, conducted since 1972.

          As you can imagine, a survey this massive generates a multitude of findings, (see the full report by Wharton Professors Betsy Stevenson and Justin Wolfers) but here are the two most important discoveries.

          First, since 1972, women’s overall level of happiness has dropped, both relative to where they were forty years ago, and relative to men. You find this drop in happiness in women regardless of whether they have kids, how many kids they have, how much money they make, how healthy they are, what job they hold, whether they are married, single or divorced, how old they are, or what race they are…

          The second discovery is, this: though women begin their lives more fulfilled than men, as they age, they gradually become less happy. Men, in contrast, get happier as they get older. (These findings are drawn from the work of Professors Richard Easterlin and Anke Plagnol, who took the same U.S. General Social Survey data and sliced it in a different way. You can find their working paper here).

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511.html

          • weka 3.1.3.1.1
            5 November 2013 at 7:09 pm

            Ok, can you now say how that is relevant to what Tracey wrote, or Bill’s post?

            And then if it is relevant, how it relates to NZ women at this point in time?

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.3.1.1.1
              5 November 2013 at 7:27 pm

              I was responding to Tracey’s comment

              but then we have had 20 years of villifying feminism and making assertive women seem unattractive and whinging from people that life has got unfair for white men…

              by saying, actually, its a much longer term trend than that, 40 years or longer. And that most (US) “white men” according to that survey aren’t actually “whinging” about changes, truth be told they actually seem quite happy thank you very much.

              And then if it is relevant, how it relates to NZ women at this point in time?

              This I have no idea.

              • weka …
                5 November 2013 at 7:34 pm

                Yeah, i don’t really see how it’s relevant to this conversation to be honest.

                There has been a backlash against feminism here (as other places). And I don’t discount the effect on the culture of that, irrespective of what some US research might say.

          • karol 3.1.3.1.2
            5 November 2013 at 7:19 pm

            That fits with the changes since the 80s, written about and researched by some feminists. There’s the myth that everything has been achieved for women, and that they can “have it all”.

            Many women in their younger years seem to believe that. However, for many women the realities kick in with experience. It is especially true when women have children and find that, the pressures are enormous, while women are still left with most of the child care, and there are pressures/expectations to work to do paid work outside the home a well.

            The occupational and other infrastructures are still based in patriarchal values, while in recent decades women have been given more access to diverse roles within those structures.

            • Bill 3.1.3.1.2.1
              5 November 2013 at 7:32 pm

              Maybe the constant chipping away and undermining of non-patriarchal values…of other cultural/political perspectives… that comes with the wall to wall elevation of ever reforming patriarchal norms has an increasingly detrimental effect on the well being of those who, rather than being a part of it, are in a position of being more or less simply subjected to it?

              • karol …
                5 November 2013 at 9:10 pm

                Bill, I found this particular explanation a bit confusing – though I think you explain it better in some of your comments below.

                Do you mean there’s a chipping away at patriarchal values, followed by counter-actions from the patriarchal types. The result being a constant re-forming of patriarchy, rather than any lasting change for a more woman-friendly culture?

                • Bill …
                  5 November 2013 at 10:28 pm

                  No…I meant that patriarchy chips away at our humanity. And that it’s always being sustained (as much by the left as by the right)… being reinvented, reasserted or expressed in new ways according to the environments we create and that ‘allow’ for it. (Take Capitalism as an example. And then within that, the different ways it expresses through emerging and changing facets of capitalism or of the societies/polities captured by capitalism)

                  • karol …
                    5 November 2013 at 10:34 pm

                    OK. Gottit, Bill.

                    Yes. It seemed like some changes were happening for the better (for the left and for women) in the 60s and 70s. But then the rise of “neoliberalism” saw a return of the objectification of women, in a new commodified form – supported by some aspects of “girl power”.

                    And women moved into the paid workforce in increasing numbers, with large numbers filling the low paid, part time and casual jobs that capitalism wanted to maintain profits. Meanwhile low paid women have still been expected to carry out more of the domestic duties in the home.

                    It’s soul-destroying.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 November 2013 at 11:03 pm

                      Neoliberalism and corporate systems of profit are all designed to completely up-end, disrupt and devalue normal human relationship patterns and development. Everything which can possibly be privatised, commercially packaged, stripped or sold for a dollar, happens. People are treated as objects, machines, replaceable, mass produced, mass discarded, costs to be minimised or eliminated.

                      An inhuman society creates inhuman people.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 November 2013 at 11:09 pm

                      cv- or, as Marx called it, “alienation”.

                      Although personally I don’t think it’s a design feature so much as a byproduct of the system but that’s just a quibble.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 November 2013 at 11:17 pm

                      Not a silly man that Mr Marx.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 November 2013 at 11:23 pm

                      well, I reckon his solutions were a bit off, and that hegelian dialiectic shizzle just looks like crystals and mungbeans to me, but he was probably the first (and one of the best) analysts to use exhaustively-collected data to thoroughly describe a systemic problem.

                      And so his description of the problem was and is still incredibly accurate, or even more accurate in the information age.

        • greywarbler 3.1.3.2
          5 November 2013 at 9:42 pm

          They are likely to be overseas research findings about feminism, relationships between the s.xes. . Womens studies has been dropped by Auckland University. Plus other things about people. I think we in NZ are going to concentrate on joining a giant program to start a colony to Mars. Ordinary people and life on this planet is so yesterday.

    • greywarbler 3.2
      5 November 2013 at 9:21 pm

      Tracey
      It’s sad to see things reverting. It takes constant effort it seems, ‘girls can do anything’ has gone by the wayside, working as a grease monkey at a garage is not the thing,. But applying fake eyelashes and looking like some momentary celebrity who lives with some sport jock who in a fit of spite pushes her down the stairs or at least slaps her around. Way to go girls. The ones who make ‘it’ probably devote a lot of their money to clothes and make-up. Haven’t been able to be join the Just-U Group yet.

      But listening to Radionz I hear some great scientists, journalists, etc so all is not lost. And of course coming on The Standard there are probably a majority of women taking the game forward.

  4. MeToo 4
    5 November 2013 at 5:15 pm

    Roastbusters is part of the continuum of normalised Kiwi male behaviour that includes that ol’ favourite: lubricate women with alcohol because then they’re less likely to object to sex.

    Until men tell other men that it’s not acceptable to encourage a woman they don’t know to get blind drunk at a party, so he can have sex with her, men will think it’s okay. And brag about it. It’s not okay because there is no meaningful consent. No meaningful consent = rape. There is no honour in this kind of behaviour.

    (If you’re in a relationship and getting drunk then making out is part of your normal behaviour, that’s very different. Talking about the pick-up culture here.)

    • Colonial Viper 4.1
      5 November 2013 at 5:20 pm

      Roastbusters is part of the continuum of normalised Kiwi male behaviour that includes that ol’ favourite: lubricate women with alcohol because then they’re less likely to object to sex.

      The statistics show that young women have chosen to more than double their intake of alcohol over the last 20 or so years and their consumption now almost matches that of young men. And it’s not the men who are buying the women this extra alcohol.

      • Bill 4.1.1
        5 November 2013 at 5:30 pm

        CV. No matter how pissed out of my head I am, I don’t expect anyone to take advantage of my pissed up state and fuck me. And if the possibility of unwanted sex isn’t something that I have to take into account when getting pissed (it’s not and I don’t), why should any women have to?

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1
          5 November 2013 at 6:08 pm

          Highly intoxicated males are also at far higher risk of violence and physical harm Bill. That’s a statistical reality, not a would/should judgement.

          • Bill 4.1.1.1.1
            5 November 2013 at 6:30 pm

            I’m assuming you acknowledge the massive difference between being (say) mugged on the one hand and raped on the other?

            And I’m assuming you acknowledge that as a male, I don’t have to think twice before taking *that* shortcut home in the dark (whether sober or drunk) due to the possibility of sexual predation?

            And I’ll assume you recognise that the physical harm occasioned by being pissed and getting run over because of an alcohol induced lapse in attention or whatever….that, that’s different again.

            • Tat Loo (CV) 4.1.1.1.1.1
              5 November 2013 at 6:48 pm

              I’m just stating what the statistical realities are Bill. Intoxication is very closely associated with violence and physical harm. To both genders. And of course I agree with you that women should never have to face any kind of sexual predation, regardless of their state of sobriety. And of course I also agree with you that the kinds of violence experienced by males and by females in association with alcohol have significant differences. Men tend to die more often, and younger, for instance, when alcohol is involved. So this is not just being “mugged.”

              • pillywog …
                6 November 2013 at 7:04 am

                So there’s a link between alcohol and violence, both sexual and physical. That’s not what the ad’s suggest.

                If we’re talking predation, thats a whole nother evolutionary can of worms.

                Rape/violent culture as part of drinking culture in NZ is getting worse. Yeah I’d buy that.

                Perhaps more ads stressing the link might help?

      • BM 4.1.2
        5 November 2013 at 6:58 pm

        This, women are no longer these timid wee things from 20 years ago, they’re roarers and pukers,chock full of confidence, ready to take on the world.

        On the negative side that more sensitive calming influence that women were renown for and which was rather effective at calming situations especially when piss was involved as been thrown out the window.

        The facts are, it’s a jungle out there and it’s every man/woman for themselves.

        • framu 4.1.2.1
          6 November 2013 at 7:55 am

          “The facts are, it’s a jungle out there and it’s every man/woman for themselves.”

          hmmm – which political and consumerism areas does that come from?

          note: im not trying to politicise this – just noting that both neo-liberal and modern marketting ideas want us to think only of ourselves and not of our communities

          They both direct us to “What to I want” and not “what do WE need”

          If we want to change attitude we need to see where it comes from

          • Francis 4.1.2.1.1
            6 November 2013 at 9:56 pm

            Yes, and that’s the reason why we’re having all these kinds of problems. This culture of getting absolutely sh*t-faced while expecting nothing to go wrong (for both genders) and taking advantage of people who are not in their right state of mind is a societal problem.

            I would say it’s related to the shift between the traditional values of looking out for each other, to the modern day “neo-liberal” values of every man (as in human, not male) for themselves. There was a time when people would look out for each other to make sure nobody got that badly drunk. Even on those occasions that they did, the people around them would make sure that they made it home safely and were not taken advantage of. Anyone who undertook those disgusting activities would have never dared to publicise and brag about it, for fear of a backlash from any halfway reasonable human being.

            Now, we have a culture where everyone thinks they have the right to do whatever they want. Girls expect to be able to dress however they like and get drunk off their faces at parties and to have absolutely no repercussions, while boys feel they have the right to take advantage of those who are more vulnerable than them (and vice versa, to a much lesser extent).

            We have a massive problem, and one which will take much, much more than a few pieces of legislation to fix.

            • McFlock 4.1.2.1.1.1
              6 November 2013 at 10:14 pm

              I agree with the bit about looking out for each other when vulnerable (not just drunk) – that comes and goes locally. We need to grow it so that it’s a backstop – so people will intervene to keep each other safe, and lend a hand if needed.

            • Bill 4.1.2.1.1.2
              6 November 2013 at 10:36 pm

              We have a massive problem, and one which will take much, much more than a few pieces of legislation to fix.

              Yup. The very act of destroying patriarchy would do it though 😉

        • Foreign Waka 4.1.2.2
          16 November 2013 at 12:16 pm

          you are joking, right?

      • Martin 4.1.3
        5 November 2013 at 9:19 pm

        at heart our attitudes are still frontier and colonial in this area.

        but then some guys are not the slightestest bit interested in girls

    • Rogue Trooper 4.2
      5 November 2013 at 5:33 pm

      MeToo : “There is no honour in this kind of behaviour”. Consider what a dis honourable society we live in while asserting it’s civilized. These are times of social decline.

  5. MeToo 5
    5 November 2013 at 5:33 pm

    Right. It’s all women’s fault. Glad we’re straight about that….

    I specifically said men deliberately getting women drunk. Not women deciding to get drunk off their own bat.

    It’s a well-known party trick: fetch a woman you fancy a drink; get her a double and yourself a single. *Get her drunk*

    • McFlock 5.1
      5 November 2013 at 5:40 pm

      … and even if she voluntarily decided to get blind drunk (which, in my opinion, is not just a right but occasionally a necessity), that’s not an irresistible compulsion for someone else to commit rape.

    • greywarbler 5.2
      5 November 2013 at 9:25 pm

      MeToo
      Would drinking lager or wine help prevent that? Or perhaps have a bottle of water and dilute drinks.

      • McFlock 5.2.1
        7 November 2013 at 1:45 pm

        There are some cities where drink spiking is such an issue that everyone – male or female – is given a bottle with the cap still on because bar staff had been known to slip a palmed pill into the bottle while taking the cap off.

        And people schedule their bathroom breaks around their drink purchases, because otherwise you have to kiss goodbye to the barely-sipped drink that you left on the table – even with friends watching it.

        And they think this is normal.

        But it becomes a self-perpetuating condition, because when rapists figure out how to bypass the latest “personal safety practise”, the survivor blames themselves for not being even more paranoid, or the authorities find where s/he “slipped up” or “didn’t take enough responsibility for their own safety” and the emphasis is no longer on blaming the rapist.

        Much more sane just to blame the rapist from the start, imo. .

  6. Tracey 6
    5 November 2013 at 5:34 pm

    Cv

    im not sure I understand your 2 points.

    when people value themselves little and measure their worth according to whether men or boys “like” them I wouldnt expect them to be happy or even sober.

    there has been a mythical meme that women have achieved equality… the ” fight” is over. But it barely began before certain quarters began its assault on any advances made… scamming young women into believing being equal meant equally drunk and more violent, ie more like men… equality is becoming the same as men.

    • Tat Loo (CV) 6.1
      5 November 2013 at 6:57 pm

      when people value themselves little and measure their worth according to whether men or boys “like” them I wouldnt expect them to be happy or even sober.

      There is certainly some major dysfunction going on. Women who value themselves little and measure their worth according to whether men or boys “like” them, and men or boys who measure their self worth and build their ego according to whether or not they can denigrate women and subject them to emotional or physical violence.

      Bill has also pointed out in his post that there is something much deeper in the psyche and societally which is going on to bring this kind of thing out in people.

      • Bill 6.1.1
        5 November 2013 at 7:14 pm

        … that there is something…

        Patriarchy. An acceptance of. A culture based on. It’s not mysterious or difficult to understand.

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1
          5 November 2013 at 7:22 pm

          Many societal values nowadays aren’t just patriarchal values. They are corporate values. The Left on the whole also cares not for religion nor monarchy nor nationalism.

          So what’s left to replace patriarchy with? A head based intellectualism? Concepts and theories? Some kind of old school tribalism or provincialism?

          • Bill 6.1.1.1.1
            5 November 2013 at 7:53 pm

            Corporatism and patriarchy go hand in hand (each reinforcing and perpetuating the other). Intellectualism (the promotion of a specific type of knowledge) is also very much embedded within patriarchy or an extension of patriarchy, depending on how you look at it. As was/is a lot of tribalism and provincialism.

            Anyway, you no more ‘replace’ patriarchy than you ‘replace’ the dog shit from the sole of your shoe. You get rid of it.

            And at an educated guess (and very quickly and ‘off the cuff’) I’d say that would entail getting rid of (as just a couple of examples) hierarchy (it being fairly central to patriarchy and arguably a precursor for it’s formation)…capitalism, market economies and command economies (all being heavily reliant on the norms of patriarchy as well as the existence of hierarchies to survive)…and that would create a space holding the potential for us to develop democratic and therefore non-exploitative cultural norms/economies/polities.

            Or, of course, we could fill up that space with different dogshit and wind up back at more or less the same point again but with different labels attached to the same or similar dynamics. 😉

            • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1.1
              5 November 2013 at 7:55 pm

              One likes to be optimistic, but when reviewing the instances of major societal revolution in the last thousand or two years, the ending has always tended to be very unhappy for a lot of people.

              • weka …
                5 November 2013 at 8:01 pm

                Revolution is a patriarchal concept 😉 Probably not a problem for the patriarchy really, as in a revolution you can just replace one version of the patriarchy with another.

            • weka 6.1.1.1.1.2
              5 November 2013 at 7:57 pm

              Not sure about the getting rid of. I do like your implication that humans aren’t naturally patriarchal though, and that the need is to remove it and let us be how we should be. I see it more as a decolonisation process rather than removing the dogshit. We have to understand and acknowledge how we have been colonised (and probably why).

          • weka 6.1.1.1.2
            5 November 2013 at 7:53 pm

            Corporate values ARE patriarchal values. Likewise the left is pretty much working within the patriarchy, albeit a modified version that makes attempts at the egalitarian.

            Bill would no doubt point to true anarchy as a possible path. I would suggest learning from matrilineal cultures (not to be confused with the mythical matriarchy). Listening to feminist analysis of culture, history, anthropology (that’s pretty broad). As a starting point, recognising what the patriarchy is and how we are all affected by it would be good. When the left can do this and work with that analysis we might get somewhere. I also think that working with rape culture analysis takes one pretty quickly to the core of the issues, and what the possible solutions are.

            • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.2.1
              5 November 2013 at 7:57 pm

              Corporate values are NOT patriarchal values. At least a feudal lord cared for the condition and upkeep of his lands and had a moral responsibility to look after his serfs. Where is that in today’s corporate world.

              • weka …
                5 November 2013 at 8:00 pm

                The patriachy can work with both corporates and feudal lords. Both reinforce domination as the prefered means of arranging society. Neither accept egalitarianism as being desirable. Of course there are varying levels of domination within patriarchal systems, and some are better than others depending on where you sit in the system and what privileges you are allowed.

                I’m wondering what definition of the patriarchy you are using?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  5 November 2013 at 8:22 pm

                  These debates do my head in to be honest, weka. When it comes down to a discussion on replacing patriarchy as the default, embedded, hierarchical, cultural and values basis for the global economy, modern society and central government I must admit that I have run out of even semi-intelligent things to say.

                  • weka …
                    5 November 2013 at 10:16 pm

                    Have you come across the decolonisation work that’s been done in NZ?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 November 2013 at 10:41 pm

                      Probably only in passing. I’ve gained some personal understanding of colonial attributes and characteristics in various fields in the last 10 or so years. And IMO in some crucial respects Aotearoa is being re-colonised, not decolonised.

                      Anyhows, as a member of the Colonial Fleet, decolonisation is not always a popular political stance…

          • Chooky 6.1.1.1.3
            6 November 2013 at 11:49 pm

            @CV…what is left to replace the patriarchy?

            ….how about a matriarchy?… an ethics of humanism and care for the planet? ….ecospirituality?…. Green socialism?….an ethics of Deep Ecology and concern for the number one problem of Global Warming….caused by greed and overpopulation.

            …how about getting away from rapacious global capitalism? …..and thinking locally?

            …..letting every country face up to their own responsibilities for:

            1)the planet….
            2)cultural problems of overpopulation
            3) environmental degradation
            4)imbalances caused by sexism, the denigration of the female, denial of equal opportunities in education and fertility control
            5)exploitation of their people….particularly women

            • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.3.1
              7 November 2013 at 12:03 am

              Atmospheric CO2 levels have just hit a new record high. Unfortunately I don’t think that the transition away from patriarchy (to whatever) is going to go smoothly, Chooky. Neo-feudalism stalks the land wielding money, power and resources.

              • Chooky …
                7 November 2013 at 8:36 am

                @CV @ weka

                …agree with weka…we can but try…analysis is the first step…hence weka’s statement:

                ” I would suggest learning from matrilineal cultures (not to be confused with the mythical matriarchy). Listening to feminist analysis of culture, history, anthropology (that’s pretty broad). As a starting point, recognising what the patriarchy is and how we are all affected by it would be good. When the left can do this and work with that analysis we might get somewhere. I also think that working with rape culture analysis takes one pretty quickly to the core of the issues, and what the possible solutions are”.

                (btw…I am beginning to think weka is a girl…i always thought she was a boy)

                Chooky’s statement:
                What we need is a global matriarchal/feminist revolution:
                1)…that rolls back global corporate patriarchal capitalism
                2)…and replaces it with a Green localised self-suficient democratic socialist societies
                3)….and resists big plundering capitalist countries that cant sort out their own economies , overpopulation, environmental degradation,cultural sexism and exploitation of women

                • Tat Loo (CV) …
                  7 November 2013 at 9:00 am

                  What we need is a global matriarchal/feminist revolution:

                  And an energy replacement for oil. But I can’t see either happening in sufficient time (next 25 years) to resolve the serious problems which NZ is facing. Corporate power and international financial capital hold the steering wheel and they are not letting go.

                  • Bill …
                    7 November 2013 at 9:09 am

                    How long does it take to withdraw your active participation that props up all that corporate power, international finance and so on? 25 years or one moment of lucidity followed by definitive and uncompromising action? I mean, fck – when effective action is essentially based on simply not doing most of those things that you do, what’s the big problem?

                    Is it fear?

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      7 November 2013 at 9:31 am

                      How long does it take to withdraw your active participation that props up all that corporate power, international finance and so on?

                      Perhaps you are someone who thinks that Green Party MPs will become more effective at advocating for the environment and for a sustainable future if they don’t personally use road transport, EFTPOS or fly in kerosene guzzling aeroplanes?

                    • Bill …
                      7 November 2013 at 9:48 am

                      Nope.

                      Maybe you’re one of those people who think it’s fine to carry on carrying on because the greens are up there advocating for the environment? Hm?

                    • weka …
                      7 November 2013 at 12:34 pm

                      “I mean, fck – when effective action is essentially based on simply not doing most of those things that you do, what’s the big problem?

                      Is it fear?”

                      Humans are hardwired to self-protection. Yes fear. No-one wants to starve. Cognitive dissonance is huge too. We are also hardwired to psychological survival.

                • weka …
                  7 November 2013 at 12:32 pm

                  Chooky, I’ve been a girl for quite some time 😉

                  Look up matrilineal, it’s a better model to present. There really isn’t any such thing as a matriarchy within human cultures that sustain themselves over time (we could make the argument for a matriarchy to handle the end of the world though).

                  CV, later when things have settled down, I’d like to have a conversation about the patriarchy and decolonisation. Your comment suggests that women will just have to suck it up in the powerdown. Not likely, at least in this part of the world – NZ is steeped in strong matrifocal values and women won’t be abandoning that.

                  The processes that enable humans to work in non-patriarchy ways are exactly the same ones that we need to powerdown and have right relationship with the environment (and solve all those non-‘identity’ political issues too btw). If the concept of the the patriarchy doesn’t work for you think about it in terms of domination cultures compared to egalitarian cultures.

                  • Chooky …
                    7 November 2013 at 1:31 pm

                    @ weka…ohh….i had you down as a bossy boy telling me how to vote…in that case….all is forgiven

                    ….vive la revolution feministe!..matralineal monde!

  7. TheContrarian 7
    5 November 2013 at 5:38 pm

    When I see an attractive woman sure I have an appreciation of, and desire for, the female form but my first move would be to introduce myself and ask her out for a drink/dinner/coffee/what have you.

    Can’t get my head around it, the predatory nature of some.

  8. Jenny Kirk 8
    5 November 2013 at 6:32 pm

    ” The ‘Roast Busters’ episode is, I believe, indicative of a problem far, far deeper and more insidious than some supposedly fucked up young men, inadequate police responses and inane mutterings of politicians. And as such it deserves a more thorough and ongoing response than the one that is likely to transpire.”

    Thank you Bill, for putting this up, and thanks also Karol for yesterday’s post on Cyber-Busters.
    This is a hugely serious matter – Stop Demand’s “Man UP” group is talking on TV3 News tonight about it – and hopefully, discussion and response on this will be on-going and get some sort of action.

    Stop Demand has sent me through this comment and the link at the end – its worth reading : “Given the ongoing outcry over the Roast Busters’ behaviour, we need to face the fact that this is the tip of a growing iceberg. Why? Some clues are given in this article, which sees a turn-around by a former lads mag editor. Please distribute to family/friends with children/grandchildren.

    Experiment that convinced me online porn is the most pernicious threat facing children today: By ex-lads’ mag editor Martin Daubney http://dailym.ai/1go8cUC

  9. weka 9
    5 November 2013 at 7:31 pm

    Spot on post Bill although I think it would have been better without the list of the statements. Also, convention now suggests a trigger warning at the top of the list would be appropriate eg Trigger warning for rapists’ and lads mags’ attitudes about women and sex.

    I thought the post title apt. What do we do instead? This stands out for me

    “Those young men and the attitudes they hold are the product of very long and complex processes whereby some very fucked up shit has become normalised.”

    Very good description and is something that needs discussion and thought. And how can we discuss this without reinforcing racist ideas and without marginalising the current victims?

    I’ve been thinking about the Roast Buster rapists today, and how they came to be this way and what their experiences will be now and in the future. We can’t really go there too much because we know so little about who they are and why they are the way they are. But I do agree with what you are saying in the post, that it’s not enough to just wring our hands about how terrible the world is now and let the debate be those men over there are evil and those women are victims so we should bash/punish the men. Those women need some kind of justice for sure, and very little of what I have seen suggested is going to prevent this from happening again.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      5 November 2013 at 7:34 pm

      RL expressed some concepts on the development of male attitudes from young around sexuality, which I think were worth examining further, but I don’t think that most people here were interested in them in the slightest.

      • weka 9.1.1
        5 November 2013 at 7:39 pm

        Where was that CV?

        I took Bill’s sentence to mean the x thousands of years of developing dominating societies. It would make sense to look at individual human growth and development in that context.

        • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1
          5 November 2013 at 7:50 pm

          It was a few months ago.

          I took Bill’s sentence to mean the x thousands of years of developing dominating societies. It would make sense to look at individual human growth and development in that context.

          We’re the first global, fossil fueled civilisation this planet has ever seen, and quite possibly the last. The things we are doing to ourselves now, I really wonder if there are easy historical precedences for.

          • weka 9.1.1.1.1
            5 November 2013 at 8:05 pm

            I agree, but I don’t see the start of the current situation as being a few hundred years ago. I tend to the view that the invention of agriculture was the mistake that led us to this point, so we’re talking 5-10 thousand years. If that sounds too big, it’s worth remembering that that is a specific set of cultures and has by no means been universal. Plenty of other peoples who have done it differently (at least until the patriarchal colonisers arrived).

            • TheContrarian 9.1.1.1.1.1
              5 November 2013 at 8:14 pm

              “I tend to the view that the invention of agriculture was the mistake that led us to this point”

              Wait, what? Agriculture was a mistake?

              • felix …
                5 November 2013 at 8:17 pm

                Definitely has its pro and cons.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  5 November 2013 at 8:24 pm

                  Leaving the oceans was the problem tbh.

                  • weka …
                    5 November 2013 at 8:29 pm

                    “Leaving the oceans was the problem tbh.”

                    lolz, you radical you. I thought coming down from the trees in the first place might have been a mistake, but the oceans?!

                • TheContrarian …
                  5 November 2013 at 8:26 pm

                  By all means, list the pro’s and cons.

                  Because I would have thought growing ones own food where they stand as opposed to having to move with the seasons like, say, a Zebra, pretty much overrules any con.

                  • felix …
                    5 November 2013 at 8:36 pm

                    Depends what you’re into. That one could go on either side of the ledger really.

                  • weka …
                    5 November 2013 at 8:49 pm

                    Because I would have thought growing ones own food where they stand as opposed to having to move with the seasons like, say, a Zebra, pretty much overrules any con.

                    Depends on where you end up in the heirarchy that follows on from growing food in one place. Some people do very well, others well to poorly, others get enslaved or exterminated.

                    The theory is this: as soon as you settle in one place a number of things happen. One is that you change land use. You grow more food, but you need more people to grow that food and process and store it, so you have bigger families to provide labour (eventually you need slaves or an underclass). They need more space. And more food. Soon you are taking up a lot of space and eye-ing up the space next door. That’s how wars start (note, there is a difference between the wars that settled people do, and what nomadic, or hunter gathers do). Once you outgrow your space and have taken over your neighbours too, you have a society with lots of inequity in it. Inevitably the people with the least privilege in this society move somewhere else and eventually take over someone else’s land. That’s called colonisation.

                    There is a bit in there that I might not have covered, to do with why such cultures are inevitably hierarchical. I’m not sure if this is chicken or egg. Maybe emerging patriarchal cultures are more likely to become agriculturalists. Or maybe being settled and having to defend one’s riches elicits hierarchy. Either way, we can trace the rise of the patriarchy pretty clearly from the cultures in the Mesapotamian/Eastern European areas that coincided with the development of agriculture.

                    The other side of this is the misconception that gatherer/hunter/nomadic cultures are somehow ‘less’ than settlers. On the contrary, they’re often more stable and create less problems over time. There are pros and cons there too of course, but if the natural consequence of agriculture has been AGW and mass environmental collapse (not to mention millenia of war and famine and slavery and rape) then it’s pretty hard to make the case against the nomads.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      5 November 2013 at 9:00 pm

                      This is like a political poes law.

                      On one hand no-one could say the advent of agriculture is a bad thing with a straight face. On the other it wouldn’t be surprising to see someone say it here.

                    • Bill …
                      5 November 2013 at 9:06 pm

                      According to archaeological evidence, the Australian Aborigines toyed with the idea. Then dumped it in preference for the far easier gatherer hunter way of life.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      5 November 2013 at 9:08 pm

                      Far easier? Holy shit…really?

                      Yeah, poes law.

                    • weka …
                      5 November 2013 at 9:10 pm

                      TC, many credible people have discussed the problems that the advent of agriculture has caused. You asked for an explanation, I gave you a lengthy one, and all I get is some smart arse comment which doesn’t engage in ANY of the points. wtf?

                    • felix …
                      5 November 2013 at 9:12 pm

                      Yep, easier in many ways. The amount of work required to sustain your lifestyle for one.

                    • felix …
                      5 November 2013 at 10:51 pm

                      From your own link:

                      It has long been taken for granted that the introduction of agriculture had been an unequivocal progress. This is now questioned in view of findings by archaeologists and paleopathologists showing that nutritional standards of Neolithic populations were generally inferior to that of hunter-gatherers, and that their life expectancy may well have been shorter too, in part due to diseases and harder work – hunter-gatherers must have covered their food needs with about 20 hours’ work a week, while agriculture required much more and was at least as aleatory. The hunter-gatherers’ diet was more varied and balanced than what agriculture later allowed. Average height went down from 5’9″ (178 cm) for men and 5’5″ (168 cm) for women to 5’3″ (165 cm) and 5′ (155 cm), respectively, and it took until the twentieth century for average human height to come back to the pre-Neolithic Revolution levels. Agriculturalists had more anaemias and vitamin deficiencies, more spinal deformations and more dental pathologies.

                      Definitely had its pros and cons.

                  • Puddleglum …
                    5 November 2013 at 10:42 pm

                    Hi The Contrarian,

                    There’s actually quite a bit of archaeological evidence that human height reduced, diseases increased, wear and tear on bones increased with the shift from hunter gatherer life to agricultural settlement.

                    Have a look at some of Mark Cohen’s work. There’s debate, as ever, but the claim that agricultural settlement caused many human problems is hardly ‘wild’ or ‘out there’.

                    • Molly …
                      6 November 2013 at 8:20 am

                      Also worth a read to get a small glimpse of how hunter-gatherer society can inform the modern world – “Treading Lightly – by Karl-Erik Sveiby & Tex Skuthorpe”.

                      “There was in particular one issue that gradually took hold of Karl-Erik and which in the end became the topic of this book: Australian Aboriginal society’s model for sustainability has the longest proven track record on earth. While societies outside Australia emerged, prospered and went under, Aboriginal society withstood and proved its sustainability over tens of thousands of years of dramatic events, until the Europeans’ arrival in 1788. It is an extraordinary achievement, especially considering that this is something humanity is now struggling with: the way to build a truly sustainable society on this earth. How did the Aborigines do it? How did they organise for sustainability? What type of leadership did it require? They must have had a ‘recipe for success’. What was it? Could we reconstruct it?”

                    • TheContrarian …
                      6 November 2013 at 4:47 pm

                      Sure but the positive benefits have far outweighed the negatives. But hey, if Weka wants to give up the ability to grow his own food and to have domesticated animals I wish him luck in his foraging.

                    • felix …
                      6 November 2013 at 5:17 pm

                      Good to see you being open to contrary views as usual.

                    • weka …
                      6 November 2013 at 9:20 pm

                      “Sure but the positive benefits have far outweighed the negatives. But hey, if Weka wants to give up the ability to grow his own food and to have domesticated animals I wish him luck in his foraging.”

                      Idiot. Agriculture is not horticulture. Try listening to people who know more than you (there’s been a number in this subtread), you might actually learn something.

          • Bill 9.1.1.1.2
            5 November 2013 at 8:22 pm

            CV. The post is essentially about patriarchy…y’know, the larger context around this Roast Busters stuff.

            And I’m inclined to reckon that Weka’s not far off the mark in pointing to agriculture as a starting point…though for some cultures patriarchy may well have come later and for other reasons….the Holy Roman Empire springs to mind as one possible example which then forced patriarchy on some of the cultures it colonised and, of course, various forgotten cultures that fell before the onslaughts of western colonisation.

            Whatever the genesis (and it is a bit academic I suppose) one thing for certain is that patriarchy pre-dated the emergence of capitalism.

            • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.2.1
              5 November 2013 at 8:30 pm

              We’re closing in on 8B people now. It’s sorta like when you get more than say 80-100 cows together in a herd. The dynamics aren’t so good and the animals get distressed in lots of little ways.

              • Bill …
                5 November 2013 at 8:41 pm

                Yeah well, you find any disagreement coming from me if you’re suggesting our ‘core’ or day to day political/economic/community units should be in the order of 100 – 150 people max.

                Maybe we’d disagree on the likelihood of order arising from those simple initial conditions…naturally scaling up, versus the need for imposing order via some means or other.

                But that discussion/debate would be moving too far off topic.

      • miravox 9.1.2
        6 November 2013 at 12:12 am

        “I don’t think that most people here were interested in them in the slightest.”

        The thing is, I would have been very interested in the views about the development of male attitudes toward child rape, if the initial framing of the concepts wasn’t child sex isn’t all that bad.

        Anyway, that was then.

    • Bill 9.2
      5 November 2013 at 8:14 pm

      Don’t know what this concept of ‘trigger warning’ is, neither I do. As for the list. Decided to include it because it leaves no doubt as to just how normalised this shit has become, plus… since I wasn’t necessarily going to be around to hit the post with heavy duty moderation, I reckoned anyone could point apologists in the direction of the number in the list they might have been channeling 😉

      • weka 9.2.1
        5 November 2013 at 8:26 pm

        Heh. We’ve been lucky so far then (where is BM tonight I wonder).

        Trigger warnings let people know that the following text/imagery contains things likely to be triggering eg in this case for people that have been raped or sexually assaulted, that list might trigger post-trauma reactions when they read it. Trigger warnings are a courtesy and an acknowledgement that people who have been traumatised have as much right to be in this conversation as anyone else. It enables people to be here more safely, and this enables access to a wider range of people. They’re in common usage on feminist, gender politics, queer, trans etc sites, and get used for things other than rape too.

        http://fuckyeahtriggerwarnings.tumblr.com/resources

        • Bill 9.2.1.1
          5 November 2013 at 8:34 pm

          Okay. Cheers for that. Having read your link I’m thinking that the sentence preceding the list acts as a kind of trigger warning in and of itself anyway by clearly stating what is coming next.

  10. Treetop 10
    5 November 2013 at 8:46 pm

    The first paragraph talking about shit becoming normalised is half the problem. The other half is how the police treat a complaint and the perpetrator knows that the odds are in their favour in not being prosecuted.

    The reason that Parker continued for so long was because the adults who had suspicion isolated the problem or normalised what needed to have boundaries e.g. sleep overs at his place.

    Walking in a teenagers shoes in 2013 is my starting point.
    Next is determining what they know about sexual boundaries.
    Then what their expectation is of adults to protect them and how teenagers can protect themself.
    And what to do to get help.

    The What’s Up phone line is so under funded and it is possible that the phone went unanswered by a teen who had been raped.

    No effing use in having a law if no one picks up the phone to help the caller.

  11. Sosoo 11
    5 November 2013 at 8:48 pm

    Those young men and the attitudes they hold are the product of very long and complex processes whereby some very fucked up shit has become normalised.

    Here’s the bottom line – patriarchy is about power. And all systems of power include multiple and sometimes overlapping components that encourage the dehumanisation of those it seeks power over.

    And here’s the real problem. You don’t have to believe this sort of pseudo-intellectual, rectally-extracted nonsense to disapprove of the actions of the “Roast Busters”, yet the people who peddle this rubbish are more interested in getting people to agree with their seminar room theorising than they are in doing anything about the problem.

    The academic disciplines that deal with this stuff are now more or less functional religions in that their beliefs are largely evidence free and vehemently held, and any heretics are ostracised and punished.

    Rakish behaviour has existed forever. So have the solutions.

    • weka 11.1
      5 November 2013 at 8:57 pm

      Do carry on with your “disapproving” of the men’s actions Sosoo. I’m sure it will be very effective at preventing rape and preventing young men being turned into rapists. /sarc.

      And do carry on with your whiney, no-one listens to me, everyone else who talks about rape culture is an idiot, marginalising shit. You’ve tried a number of times in the past day to run this line and as far as I can tell few have bothered to respond to you.

    • greywarbler 11.2
      5 November 2013 at 9:46 pm

      Nice finish line Sosooo.
      All tied up with a tight little knot. Sort of like simple primitive castration. Was that your solution?

    • Rhinocrates 11.3
      5 November 2013 at 11:39 pm

      And here’s the real problem. You don’t have to believe this sort of pseudo-intellectual, rectally-extracted nonsense to disapprove of the actions of the “Roast Busters”, yet the people who peddle this rubbish are more interested in getting people to agree with their seminar room theorising than they are in doing anything about the problem.

      The academic disciplines that deal with this stuff are now more or less functional religions in that their beliefs are largely evidence free and vehemently held, and any heretics are ostracised and punished.

      Rakish behaviour has existed forever. So have the solutions.

      Blah blah blah blah bladedy-blah.

      Meaningless generic slogans opportunistically pinned on a real scandal involving real people.

      “Rakish” eh? Is that all, fuckwit?

      Sosoo tries to use raped girls to justify their own silly political agenda and fantasies about imaginary leftist ivory tower intellectuals. It’s disgusting and callous.

      • greywarbler 11.3.1
        6 November 2013 at 9:43 am

        Rakish seems quite a good choice of description and is deeper and darker than I thought now I look up Wikipedia. It goes back to Charles II’s time mid 1600s.
        Often a rake was a prodigal who wasted his (usually inherited) fortune on gambling, wine, women and song, incurring lavish debts in the process. The rake was also frequently a man who seduced a young woman and impregnated her before leaving, often to her social or financial ruin.
        So it’s a long standing problem when there are males who can get away with this sort of shit, because of an immoral class society, decadent groups coalescing in secret, or just an overall disinterested amoral society with spikes of purist and prurient religious extremism.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rake_(character)

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Club
        These clubs were rumoured to be the meeting places of “persons of quality”[2] who wished to take part in immoral acts, and the members were often very involved in politics.

    • Rhinocrates 11.4
      5 November 2013 at 11:54 pm

      Come on Sosoo, justify the rape of underage girls, since objection to it is just an “academic” “religion”. Justify it, tell us all why it’s OK and condemnation of it is just PC gone mad. Tell us why it’s OK to rape girls. I’d be fascinated to hear your justification.

  12. joe90 12
    5 November 2013 at 9:09 pm

    Caroline Heldman’s TED talk The Sexy Lie is particularly relevant.

    http://carolineheldman.wordpress.com/tag/sexual-objectification/ (four parts – images to illustrate)

    • greywarbler 12.1
      6 November 2013 at 10:08 am

      I’d like to have seen a dramatic moment at the end of Caroline Heldman’s TED talk when she is taking off her false eyelashes, that someone walks on with a pair of scissors, she smiles and nods okay, and the person cuts her blonde curls off to shoulder level. Young women seem to love long hair which is always photographed lying carefully arranged on their shoulders. Some look as if they are peering out from under a rug. Some merely look scrawny but fashion captured.

      One of Ben Elton’s funny gags is where he takes pity on poor hair-addicted women who he gives a safe place to recover from their nervous tic of swishing their long, perfectly combed, shiny hair round and round. Sort of like the fly-swat tail on the back end of a horse. They are the victims of shampoo commercials.

      Contrast with Julie Andrews from The Sound of Music. She had a short trim and what a gal. Took on a huge family and the Na.is too. And they all got the safety of USA from war-torn Europe. I think the woman then who wanted long hair, plaited it and that would be easier to keep in place. French plaiting looks good.

  13. Ron 13
    5 November 2013 at 10:49 pm

    Reading the comments above leaves me with the feeling that one common factor in violence to men or women is alcohol.
    Maybe it is time to consider the harm that our approach to alcohol causes and do something about it.
    We could start with insisting that the recommendations provided by Doug Sellman’s group be implemented instead of allowing the Alcohol lobby and National to water them down or outright ignore.

    • McFlock 13.1
      5 November 2013 at 11:00 pm

      alcohol doesn’t expain why comments such as “What burns me up sometimes about girls is dick-teasers. They lead a man on and then shut him off right there.” coud be equally made by sex offenders or magazines targeted at influencing young men.

      Alcohol-related harm is a completely seperate issue to sexual violence. Both are bad, but they are different issues with different mechanisms.

      Let me put it this way: I have literally pulled drunk-comatose women out of the gutter and got them to safety. If a car had run over them in the dark, that is alcohol-related harm. If a rapist had chosen to rape them, that is rapist-related harm, because if she had been sober she might equally have met a rapist who prefers to attack sober women who aren’t covered in puke, or maybe they got safely home to the rapist they lived with. The problem of acohol-related harm is a red herring to the problem of sexual violence.

      • weka 13.1.1
        5 November 2013 at 11:08 pm

        Excellent explanation McFlock. Bookmarking that one.

      • Colonial Viper 13.1.2
        5 November 2013 at 11:24 pm

        The problem of acohol-related harm is a red herring to the problem of sexual violence.

        Disagree that it is a red herring – on the simple basis that the incidence of sexual violence, and in fact the incidence of all forms of violence, can be reduced through changes in the attitudes towards and regulation of alcohol, as supported by considerable local and international evidence.

        If it were a red herring – then attitudes to alcohol and liquor laws would have no effect on the incidence of sexual violence (and violence in general).

        • McFlock 13.1.2.1
          5 November 2013 at 11:27 pm

          So there’s no rape in Saudi Arabia?
          Good to know.

          • Colonial Viper 13.1.2.1.1
            5 November 2013 at 11:29 pm

            So there’s no alcohol in Saudi Arabia?
            Good to know.

            Talk about “red herrings”, mate.

            • McFlock 13.1.2.1.1.1
              5 November 2013 at 11:45 pm

              Nah, it wasn’t a red herring. It was a trite response to a trite comment.

              Besides the fact that you have no basis for believing that there is the slightest correlation between “attitudes to alcohol and liquor laws” and sexual violence, you have consistently made no effort to demonstrate how any relationship that might exist was “alcohol is a causal factor of rape” as opposed to a purely coincidental relationship, or a relationship with a confounding cause (e.g. dulled recollections increase shaming of survivors either by the survivor herself or by the rapist spreading rumours among the peer group, and thereby lower the reporting rate, making it easier for rapists to commit more rapes).

              Feel free to show that your personal bugbear of alcohol has any relevance to the discussion of social attitudes to sexual violence.

              • Colonial Viper …
                5 November 2013 at 11:50 pm

                Levels of intoxication and severity of alcohol abuse are all very tightly correlated with violence between individuals, whether inside or outside the home, and whether the individuals are known to each other or not.

                For you to claim that the link between alcohol and violence needs more research before any action can be taken is somewhat disingenuous.

                Regulating alcohol and attitudes towards its use is certainly only one element in reducing sexual violence (and violence/physical harm in general, whether directed at men or at women), but it is a practical one, and one which I don’t think can be ignored.

                • McFlock …
                  5 November 2013 at 11:59 pm

                  Forget about common-assault “violence”. We’re not discussing that. Rape is the topic under discussion.

                  I’m not sure that there is such a tight correlation between rape and alcohol. There was a major US college study that said half of rapes involved both parties drinking, but the instance was much higher when rapists were drinking regardless of whether person who was raped was, than when the drinking was reversed. And this is of a population that might have much higher instances of alcohol intake, where unsupervised or semi-supervised informal socialising frequently involves alcohol – so the rapists’ perceived moments of opportunity might be more often in alcohol environments purely by the habits of the sample population.

                  The levels of sexual violence in areas that don’t drink would suggest that the key driver is social attitude, not alcohol.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    6 November 2013 at 12:08 am

                    Forget about common-assault “violence”. We’re not discussing that. Rape is the topic under discussion.

                    And even more specifically, the Roaster rapes. Where a large amount of alcohol does appear to have been systematically involved.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2013 at 12:19 am

                      Alcohol is probably the excuse for TV1 tonight framing it as a cyber-bullying issue, not a rape issue. I’m sure it would be different if they were tslking about pack-raping sober women and girls in the Auckland Domain.

                      You need to reread Bill’s article if you think it’s got much if anything to do about alcohol. Because even if the woman is drunk, even if the rapist is drunk, there’s still a question as to why the rapist would think his actions were acceptable.

                    • weka …
                      6 November 2013 at 12:22 am

                      “And even more specifically, the Roaster rapes. Where a large amount of alcohol does appear to have been systematically involved.”

                      What are you suggesting CV? That if the girls had drank moderately they wouldn’t have been sexually assaulted?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      6 November 2013 at 12:32 am

                      I’m saying that alcohol (and possibly drugs) were systematically used as a weapon of rape by the Roasters.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2013 at 1:09 am

                      Yeah, it’s like there should be a law against supplying alcohol to minors.
                      Oh, and drugs.
                      Oh, and then raping them.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      6 November 2013 at 1:11 am

                      You’ve already identified that it’s societal attitude change which is important McFlock, not just what the letter of the law says, and I agree with you.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2013 at 11:23 am

                      Yes, but I want a societal change in attitude about rape. You think a societal change in alcohol will address the bulk of the rape problem. It won’t, not even close.

                    • weka …
                      6 November 2013 at 11:28 am

                      If handled well, we could use health promotion around alcohol as part of the changes to attitudes about rape. Theoretically.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 November 2013 at 12:10 pm

                      possibly.
                      it could dovetail with some of the nzta work that uses memes to make it easier for peers to influence against negative behaviours. Hit (ghost chips) and miss (mantrol), but a palpable hit when it works alongside other strategies.

                  • weka …
                    6 November 2013 at 12:20 am

                    This is anecdotal, but expert level anecdotal. After the purchase age for alcohol was lowered to 18, A and E doctors reported an obvious increase in sexual assaults (and STDs).

                    The problem of alcohol-related harm is a red herring to the problem of sexual violence because focusing on alcohol doesn’t provide a solution to rape. And it reinforces rape apologist ideas and takes us further away from dealing with the actual causes of rape. But that doesn’t mean there is no connection between binge drinking and rape.

          • Chooky 13.1.2.1.2
            6 November 2013 at 9:47 am

            miscellaneous obvious comments:

            …there is alcohol in Saudi Arabia….just hidden

            …unwise use/excessive use/inexperienced use/outright abuse of alcohol/ makes people less inhibited, more aggressive, less cautious. more lacking in judgement, more impulsive….. and while it doesnt directly cause rape or abuse …..it can create an environment in which it is more likely to occur..

            ….young people and alcohol are a dangerous mix

  14. Rhinocrates 14
    5 November 2013 at 11:07 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11151911

    Let’s not forget that that arsewipe Shearer and his cronies were thinking that bringing “JT” (ooh, initials, so cool, so macho) back into the fold was going to be a vote winner.

    Think about that when you talk about “PC gone mad” supposedly being electoral poison.

  15. Rhinocrates 15
    5 November 2013 at 11:10 pm

    Eh, some bug… “You do not have permission blah blah”, meaning to add:

    Now Labour needs to highlight the cuts to Rape Crisis centre funding cuts to point out the hypocrisy and opportunism of Key’s government that just wants to use this to crack down on the Internet.

  16. Rhinocrates 16
    6 November 2013 at 12:00 am

    The sad thing is, I’m expecting Hooton to think that this is funny and an opportunity to make some comparison along the lines of “The Labour Party are just like the Roast Busters”, since he thought that comparing them with the Kahui family would be hilarious. Everyone should get their sick bags ready.

  17. Tracey 17
    6 November 2013 at 5:48 am

    Cv

    I think you are off base in many of your coments on thus thread.

    alcohol features in this one incident but almost all sexual abuse of children is done by sober predators.

    agriculture is totally irrelevant to tge discussion and if infused or bm or any of their ilk had so diverted a thread …

    women basing their worth on their value to men is not new and certainly not something restricted to the last 40 years.

    most of the “jokes” men make about their wives or women surely betray at best a skerrick of belief in what they are saying and at worst reflect their core belief.

    as long as the focus remains on this single incident many will miss the chance to actually make a change that will protect women and children in the future.

    BM

    thanks for sharing your frank views. If not for men like you freely stating thus kind of stuff people could perpetuate the myth that women are equal. You sir and your simplistic and shallow views of this issue are part of the problem and why women and girls will be abused and raped today, tomorrow and the day after.

    I am now repeating myself so my contribution is at an end on this. So I leave you with this repeated comment to indicate that the hand wringing, blaming race and alcohol and the development of agriculture will not help todays victims one iota.

    I was sexually abused at age 11 by a stone cold sober 60 year old white man from the middle class.

    • Bill 17.1
      6 November 2013 at 10:53 am

      Since rape is about power, and since alcohol or other drugs can establish a state of mind or a situation where power can be exercised…then it can be seen as a not inconsequential sidebar to the intended focus of the post. Maybe pornography and the way it routinely portrays women and sex, violence and denigration could be put up there alongside alcohol as a contributory factor. And if past actions of society are anything to go by, then a clampdown on alcohol or pornography might be expected.

      And such a clampdown would entirely miss the point and the basis of the problem. (From reading the ‘Stop Demand’ link from Jenny Kirk’s comment at 8 – there seems to be an appetite among some for doing the ‘morally correct’ thing and encouraging that moral correctness in others.)

      Agriculture or any other historical starting point for the emergence of patriarchy is somewhat academic, but not totally irrelevant if the next steps are recognition of what patriarchy is and how we manifest it or perpetuate it as individuals – what Weka has referred to as de-colonisation and what I’d refer to as a process of de-conditioning.

      People seeking validation via engagement in activities or habits that are ultimately detrimental isn’t new. The question I ask is what general processes might have led to feelings of personal inadequacy and why certain cultural expectations or behaviours and norms are elevated above others. And that often eventually comes back to patriarchy and the systems and/or institutions built on its unquestioned assumptions.

      Yes, the jokes demonstrate a part of the process of dehumanising inherent to all systems of power.

      And you are ‘just’ one among millions upon millions of people who have been sexually abused. And we should add the millions upon millions who are routinely and legitimately non-sexually abused every day of their lives. And in the end, all the millions upon millions add up to include (I’d reasonably guess) anyone and everyone reading this blog.

      Way I see it is that we need freedom from this cultural lock-down that delivers enormous privilege, power and license to a few and various levels of constraint, abuse and damage to everyone else. Fool that I am, I want freedom from the grotesque twists and bends forced on human behaviour by the patriarchal values that we internalise and that underpin the multiple systems of governance we have and the institutions we form.

      And that’s why I normally keep out of these types of discussions – because they quickly and easily mushroom into this enormous issue of what we think we are and can be – and the question of what has determined why we think and behave as we do. And part of that mushrooming is a million and one side-tracks that, although a legitimate part of the overall picture, wind up suggesting so-called solutions that end inquisitiveness (such as more alcohol legislation or harsher criminal penalties or whatever) And that, to my mind, is how people with their heart in the right place unwittingly wind up insisting that we carry on labouring beneath the same overarching patriarchal bullshit as before.

  18. Tracey 18
    6 November 2013 at 5:49 am

    Amen Rhinocrates

  19. vto 19
    6 November 2013 at 6:48 am

    One particularity which seems conundrumical…

    A woman wears a short skirt and men have certain thoughts about the legs and her physical attractiveness and sex. Is this somewhat inherent and natural for the man to think this way? Or not?

    Depending on the answer to that, what is the man to infer about the woman’s intentions in wearing said skirt, if she is aware of the man’s resultant thoughts?

    This is such a bloody age old question which would not appear to have a definitive answer, and it goes to the heart of the issue does it not?

  20. Tracey 20
    6 November 2013 at 8:16 am

    It does have a definitive answer. He learns self control and respect and to understand that his penis twitching does not give him license to do what he likes. You realise you are essentially advancing the islamic reasoning for burkas and women clad in black cloaks.

    the fact that you bring it up shows that deep down you think women have responsibilty to not make a penis twitch unless they want sex). But if a mans penis twitches his lack of control is bewildering. That is insulting to all men who can look and not touch.

    The question is actually why do some men, a small number consider it an unconditional green flag.

    overall it is a red herring. Most rape and sexual assault is in a home with normal day or nightware on.

    these boys behaved this way because their attitudes and behaviours prior went unchecked. Boys will be boys excused behaviours that came before this and the environment they were raised in. There will be a form of peer pressure here. Some will be more involved than others… pack behaviour…

    it will only need 1 parent to make their child face the consequences. .. others will have focused on getting legal advice.

    • vto 20.1
      6 November 2013 at 8:45 am

      Thanks for the reply Tracey but you have made some assumptions there on my own situation which I tried to leave out, and also not really answered the question… You have more answered the follow-on questions which had not been raised.

      If I might repeat …. “A woman wears a short skirt and men have certain thoughts about the legs and her physical attractiveness and sex. Is this somewhat inherent and natural for the man to think this way? Or not?”

      This I think is one of the first questions that needs to be considered before moving onto second and third round issues.

      (not trying to avoid or divert from the very real issues in this, just trying to evaluate in some order)

      • Chooky 20.1.1
        6 November 2013 at 11:00 am

        @ vto ….i dont know where you are coming from…but in NZ a young teenager ( and an older woman) wearing a short skirt is not a ‘come on’…the dialogue goes something like this;

        ….”Dont I look great!”….”Dont I look cool?”…. (in this fashion outfit?)….”I just love my freedom!”….” I just love my looks!”…..”I am a sun seeker”….”Havent I got great legs?” …( even if I havent)….”Doesn’t my fake tan look fantastic?”…”Wow this is going to impress my girlfriends” …. “I look like I come out of the magazines!” ……yah de yah

        For a NZ guy wearing shorts… the dialogue goes something like this:

        “Dont I look great!”….”Dont I look cool?”….”I just love my freedom!”….”I just love my looks!” ( even if I am as ugly as sin)…”I am a sun seeker”….”To hell with Wellington weather I will wear what I feel comfortable in”…..”Havent I got great sexy manly legs?” …( even if I havent) ….”Dont I look like a farmer outdoors type?”….( even although I work in an office)….”Fuck the fashion suit and shirt and tie….I am a real man!”….yah de yah

        Conclusion: in NZ… which is a Maori /Pakeha culture of outdoors sun lovers and egalitarian male/female mateship ….exposure of ones legs is NOT a ‘come on’ or an invitation to rape!!!!

        (Heaven help us if some newcomers would like to put us all into the coverup chador or patriarchal religious clothing in order to help prevent their minds wandering….towards sin)

  21. Tracey 21
    6 November 2013 at 8:51 am

    If you are a man answer it yourself to kick it off. I am not a man. My response remains pertinent because I disagree with your framing of the issue

    The question is actually why do some men, a small number consider it an unconditional green flag.

    • vto 21.1
      6 November 2013 at 9:07 am

      Well, as I said I think the question you put there is not placed in the right place. Or rather, the placing of that question doesn’t help to improve things if it ignores more fundamental matters…

      … which is what I am getting at. If the answer to my question is yes, men do naturally think legs, physically attractive, and sex, then the entire issue changes a bit doesn’t it? If it is a natural response and that natural response leads to danger and harm to women then the way to deal with it must take that into account. Most of the suggestions in the posts above and in your reply do not take this into account and that is a major flaw.

      But getting back to my point – if it is a natural thought process for men, and women understand that this is so, then what is to be inferred by men from women wearing short skirts?

      (note that this is just one small part of the issue and not intended to be an all-encompassing point)

      • felix 21.1.1
        6 November 2013 at 9:27 am

        ” If the answer to my question is yes, men do naturally think legs, physically attractive, and sex, then the entire issue changes a bit doesn’t it?”

        Not at all. Unless you think being attracted to someone means you’re supposed to rape them.

        • vto 21.1.1.1
          6 November 2013 at 9:37 am

          No no not like that…. It changes in the way the problem should be addressed.

          It is no good simply crying “stop it” if it is partly a natural instinctual thing, because that will simply not work, no matter the rights and wrongs. Other means must be brought to bear to control the danger I would have thought.

          And also as to my main original point, “if it is a natural thought process for men, and women understand that this is so, then what is to be inferred by men from women wearing short skirts?”

          • felix 21.1.1.1.1
            6 November 2013 at 9:40 am

            If what is a natural thought process? Feeling attraction? Or feeling rapey?

            • vto 21.1.1.1.1.1
              6 November 2013 at 9:42 am

              what was posted above

              • felix …
                6 November 2013 at 9:47 am

                You need to define “it”.

                Are you talking about sexual attraction or rape?

                • vto …
                  6 November 2013 at 9:53 am

                  I have above. Legs, physical attraction and sex.

                  • felix …
                    6 November 2013 at 9:55 am

                    But you also said “no good simply crying “stop it” if it is partly a natural instinctual thing”

                    I don’t think anyone is crying “stop sexual attraction” are they?

                    • vto …
                      6 November 2013 at 10:06 am

                      Yes I did and that leads to the tie-up between sex and rape. Having no experience on one of those matters I struggle at this point, but it is drifting away from my original point…

                      ” if it is a natural thought process for men, and women understand that this is so, then what is to be inferred by men from women wearing short skirts?”

                      that they want their legs to be seen?
                      that they want to be physically attractive?
                      that they want men to think sex?

                      … and where does that then lead?

                    • felix …
                      6 November 2013 at 10:07 am

                      Rape, obviously 🙄

                    • marty mars …
                      6 November 2013 at 10:13 am

                      vto I think you should check out joes link at 12 it covers what you are trying to get your head around.

                    • vto …
                      6 November 2013 at 10:17 am

                      sheesh felix…. (rolly eyes)… talk about the mother of all assumptions

                    • miravox …
                      6 November 2013 at 10:50 am

                      “what is to be inferred by men from women wearing short skirts”

                      She likes her outfit so thought she’d wear it.

                      End of.

                    • weka …
                      6 November 2013 at 11:04 am

                      vto,

                      “A woman wears a short skirt and men have certain thoughts about the legs and her physical attractiveness and sex. Is this somewhat inherent and natural for the man to think this way? Or not?”

                      Yes, for some men that is natural (in the sense of it happens without intention).

                      It’s your following statement that is problematic, but it’s useful because it does demonstrate the social problem men have with sexuality.

                      “Depending on the answer to that, what is the man to infer about the woman’s intentions in wearing said skirt, if she is aware of the man’s resultant thoughts? ”

                      The only thing that can be inferred from that is that she intended to put on a short skirt when she got dressed. Honestly vto, there is absolutely NOTHING else that can be inferred. NOTHING.

                      The best way to know if a woman wants to have sex with you is to ask. If you can’t do that, then the whole flirting thing works for some people, but it also doesn’t work for a whole bunch of others so it’s a risk. Most people manage that fine, and the worst thing is some social awkwardness. But some men go way beyond that, and they are the men that think similarly to what you are saying: that a woman wearing a short skirt makes me feel sexual therefore she is somehow responsible for helping me deal with these feelings and/or she smiled at me so she must want to have sex.

                      You seem to be inferring that when a woman wears a short skirt she is indicating that she wants to have sex*. But you have no way of knowing that, and neither does any other man. And even if that is the reason she is wearing a short skirt, you have absolutely no idea who she wants to have sex with. There is nothing to infer.

                      *I know this is hard for some men to understand, but sometimes women wear short skirts because it makes them feel good. Or a myriad of other reasons (It was the only clean thing this morning. I have to climb up and down those stairs and it’s easier in this skirt. It was a birthday present and I want the giver to be acknowledged etc etc).

                    • Bill …
                      6 November 2013 at 11:12 am

                      Or the enormous pressure applied by advertising, the fashion industry, peers and so on leads to the formation of a self image and what clothes to wear that just *happens* to pander to heterosexual men’s sexual jollies…which themselves are guided and informed by the same types of bullshit institutions and peer pressures. It’s a fcking mess.

                      Mind you, I guess women can walk down a street blithely flashing their ankles these days. Progress.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      6 November 2013 at 11:14 am

                      oh, I don’t know, a nicely turned ankle in pumps, and I’m in like a robbers dog.

                    • weka …
                      6 November 2013 at 11:19 am

                      It is a fucking mess, but you know what, it’s a slippery slope to talk about women dressing like that in the context of rape. Because women should be able to dress overtly sexually without being at risk of rape. And women should be able to be unconscious in a bedroom at a party or the back of a car without being at the risk of rape. The problem really isn’t that women are socialised in certain dress codes, it’s that men are socialised into think that makes them available.

                    • Bill …
                      6 November 2013 at 11:41 am

                      I agree that women should be able to wear anything at all or nothing at all and not be raped. That’s a no-brainer. And I’m aware there is a shitload of really fcked up, sometimes subtle, and always powerful conditioning swilling around. None of which excuses rape or sexual predation btw. But I think the presence of the conditioning and its effects need to be acknowledged and recognised…y’know, it’s really fcking us up (both men and women). Anyway, maybe then, we can deal to it. End it.

            • Chooky 21.1.1.1.1.2
              6 November 2013 at 11:09 am

              lol Felix

              …”If what is a natural thought process? Feeling attraction? Or feeling rapey?”

              • greywarbler …
                6 November 2013 at 11:34 am

                weka
                Such a lot of should’s. Women should be able to go out side in Pakistan and not fear being shot at by drones. Women should be able to attend their cabbage patches in North China without being stung into paralysis by hornet wasps. Women shouldn’t have men in Uganda taking away their daughters to be bush wives. Their sons or daughters shouldn’t be ordered to shoot someone from the family to show their obedience or the whole family will be shot.

                There are decisions to be made all the time that affect people. There are forces of nature, and there is a force running through men and through women. It has to be kept under control as unleashed it becomes troublesome.

                Women have to leash their ideas, cut their cloth according to the conditions etc. If they are interested in having sex if there is someone nice around, carry some condoms, do women use caps? Then don’t get sloshed, you won’t enjoy it, you won’t even be there. And you’ll be sorry afterwards, you’ll be sad because things didn’t work out as they did in that film, book, your mind. So don’t act like a child with a hovering care-angel. Don’t act like a foolish female in a romance magazine who has a secret admirer whose love is true, he’s not a rotten stalker or rapist, and he just loves her from afar and when she is in danger he will step up and defend her and carry her away to safety.

                Grow up you women. If you’re so smart, learn how to handle yourself, learn how the world works, get your navigation certificate for society, or stay home and listen to music and do your embroidery until you are ready and able to read the signs.

                • weka …
                  6 November 2013 at 11:47 am

                  Wow, glad we got that out in the open.

                  You think that rape is natural and has to be controlled. And that women should take steps to alter their lives so that men don’t lose control. I’m sure all the elderly women that have been raped in their homes by men who don’t live with them will be very happy to hear that. Do enlighten us how exactly those women should have ‘handled’ themselves better.

                  I’d also like to know how a 13 year old who dresses modestly but is being raped by her older brother for several years should handle herself better.

                  Or a woman who is routinely raped by her husband and can’t leave because she has no money and he is threatening to kill her and the kids and she is in a constant state of trauma. How should she be handling herself to stop him being a rapist?

                  All those women know how to stay home and embroider.

                • miravox …
                  6 November 2013 at 11:57 am

                  ” or stay home and listen to music and do your embroidery until you are ready and able to read the signs.”

                  That’s really offensive, warbler.

                  You heard the one about the woman who was raped because she was at home cleaning her windows, right? It was her fault that she stood up there showing of her legs while some guy was outside her house. If she hadn’t cleaned her windows, he wouldn’t have been a rapist.

                  You heard the other one about the lady asleep in her bed, and some guy came in and raped her? It was her fault for being in the bed, obviously (I learned about sort of keep out of their way as a 15 year-old – at a friend’s place when someone came into the bedroom…).

                  You also heard the one about a 13 year-old that was chatted up by these two handsome young dudes, they stupefied her with alcohol and had a threesome with her… obviously her fault – at thirteen she should have been able to read the signals. Obviously got a bit of a learning experience when she and everyone she knew found it on Facebook

                  And then there was the one about the eight year old… (and I know about that one too)

                  It’s not about what women and girls do, it’s about the power to do something to them.

                • karol …
                  6 November 2013 at 12:00 pm

                  Grow up you women. If you’re so smart, learn how to handle yourself, learn how the world works, get your navigation certificate for society, or stay home and listen to music and do your embroidery until you are ready and able to read the signs.

                  FFS, greywarbler, I’ve been hearing/seeing such BS for decades now. How long do we have to go on hearing and responding to such nonsense!?

                  Your idea of growing up seems to be for women to submit themselves to patriarchal dogma.

                  I’ve been around long enough to see something of how the world works – and some of it ain’t so great for women.

                  FYI, I had a flatmate in England, a lesbian, not the least interested in men – was tall and athletic and pretty much fully covered. Walking down a street in the twilight – not dark. Was hit from behind with a block of wood or something, dragged into a front yard and raped!

                  Plenty of women are raped in their own homes – probably embroidering or listening to music.

                  Maybe it’s you that needs to get out and see what is really happening in the world.

                  • fender …
                    6 November 2013 at 12:16 pm

                    +1 Karol, Miravox, Weka

                    Greywarbler, you seem to have lost the plot. Even if a woman walks the streets naked it doesn’t mean she wants to be raped, nor does it mean she was in too much of a hurry to replenish her embroidery supplies to put clothes on.

                    • weka …
                      6 November 2013 at 2:50 pm

                      I think that Grey’s point isn’t that women want to be raped, but that they share responsibility for their rape if they do certain things like be drunk around me, or wear short skirts. Which is akin to saying that someone who was burgled shouldn’t have had that nice flat screen TV in their living room.

                      I suspect that what is really behind Grey’s ideas is morality. They don’t like young women getting drunk or being sexual, thus lack of morals means one is responsible for one’s rape too.

                    • greywarbler …
                      6 November 2013 at 3:42 pm

                      fender

                      Even if a woman walks the streets naked it doesn’t mean she wants to be raped
                      Grow up fender. Your erotic thoughts are becoming fevered and overcoming any attempt at sensible arguments. I don’t know what you are on about and find that the illogicality and raw emotionalism that gets spouted distasteful.

                      It is not a cultural norm to go round naked, men or women. Women are more vulnerable than men. If women deliberately and provocatively decided to go naked to prove a point, they might be lucky and only meet men who can accept the right of a woman to test the respect for females and the naked symbolism of freedom of the individual, men or women. Then to other men it would be a lewd invitation.

                      I would advise such a female Joan of Arc to become a naturist. Join a naturist reserve and that’s a place where people have made an agreement to be naked and understand and follow rules of respect about it.

                      and weka
                      Rape is just one way people can be attacked. We know it happens sometimes. Therefore it isn’t sensible to put oneself in the way of it happening. Not if one is an adult. I think there are a small vehement group of eternal female children who will never take responsibility for themselves. They are similar to puritans and rigid religious about their beliefs.

                      I just have to remember as I go through society that there are people who are unable to think a problem through logically, and just repeat lines of sanction or slogans repetitively and call that reason. As I do now and will not ever, that’s a promise to myself, ever try to make any rational points about this sacred woman thing again.

                      [Bill]: If I thought your comments stemmed from some awareness and were intended as parody, I’d think it quite smart – even humorous. The fact that you are in fact serious is…sad. You’re comments are being left, merely as an illustration of some of what is wrong with some men.

                    • karol …
                      6 November 2013 at 3:51 pm

                      greywarbler,

                      keep digging… or maybe try to understand what the issues are about rape. People have explained. You just keep on with your hands over your ears.

                      You are being extremely offensive, but nothing seems to get through to you as to why.

                      You being rational? Please? You patronising comments about women needing to grow up are offensive.

                      PS: I imagine I have read far more material based on research about rape than you are aware exists.

                      eg about women’s experience of rape and the impact of victim blaming

                      Or acceptance of rape myths.

                      Maybe you could help yourself by getting informed, rather than just continuing to peddle old myths and claiming you are being grown up and rational?

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      6 November 2013 at 6:46 pm

                      this, has clearly, not gone well for some, although, this particular dive had been forecast.(not benefit of hindsight). 😉

                    • miravox …
                      6 November 2013 at 10:47 pm

                      “I just have to remember as I go through society that there are people who are unable to think a problem through logically”

                      The only excuse I can think of for your illogical piece of bitchiness is that you’ve lived a very sheltered life and you’re totally uninterested in reading or listening to anyone who supports your own view that rape victims are to blame for their own situation, not the rapist. You brush off the fact that people get raped, possibly interrupted from their embroidery, even when they do no fit your stereotype of scantily-clad, attractive, sex objects. Which in itself is quite curious.

                      I doubt your watched or read any single one of the substantive links on this topic that people have posted to try and explain that it doesn’t matter what women do or wear, someone will still be raped..

                      I also think you’ve forgotten that this thread began as a discussion about why some young (and some not so young) men have attitudes that they think it’s fun to get a 13-year-old girl – not a woman… a 13-year-old girl – drunk and rape her.

                    • miravox …
                      6 November 2013 at 10:59 pm

                      Edit: – (it wouldn’t let me)
                      you’re totally uninterested in reading or listening to anyone who doesn’t support your own view that rape victims are to blame for their own situation, not the rapist.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 21.1.1.1.2
            6 November 2013 at 9:51 am

            “Natural instinctual thing”?

            Like defecation, for example? No way to control that, just do it everywhere, eh?

            • vto 21.1.1.1.2.1
              6 November 2013 at 9:55 am

              Great example. Defecation is also natural and is controlled heavily isn’t it. People don’t just go shitting everywhere do they. And neither would crying “stop it” work would it. Thanks for the support.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                6 November 2013 at 10:53 am

                Yes, so blaming women for rape is like blaming underpants for incontinence.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 21.1.2
        6 November 2013 at 9:47 am

        Inferred?

        Mens alleged “inferences” change “the entire issue”?

        How about they infer that women who wear short skirts don’t want to be raped?

        • vto 21.1.2.1
          6 November 2013 at 10:01 am

          Because, as I have said several times now, that ignores what I think is a natural instinct to see legs, physical attractiveness and sex. (I realise of course rape is not about sex as such and is to do with many other factors too, but this comes up in all commentary across all media in discussing this issue).

          This natural instinct cannot be ignored imo, yet it is, in trying to deal with this important issue.

          What would you say to men who think legs, physical attractiveness and sex when they see a woman in a short skirt OAK?

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 21.1.2.1.1
            6 November 2013 at 10:07 am

            I’d say “Isn’t vto making a dick of himself trying to argue that sexual attraction causes rape?”

            • vto 21.1.2.1.1.1
              6 November 2013 at 10:18 am

              for your own credibility OAK you may want to show where I have tried to argue that

              and try answering the question put to you in good faith

            • greywarbler 21.1.2.1.1.2
              6 November 2013 at 10:21 am

              OAK
              But presumably there are a set of received stimuli that result in one woman, or man, being chosen as an object of interest, possibly to rape. I’m sure that sexual attraction would come into it, clothes, shape, appearance , the eyes and mind are observing and even subconsciously taking in. Studies have been done about what men look at when seeing a woman walking towards them. I think they describe it as a triangle sort of target area. I have forgotten the order that the eyes travel around.

              The trick for a woman who wants to make a male friend for romance is to appeal without giving some misleading message that indicates easy sexual availability. There is a difference in the way that men and women dress. Women like to have bare flesh, men usually cover themselves. Isn’t that an indication by women that they want to look more appealing to men, showing off smooth, slim arms and even women with large thighs and legs will wear short skirts because that’s what women are doing in fashion. And why do women follow fashion so closely?

              But it all depends on the sexualisation of the males and whether they see women as pleasant people to be social with or whether they are see women only on a dichotomy of sexually interesting or not. Then they would assess appearance in a different way than a well-balanced, people-friendly male.

              • vto …
                6 November 2013 at 10:32 am

                Thanks greywarbler that is the issue I’m trying to explore.

                The reason for questioning it is that in a huge amount of the commentary on this, especially by the younger, comments like “cock-teaser”, “dressed like she wanted it”, etc etc are rampant.

                It must be explored.

                Though I have no experience in rape from what I can glean it is not always about power, abuse etc, it is often simply about sex (roastbusters example). As such, the sexual signals given and taken must be honestly evaluated if a solution to the problem is to be robust.

                Must away for a few hours now……

                • weka …
                  6 November 2013 at 11:13 am

                  Greywarbler and vto, the problem in this conversation is that the two of you seem to think that rape is about sexual attraction, whereas the rest of us don’t.

                  Sure rapists are attracted to some women and not others, but it’s not the attraction that is the cause of the rape. It’s the shit going on inside the man’s psyche. I think the reasons for rape are complex, but in general it does seem to be an issue of power. That’s why women not conventionally attractive get raped. Or women who are do drunk they are unconscious.

                  The tricky bit here to understand is that some men find degrading women, or having power over them, a sexual turn on. This is nothing to do with what the woman is wearing. It’s to do with the patterning in that man’s brain. The real question isn’t was the woman being a cock-tease, it’s why the man has the response in himself that he has an entitlement to sex with that woman.

                  • Chooky …
                    6 November 2013 at 11:42 am

                    +100 weka

                    the epidemic of gang rape in India is a case in point ….being well covered up does not protect you!….what about old women raped in their beds!….what about young girls and women raped in war?

                    …. rape is not about BLAMING the VICTIMS…. women and girls for not covering up!..

                    ….rape is about sick psyches of some males imbued with patriarchal religious attitudes, which regard women as inferior and as objects for their use and subordination and humiliation!

                    … rape is not about love or respect…

                    …rape is an act of war perpetrated on women…..

                    ….rape is a power trip …pure and simple!

                    • marty mars …
                      6 November 2013 at 12:24 pm

                      +1 yes I agree with weka and Chooky.

                      vto says, “Though I have no experience in rape from what I can glean it is not always about power, abuse etc, it is often simply about sex (roastbusters example).”

                      imo rape is never simply about sex and the example you use proves it. Sex is not stupefying a woman or girl and then proceeding to pack rape her. As Chooky says it is an act of aggression and power over others and it is unacceptable.

                    • Rhinocrates …
                      6 November 2013 at 4:08 pm

                      +2

                      Rape is all for the purpose of power and humiliation and is not about men being unable to control their impulse to lift short skirts in public places.

                      As for Grey Warbler’s comments about staying home and doing embroidery and then his following pseudo-sociological ramblings… Jesus Christ, words fail me and I have a PhD in English! I simply cannot articulate what I feel about that nonsense.

                      GW – a word of advice: listen to what women say, don’t construct silly self-gratifying theories about how they “should” behave. LISTEN Learn about how women really are and stop ranting about what you think they should be.

                    • karol …
                      6 November 2013 at 4:14 pm

                      Well said, Rhinocrates.

                      And this is worth a read: An open letter to Willie Jackson & John Tamihere from Marama Davidson

                      And Marama has tweeted suggesting people read the comment from Kim Marshall, a survivor, under her blog.

                    • Rhinocrates …
                      6 November 2013 at 4:47 pm

                      Hi Karol, that is an excellent link. If anyone else hasn’t read it, read it now.

                      No crime is defined by the perpetrator or their sympathisers or apologists; a crime is defined by its victim.

                      Following another rape case a while back, I saw a lot of “white knighting” on a supposedly “liberal” site. There was lots of hand-wringing about how awful the crime was, with warnings to women to stay close to “good” men. Unfortunately, the white knight is part of rape culture – he’s the “good man” who implicitly warns a woman to stay close by him lest a worse man rape her, but won’t do anything to stop rapes happening or being acceptable but… you know… unfortunate… and really her fault for being foolish.

                      Being a man, I don’t feel any “solidarity” to the arbitrarily defined and abstract collective of “men” if someone defends rape by minimising or quibbling and sophistry. It is my duty to condemn that excuse-making. The “Roast Busters”, “JT” and Jackson et al are not part of the group that I want to be a member of. I am biologically and socially a man, but being a man does not mean being like them.

                      There are no mitigating factors, no misfortune, no accidents, no provocations, no uncontrollable impulses – because they’re all excuses and those who bring them up are trying to pre-emptively or retrospectively excuse themselves.

                      I know that someone is going to think that I’m a “traitor to my sex” for saying that or at least that I’m “not on the team.”

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      6 November 2013 at 6:49 pm

                      no apologies necessary Rhinocrates

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                6 November 2013 at 10:49 am

                …presumably there are a set of received stimuli that result in one woman, or man, being chosen as an object of interest, possibly to rape.

                Yes, I’m sure there are. The minimising of offences by media employees and the Prime Minister, for example. Or the way the police treat complainants. Or the way the courts treat complainants. The transparent denial of all of the above by people who argue that she shouldn’t have been drunk in possession of clothing, or gender for that matter. Or sober. Or looking too miserable. Or too happy.

                Or any other number of victim-blaming craven cowardly excuses pretending to be arguments.

                • Rogue Trooper …
                  6 November 2013 at 11:09 am

                  well-argued 😉 (just going out on a limb).

                • Rhinocrates …
                  6 November 2013 at 4:11 pm

                  …presumably there are a set of received stimuli that result in one woman, or man, being chosen as an object of interest, possibly to rape.

                  Look at that objectifying, dehumanising language.

                  “received stimuli” “object” “possibly”

                  There’s psychological evasion in plain view.

              • Chooky …
                6 November 2013 at 11:19 am

                Jesus Christ greywarbler ! …where are you coming from?

                ….bullshit…men usually cover themselves!!!!…most are really keen to get their gear off

                bullshit , bullshit….you seem to think women exist simply to attract men….get real!

                …women like to look good because women like to look beautiful…..fullstop…women are beautiful!…as are some men…they like their bodies….especially Europeans

                ….the egotism of some men that women exist for them really disturbs me

              • Chris …
                6 November 2013 at 1:26 pm

                “But presumably there are a set of received stimuli that result in one woman, or man, being chosen as an object of interest, possibly to rape. I’m sure that sexual attraction would come into it, clothes, shape, appearance , the eyes and mind are observing and even subconsciously taking in.”…

                you are kidding aint ya Grey???

                Rape has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how sexually attractive a victim may be.

                70 and 80 year old grannies aren’t wearing skimpy clothes with heaps of makeup on and drinking alcopops just before they get into their beds for the night.

                Rape is about violence, it’s about control, it’s about humiliation. Sex is just the means to achieve the violence and control and ultimate humiliation of the rapists prey.

      • vto 21.1.3
        6 November 2013 at 5:38 pm

        Genuinely appreciate all comments above and unfortunately have no time to respond. Have had a great day in the Chch rebuild so we heading out for easements……

        chedda

        • idlegus 21.1.3.1
          6 November 2013 at 6:36 pm

          infact one of the boys themselves wrote ‘its not the sex, its the roasting’.

          • Rogue Trooper 21.1.3.1.1
            6 November 2013 at 6:52 pm

            that’s “spit-roasting” idlegus (visualize the thirteen year-old rotating between…Gottit?)

            • idlegus 21.1.3.1.1.1
              6 November 2013 at 11:08 pm

              yes, i did know that, i do wonder if the media do with their repeating of the term. one of the fb sites had a ghastly comic image of a woman being literally ‘spit roasted’. piece of meat, indeed. but i don’t think the boy cared about the ‘spit roasting’ but maybe ‘roasting’ is more about the humiliation afterwards, the bragging, the online bragging. imo. i just thought that comment could be read as ‘its not the sex, its the raping’, dig?

              • weka …
                6 November 2013 at 11:19 pm

                Except they’re probably incapable of distinguishing between sex and rape.

                • idlegus …
                  6 November 2013 at 11:29 pm

                  read their askme profiles, they answer everything there…theres alot there the media havnt reported, including the bit brett dale mentioned the other day, charging $20 for guys to go ‘spit roasting’ with them…but of course you are right, but i doubt its that black & white too. fuk knows what goes thru these boys heads, & those girls supporting the boys!!!! ffs, in years to come im sure those girls will be very embarrassed (the supporters “is just a teen thing” – do they not know we were all teens once too?). but lots of discussion on the interwebs, & thats a good thing.

              • Rogue Trooper …
                6 November 2013 at 11:30 pm

                dig

      • Murray Olsen 21.1.4
        6 November 2013 at 8:07 pm

        If you see a painting you like, are you filled with a desire to steal it? I’m not, just as I can enjoy the beauty of a man, woman, or child without wanting to have sex with them. Like John Banks, I am a married man. Even if I don’t find a particular person beautiful, they still have the right to wear what they like and be safe. Having shapely legs does not take this right off them.

  22. JK 22
    6 November 2013 at 9:02 am

    vto repeats …. “A woman wears a short skirt and men have certain thoughts about the legs and her physical attractiveness and sex. Is this somewhat inherent and natural for the man to think this way? Or not?”

    Of course its natural for both sexes to look at the attractiveness of the other (whatever they’re wearing) and consider sex …. but that initial assessment – if I could call it that – should not lead to sex between the two if one of the couple (a) don’t know its happening and (b) has not consented and (c) is too young anyway.

    What these young men are doing is vile, and it shows their attitude and those of the older people around them, is total contempt for women. They are using young women like playthings – to be tossed away when playtime is over.

    • Rhinocrates 22.1
      6 November 2013 at 6:56 pm

      I used to teach life drawing* – something art school bean counters now think is redundant because CGI is king now (despite the fact that the best CGI artists said that what they knew about bodies made them good at CGI). I appreciate great legs, breasts, ankles, elbows, hands, bellies and toes on fat or thin men and women all because they’re complex landscapes of skin over flesh. If a fat or thin person looks “ugly”, it’s because of bad lighting.

      (I’d use more technical terms like “gluteus maximus” instead of “butt cheek” and “popliteal fascisa” for the region at the back of the knee and “philtrum” for the dimple between the nose and upper lip, but that would be too obscure.)

      You can look at any body and love it and the person that they are. I saw my models as professionals and treated them as such. You can look at a body, admire the person and not need to rape them. There are NO uncontrollable impulses and therefore no excuses. In short, if any talk by a man about how they saw a leg or boob and couldn’t control themselves is bullshit.

      *My employer at the time is a prominent feminist artist, and while now retired as a teacher, is still active as an artist and remains a close friend and my partner of the time also continues to teach the same subject.

      • Rogue Trooper 22.1.1
        6 November 2013 at 7:03 pm

        Rhinocrates :and you a Ph.D in English you say, along with a foreground in Architecture?

        • Rhinocrates 22.1.1.1
          6 November 2013 at 7:33 pm

          Yeah, I’m rather eclectic. Early degree in industrial design, the next in architecture and the last in english and teaching in all… I write a bit and I’m proud that my students get awards, but I’m not rich myself.

          • Rogue Trooper 22.1.1.1.1
            6 November 2013 at 7:49 pm

            published? genre? Here appears an eclectic chap.

            • Rhinocrates 22.1.1.1.1.1
              6 November 2013 at 7:55 pm

              Yes, some critical academic stuff and SF/horror in digital and hard copy. Novel with splendid illustrations later this year. Sorry, can’t say any more since that would reveal who I am :). Google “Night Land” and that may help.

  23. Treetop 23
    6 November 2013 at 9:32 am

    “I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.”
    Socrates

    “Character is made by what you stand for; reputation by what you fall for.”
    Robert Quillen

  24. Tracey 24
    6 November 2013 at 10:46 am

    To make it clearer for vto

    do you see legs short skirts and think sex?

    If yes, why dont you try and rape her because most men wouldnt.

    if no, then what is your point.

    I dobt consider I started at the wrong place. I took your propsed assumptions and commented.

    i get that you are trying to nut this out albeit clumsily but I did address your starting point with an answer to your question. Namely yes and then I moved to step two.

    Please explain how step 2 looks if the answer to your question is no.

  25. Rogue Trooper 25
    6 November 2013 at 10:50 am

    reflection, in eyes the size of Windmills

  26. weka 26
    6 November 2013 at 11:04 am

    Tracey, I assume you are posting from a phone. Can you please refer back to the comment you are replying to? It’s hard to follow the conversation otherwise.

  27. Mjoy 27
    6 November 2013 at 11:17 am

    These boys weren’t born with these attitudes. These attitudes have come from our society where pornography has been normalised, morality has been undermined and we have to have alcohol with everything. These kids have too much money and a sense of entitlement. I’d go on but I’m starting to sound like my father (b1918), he was right after all.

    • Bill 27.1
      6 November 2013 at 11:23 am

      Yes. But pornography is only a part of the problem. And alcohol is only a part of the problem. The root cause lies much deeper. And to just focus on pornography or alcohol and imagine that some action on those things could render a solution would be to miss or ignore the heart of the matter and so fail to solve anything.

  28. captain hook 28
    6 November 2013 at 12:05 pm

    nearly didin’t get to comment here as the thread triggered the default at the APN network server.
    anyway the thing is that New Zealand society has gone down the gurgelr with all the fat lazy schoolteachers promoting the post modern line that only your own truths count and squeamish liberals getting rid of any form of coroporal punishment.
    the little b*ggers might get traumatised for life.
    yeah right.
    Now we are reaping what we have sowed.

  29. karol 29
    6 November 2013 at 12:32 pm

    A Guardian article on the issue/Roast Busters.

    Focuses a lot on FB & the Internet, plus:

    If groups like the Roast Busters, the inaction of the police and late breaking by the media can tell us anything, it’s that our communities need to be better equipped to identify and call out reprehensible sexual behaviour. And that doesn’t come from better cyber-bullying legislation and scare-mongering young girls, it comes from better resourcing the sector who provide education, support and confidence to young people and their families. If the police are going to blame a lack of people coming forward for their inaction, we need to confront this behaviour as a community, and be better equipped to do that.

    Sounds good. But how would that work in practice?

    • Rogue Trooper 29.1
      6 November 2013 at 12:51 pm

      addressing karol and Bill primarily, Campbell Live interviewed some folk out West Auckland way on their opinions and universally those asked were outraged and disgusted.
      However, and this is observation is coated in confirmation, female teen-peers of these offenders were interviewed on ONE news and one young woman stated (after lauding the offenders in general) “Anarchy , and drunken group sex is now the norm” . Now, while the sample may be small, clearly these actions are emerging norms (trends).

      ps, anyone note the pairing of two Law and Order articles on One News; one about the 130 weapons “stolen” and filtering down to meth-heads, the following about the introduction of much stronger pepper-spray for NZPolice.

      Cloth for ears and buttons for eyes. Squeak!

      • Bill 29.1.1
        6 November 2013 at 1:24 pm

        If people want to get drunk and engage in group sex, then that’s entirely up to them. But if people ply others with drink to make them engage in group sex, then that’s an entirely different matter. And since I haven’t seen the Campbell interview, I can’t comment on which scenario the teens were referring to.

        As MeToo has commented, there’s nothing new in men consciously and deliberately setting out to inebriate women so they can ‘get a leg over’. All that’s new is that fb and whatever provides a platform for them to boast about their predation to all and sundry…which is maybe a way they delude themselves and provide a measure of self- justification (I put it out there and got x number of ‘likes’, therefore nothing’s wrong)

        Anyway – all this flaff about the ‘Harmful Digital Communications Bill’ – (somebody really didn’t think that title through, did they?) – is just that – flaff.

        And any moral outrage about people freely participating in group sex or in any other sexual behaviour is also flaff.

        If peer pressure has been a factor in convincing some girls that it’s ‘cool’ – and if getting pissed beforehand is an accepted part of ‘the coolness’ – then that’s no more right than straight out male predation, but a far trickier and more convoluted situation.

        • Rogue Trooper 29.1.1.1
          6 November 2013 at 1:57 pm

          yes, rather a humorous title for a Bill ;), does appear to be a convolution (confounding) to be teased out.
          Yes, it’s not the medium alone implicated in this, furthermore the medium may have contributed to a new national awareness; Nek Minnit…

        • karol 29.1.1.2
          6 November 2013 at 2:47 pm

          If peer pressure has been a factor in convincing some girls that it’s ‘cool’ – and if getting pissed beforehand is an accepted part of ‘the coolness’ – then that’s no more right than straight out male predation, but a far trickier and more convoluted situation.

          It puts me in mind of the 60s and 70s. Basically the whole “permissive society” thing promoted “free love”, multiple partners, group sex, serial monogamy, etc. Eventually some women decided that this worked more in the interests of men; that many women had gone along with it because it was deemed “cool”, “revolutionary” etc, then found for them it just was serving male interests and not their’s. It was OK for some women, but for many, it just created problems – read some stuff by/about Tim Shadbolt’s ex wife for instance.

          It just seems each new generation has to find out these things fro themselves – and very little changes in the basic structure.

          • Bill 29.1.1.2.1
            6 November 2013 at 3:20 pm

            Yup. The whole reaction against the ‘nuclear family’ that just happened to not recognise the impact of patriarchal norms within the social dynamics of the reaction that was being acted out has always kinda bemused me.

            And yes, little if anything changes through the generations because no matter what course we embark on refusing to recognise patriarchy is a bit like slamming our madnesses in a jar – it follows us, subtly impacts everything and becomes fully reformed in a novel form by and by.

      • Chooky 29.1.2
        6 November 2013 at 1:30 pm

        …most serious Anarchists are ethical people and would not dream of rape

        …most rapists come out of a patriarchal value system which denigrates the female and want to keep women under their fascist control

        • Bill 29.1.2.1
          6 November 2013 at 1:48 pm

          Cheers Chooky. Forgot to comment on the stupid mis-potrayal of anarchy.

          Would definitely have been more accurate for the quoted person to have said “Patriarchy and drunken group sex is now the norm”…except, that for some odd reason ‘patriarchy’, unlike ‘anarchy’, isn’t a term loaded up with a lot of negative connotations – wonder why? ~ sarc~

    • Bill 29.2
      6 November 2013 at 1:29 pm

      Love the recurring meme when stuff like this comes up of how ‘we need to confront this behaviour as a community‘ as though we have community – as if our communities hadn’t been ripped asunder years and years ago.

      • Anne 29.2.1
        6 November 2013 at 7:51 pm

        ‘we need to confront this behaviour as a community‘

        The moment I hear that expression – be it radio or television – the “off” button is deployed because I know that what follows is not going to be worth listening to. Total cop-out, and the cops are sometimes the culprits.

  30. Tracey 30
    6 November 2013 at 1:14 pm

    Sorry weka but its hard to identify the particular post.

    if anyone doubts where this shit starts listen to a former labour party mp interviewing an 18 year old girl on this. Keep in mind said ex mp believed he was being “sensitive”

    • weka 30.1
      6 November 2013 at 2:38 pm

      Tracey, I didn’t mean a particular post, just that when you comment can you please refer back to who you are replying to, either by post number or time or something. Otherwise when I come along later it’s too hard to know which comment you are replying to.

  31. Tracey 31
    6 November 2013 at 1:35 pm

    Captain hooks ladt comment above is possibly the most stupid I have encountered on this topic including BM… grumpy and messrs tamihere and jackson.

    • Rhinocrates 31.1
      6 November 2013 at 3:30 pm

      Are you sure it’s stupid? It’s not even coherent. I can’t even extract any point to ridicule. I’m going to assume that it’s Dadaism.

      … er, come to think of it, no, considering that the imbecile tried to make a rape joke earlier, I think that I will agree. He is both offensive and an idiot.

  33. Tracey 33
    6 November 2013 at 3:05 pm

    Understood weka but mobile does
    nt show time or post number. I will use a wee quote til telecom repairs my severed line

  34. Tracey 34
    6 November 2013 at 3:20 pm

    Great link joe, thanks. Which is why government shld be boosting funding to programmes proven to improving girls self confidence, instead of cutting them.

  35. aerobubble 35
    6 November 2013 at 3:24 pm

    National answer, to addressing a problem in the real world, is to clamp down on the internet. Collins want to shutdown the messager, and push the issue of her internet bill.

    Its quite clear though, that where allegations against minors, of drinking, of under aged sex, are made that parents/guardians are told and held accountable for their own and the conduct of their children. Who supplied the alcohol, where did these incidents happen (there is a video! photos) whose bedroom and which parent was supposed to be minded them. Its just astonishing that this site was up for two years… …I mean a swab of the rooms may show up seman of one of these young men in a girls room.

    How is this about internet speach at all, this is all about the incompetence of the Minister of Justice, childrens parents are not managing their minors and even the Police think nothing of it.

  36. karol 36
    6 November 2013 at 6:14 pm

    It gets worse. 3 News says police received a complaint about the Roast Busters in 2011.

    Inquiry needed now, Judith & Anne (Tolley)

    • Treetop 36.1
      6 November 2013 at 6:25 pm

      I just commented on open mike @ 30.

      Not enough evidence to prosecute:

      How hard did the police try?

    • Bill 36.2
      6 November 2013 at 6:27 pm

      Okay. I’m just taking this at face value. But, y’know, what the fuck!

      They said that I didn’t have enough evidence to show. Because I went out in clothes that was pretty much asking for it. […] I was asked a lot of questions about what I was wearing, and I went out in a skirt.

      Aside form the utterly reprehensible attitude of the police as illustrated via that quote….questions, questions, questions!

      Were the interviewing officers male or female? If they were male…why? And regardless of gender, did they have any training on interviewing victims of sex crimes…and in particular children? Was any trained support person available or were the services of any such person (counseling or/and support) offered?

      • karol 36.2.1
        6 November 2013 at 6:31 pm

        Yes. At the moment we can only take it at face value. But, the police now say there was a complaint. Before they said they couldn’t do anything because no-one had complained.

        It does need an investigation.

        • Bill 36.2.1.1
          6 November 2013 at 6:42 pm

          Sorry. Crossed wires. I meant I was taking the words of the girl at face value with regards the angle of the police questioning.

          On the ‘was there a complaint or wasn’t there’ – it would be interesting to know the difference between a formal complaint and an informal one. I believe the police said previously that no formal complaint had been received.

          Now, apart from whatever technical difference between the two types of complaint, I’m interested to know if the police are in a position to (arbitrarily?) determine the formality or otherwise of complaints made and as to whether they can influence the process of complaining to push it this way or that so that it winds up being either formal or informal.

          • karol 36.2.1.1.1
            6 November 2013 at 6:51 pm

            Yes, I thought that’s what you meant about “face value”. And I was agreeing with you.

            It needs an inquiry as to why the police decided there wasn’t enough evidence to do anything with the complaint, and how thorough their investigation was.

      • Anne 36.2.2
        6 November 2013 at 8:07 pm

        They said that I didn’t have enough evidence to show. Because I went out in clothes that was pretty much asking for it. […] I was asked a lot of questions about what I was wearing, and I went out in a skirt.

        My dolly girl days? Hot-pants, witches britches and mini-skirts. Had two pairs of hps – one lime green and the other vivid orange (oh yuk). My witches britches were bright red edged in black lace. Every movement saw an enticing (I hoped) hint of red and black. My peers were no different. Guess what. None of us were raped. What does that say? Massive culture change and the neo liberal outlook is driving it.

        • karol 36.2.2.1
          6 November 2013 at 8:19 pm

          There are so many reasons why woman dress as they do. I understand it is often to gain the approval of other women. And many women (though not me) strongly follow the current fashions. These days the fashion industry tends to promote provocative dress for women.

          Also, in this thread I have too often seen an assumption of heterosexuality. Comments about men and women naturally being sexually attracted to each other’s bodies.

          In the course of my life I have been many times out socialising with lesbian and bi-sexual women friends in public places: and most would make an effort to dress attractively one way or another. And too many times to count (mostly back in my younger days) some men would assume we were there to get their attention and rudely intrude on our fun – sometimes in unpleasantly harassing ways.

          So many wrong assumptions going on with such guys!

        • Chooky 36.2.2.2
          6 November 2013 at 11:11 pm

          Anne +1…yes those were the days… Twiggy mini skirts, tights, Mary Quant fringes, lots of eyeliner…..witches britches, purple culottes and red woolen hot pants ….and later a red scooter …..which I drove a boyfriend around on…we were cautious with alcohol and we had fun! ( no rapes)

          ….we lived in a society which cared and looked out for us….

          …while I am sure there were rapes and rapists there didnt seem to be too many of them around..it certainly wasn’t an open season on young girls!

        • Huginn 36.2.2.3
          7 November 2013 at 11:24 am

          ‘Guess what. None of us were raped.’

          ffs
          what fucking planet are you on?

          Serial rapists attacked women and children with impunity. It took the police years and years to notice – to stop accusing ‘alleged’ victims of making up stories – and to do some basic police work.

          Children in institutional care were raped as a matter of course by their carers and by other children. Priests and pastors preyed on their congregations – the religious orders are still trying to sort things out.

          Rape within marriage wasn’t even a crime before 1986

          When your peers were raped, they kept it to themselves because they knew they’d be grilled by the police and they’d be accused of lying, they’d be told that they brought it on themselves, and they’d be told that there wasn’t enough evidence.

          If it got to court, they would be asked if they were virgins – their sexual history would be examined and reported in the press.

          I can’t believe that you’ve forgotten what it was like.

          The problem with the culture is that it hasn’t changed

          • Anne 36.2.2.3.1
            7 November 2013 at 11:59 am

            Huggin. You’re mixing up two separate situations. I was talking about the massive cultural change brought about by neoliberalism. And ‘my peers’ were those within my immediate social range.

            Yes, all those things happened in institutions and within marriages and there were many unreported rape cases for the reasons you gave. But not only did we not know about them (it’s all come out since) but in those days the culture of rape was not as extensive and didn’t cover the full spectrum of society in the way it does today.

            • weka 36.2.2.3.1.1
              7 November 2013 at 12:15 pm

              Anne, I’m curious how old you are.

              I do agree that neoliberalism has made things worse. But I don’t agree that the extent of rape was less before that. I think it’s changed.

              I had a friend pack raped at a party while she was very drunk. She was 15, that was in the early 80s. The event was framed at the time by everyone as her being a sexually available young woman so why wouldn’t all those men fuck her. The main thing about the RB case that stands out to me as being different than the past is the enabling aspects of technology and internet culture (those are no insignificant changes).

              “didn’t cover the full spectrum of society in the way it does today.”

              Can you please explain what you mean by that?

              • Anne …
                7 November 2013 at 12:44 pm

                Let me give you an example weka. In the 1960s, a girlfriend and I hitch-hiked around the South Island. We travelled down the west coast of the island to Invercargill, then returned via the east coast. En route we were picked up by mostly young men – a couple of them actually took us to their parents’ home for meals. It was common practise for young girls in their late teens (or older) to hitch-hike in those days, usually in pairs but sometimes on their own. We felt safe and had our parents’ blessing. Could young women do that today? No way.

                The main thing about the RB case that stands out to me as being different than the past is the enabling aspects of technology and internet culture (those are no insignificant changes).

                Yes, I agree there. It’s made it so much easier to indulge in these practises than was the case in my youthful era. You mention the 1980s. That marked the start of the change in the culture and I has some bad experiences of harassment and intimidation (some sexual in nature) during that decade.

                • karol …
                  7 November 2013 at 12:57 pm

                  I hitch hiked with a female friend back in the early 70s in the South island. It wasn’t considered that safe. I recall during one ride my friend & I realsied were were in a car (with a het couple) that was the same model as police were looking for in some rape/murder case. Gave us a bit of a fright.

                  I also hitched around southern Europe with a friend, and the length of England on my own back in the 70s. I was aware that many people saw it as a risky thing today. I and we did have some experiences of sexual harassment on one or two rides that were a bit scary at the time.

                • weka …
                  7 November 2013 at 1:17 pm

                  I hitchhiked alot in the 80s. I don’t think it’s less safe now, so am curious as to why you think it is.

                  I do agree that many of us who are older now felt safer in the past, and that issues around safety have changed alot. But I know women that still hitchhike on their own.

                  I seem to remember there was a high profile case of a woman on the West Coast who are raped and murdered in the 70s? Was she hitchhiking? But women get raped and murdered in their homes so I never saw that as the issue. It’s always been about risk assessment. I live in the rural South Island though, maybe I would feel differently if I lived in a big city?

                  You mention the 1980s. That marked the start of the change in the culture and I has some bad experiences of harassment and intimidation (some sexual in nature) during that decade.

                  But I came of age in the early 80s before neoliberalism had shifted NZ to the right and to greed and selfishness. So I don’t think the sexual violence I saw was part of that. And I had a pretty sheltered upbrining by many standards, there was much worse stuff going on that I was unaware of at the time.

          • Chooky 36.2.2.3.2
            7 November 2013 at 12:57 pm

            @Huginn….I guess we were the lucky ones….and not trying to minimise the vile rapes and abuse of children, young girls and women that was going on then and has been for centuries …… but HIDDEN!…and which has since come out and is continuing to come out

            …You are right to make that point!

            However given the criticism here on this site …..of what young girls wear and the arguments that showing legs invites rape and girls have to be careful what they wear

            …I had to point out that we were pretty free in what we wore some years ago ( I remember teenagers in skimpy bikinis at the swimming pool and beach for example) … and it wasn’t considered a come-on to males or an invitation to rape! ( I would have been horrified at the thought, as would have been my family!)

            …maybe we were innocent …but then again I wasnt that innocent ….I read Germaine Greer when I was still at high school and wished that she was my Mother! ( my poor real Mother!…ha ha) imo…in some ways we were both more innocent and more sophisticated than the present generation…feminism was a force to be reckoned with..we were on a crest of a wave…’Reclaim the Night’ marches etc

            ……one reason why I think we were safer is because there wasnt such a culture of alcohol and socialising at such a very young age…..and we didnt really socialise with the opposite sex until we left high school.

            …also life was simpler without wired social media , porn and music which gives women a poor image….as objects for the taking

            …also society then was more socialist , caring, valuing and supportive … today people are trashed by neoliberalism…collateral damage in the pursuit of materialism and consumerism

            • karol 36.2.2.3.2.1
              7 November 2013 at 1:02 pm

              I don’t know that it was actually that much safer. I recall my mother warning me that you could never trust any men. They could seem sound and then suddenly they could pounce. At the time I kind of laughed privately at what seemed like a bit of an antiquated attitude. But I have come to realise, with experience, that women have always found a need to protect themselves and negotiated dangers for women within a patriarchal society.

              I recall some chants on late 1970s feminist demos in London:

              However we dress, wherever we go, “Yes” means “Yes” and “No” means “No”.

            • Anne 36.2.2.3.2.2
              7 November 2013 at 3:15 pm

              …society then was more socialist , caring, valuing and supportive … today people are trashed by neoliberalism…collateral damage in the pursuit of materialism and consumerism.

              Nail…Head Chooky.

              I’m talking about the 1960s and I think you are too. It was the second decade of the golden era – the 1950/60s. A wonderful time to be growing up. The first signs that things were changing came in the 1970s, and by the 1980s (the start of neoliberalism) it was downhill all the way.

              David Lange recognised it and that is why he paused for his ‘cup of tea’. First he was taken for a ride by the neolibs in the Labour Party, then they pilloried him for trying to halt the process. A very sad time indeed and we are politically and socially still reaping the consequences.

              • weka …
                7 November 2013 at 3:18 pm

                I agree with that 🙂

                And that will have impacted on sexual violence (and sexuality) for sure. I just think we have to be careful not to see high levels of sexual violence in our communities as something that happened since neoliberalism. That you didn’t see sexual violence in the 60s doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.

                • Anne …
                  7 November 2013 at 4:12 pm

                  You’re right weka. It was there but we didn’t see it and we certainly were not aware of the institutional sexual crimes. In some respects those victims (only children too) were the unluckiest of all. They have had to live with the terrible hurt and the associated stigma for decades without any acknowledgement or apologies for what they went through.

                  My original intention was never to cover up those historic crimes but rather to point out that the majority of young people in my youth were not exposed to the same level of rape, and other deviant behaviour, as young people are today. Overall we grew up in a safer society.

                  • Tat Loo (CV) …
                    7 November 2013 at 6:30 pm

                    You have young people grow up in a inhumane society with inhumane guidance, and this is what you get.

                    And the 50’s and 60’s was far more sexist a time with far more restrictive societal expectations affecting both men and women. And yes in certain ways it was a safer, more predictable environment to grow up in, not least because of some of the community and family strengths which still existed then.

                  • miravox …
                    7 November 2013 at 9:42 pm

                    I think you must have had good parents and lived in a good place, Anne and exuded a level of self confidence I could never muster. I was a very young teen in the early 70s – I was into the glitter and maxi skirts, myself – dysfunctional family, hopeless area, no parental input into anyone’s lives, and there was a culture pretty similar to the Roast Busters going on then.

                    Lots of really good guys, but lots of real misogynist take who you can rape stuff going on too. Just like the paedos I came across a few years earlier, they liked the shy, vulnerable types. Something people like greywarbler don’t understand.

                    Stay loud girls! (But only in a group so the the misogynists can’t act on the lesson they want to give you for being too out there – they always have an excuse). As this thread has shown, though, most guys do not think like that, which is heartening.

                    Thanks Bill and Karol for these posts, although I find it difficult to deal with this stuff, it’s the affirmative comments that will in the end be what is remembered.

              • Huginn …
                7 November 2013 at 9:08 pm

                Anne, Chooky . . .

                Dame Margaret Bazley’s Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct was explicitly precluded from examining allegations of misconduct prior to 1979.

                Just think about that.

    • Rogue Trooper 36.3
      6 November 2013 at 6:58 pm

      an Enquiry you say karol (wouldn’t want to be in those boys shoes, or bunks). More peeling off the real “scabs” of the gangrenous blue-boy culture… yuck!

  37. idlegus 37
    6 November 2013 at 11:54 pm

    “Based on information revealed tonight on the way underage sexual violation case has been handled, we will be referring it to the IPCA”. – Jacinda Ardern

  38. Tracey 38
    7 November 2013 at 7:56 am

    The police might have believed her but know that in court it will be her word against a number of boys. Also they perhaps pursued a lune of questioning similar to that done by defence lawyers. However that early in a complaint process seems odd. Presumably as soon as they saw footage they went straight back to the victim and said now we have enough evidence will you make a statement so we can question them and issue search warrants.

    anne
    re your post about hot pants. Imo its not as big a culture change as you might think. Clothing choice rarely features in most rapes or sexual assaults.

  39. karol 39
    7 November 2013 at 6:32 pm

    Kyle MacDonald, psychotherapist:

    Mates don’t let mates abuse women and children.