Another US Republican politician is under fire for remarks about rape, in this case saying, "some girls, they rape so easy".
Wisconsin representative Roger Rivard first made the statement when discussing the case of a local high school student who'd been charged with sexual assault for having sex with an underage girl.
The Chetek Alert paper quoted him in December as saying his father had warned him "some girls rape easy" - meaning that some girls could decide later that sex wasn't consensual.
He doubled down on the comments in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Wednesday, saying he took his father's warnings about the dangers of premarital sex seriously.
"He also told me one thing, 'If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry,"' Rivard told the paper.
"Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she's not going to say, 'Oh, yeah, I was part of the program.'
"All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she's underage. And he just said, 'Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,' he said, 'they rape so easy.'
"What the whole genesis of it was, it was advice to me, telling me, 'If you're going to go down that road, you may have consensual sex that night and then the next morning it may be rape.' So the way he said it was, 'Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning."'
The controversial comments from the freshman Republican come weeks after a Republican congressman from Missouri drew widespread condemnation for declaring that a woman's body can prevent conception in cases of "legitimate rape".
About three hours after speaking to the paper, Rivard - who is engaged in a tight reelection race - sent a statement to the Sentinel in which he said he hoped his comments would not be "misunderstood" and acknowledged that "rape is a horrible act of violence".
Republican vice-presidential hopeful Paul Ryan - a Wisconsin congressman - has withdrawn his endorsement of Rivard due to the comments, his campaign said on Thursday.
It's the same the whole world over
ain't it all a bleedin' shame?
Judges too soft on these rapists
Too often our courts are lenient with rapists.
12 October 2012 - The Citizen
Bear in mind that this country has among the world’s worst rape statistics, and reported rapes are a fraction of the number that actually occur. To secure a rape conviction is rare, given the obstacles, including police incompetence, the reluctance of victims to come forward, etc.
What we find appalling is the failure of the judiciary, even at a high level, to deal severely enough with this heinous crime. This week the Supreme Court of Appeal dealt a blow to rape victims by reducing from life (25 years) to 15 years the sentence on a man convicted of raping his 15-year-old stepdaughter.
The judges felt that because she did not scream, and she had accepted money from the culprit, this justified a lighter sentence. There was also the classic insensitive remark that the victim suffered no serious physical injury.
What about the duties of care and trust that go with being a stepfather? What about the unequal power relationship that he exploited? What about his threats of violence if she reported earlier rapes? All these should be considered aggravating circumstances.
Earlier this month three judges of the North Gauteng High Court reduced the life sentence imposed on a 70-year-old pensioner for raping a seven-year-old girl. This victim suffered injuries and developed an infection. The judges took compassion on the rapist because he was 62 when he committed the crime. Unbelievable.
Such rulings make rape look less serious than it is in South Africa.
Gobster, is this a difficult concept to understand?
A girl can retroactively change her mind about whether sexual intercourse was consensual. A claim of rape can be made the next day, or some weeks later when she realizes she is pregnant. This is a fact, not anyone's opinion. A father, in the context of trying to encourage his son to behave responsibly, points this out, saying essentially that making a charge of rape is "easy."
Why is this controversial?
As for Akers, the discussion was about laws that prohibit all abortions except in cases of rape or incest (or presumably threat to the life of the mother). With an exception for rape, you have the very real possibility that a woman desiring an abortion will claim to have been raped. Such a claim is not "legitimate." It is false, and done for a specific purpose. This is obviously what Akers was talking about, and the context in which he used the expression "legitimate rape." It is to be contrasted with the very real possibility of false claims of rape by women seeking abortions.
Neither case diminishes the criminality or trauma of forcible rape, or attempts to excuse it or condones it or denies that it occurs. They deal with the FACT that any casual act of consensual intercourse can be characterized as "rape" by the woman, retroactively, for any number of reasons.
By the way, if Attorney Delaney is reading this, it is yet another example of media bias. Republican candidates make statements that are cogent and relevant, and the MSM goes out of its way to characterize them in a way that is controversial and places the candidates in a bad light. When does this ever happen to Democrats?
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:21 pm
by Scooter
dgs49 wrote:As for Akers, the discussion was about laws that prohibit all abortions except in cases of rape or incest (or presumably threat to the life of the mother). With an exception for rape, you have the very real possibility that a woman desiring an abortion will claim to have been raped. Such a claim is not "legitimate." It is false, and done for a specific purpose. This is obviously what Akers was talking about, and the context in which he used the expression "legitimate rape." It is to be contrasted with the very real possibility of false claims of rape by women seeking abortions.
Except that is not what he said at all. He said that a rape exception was not needed because women who are "legitimately" raped would be prevented from getting pregnant by the reaction of their bodies to the trauma. He was, in effect, saying that any woman who claimed to have become pregnant by being raped was not "legitimately" raped, i.e. was lying about being raped. THAT is why his comments caused such an uproar. But it's good to see he's got you to act as the revisionist for what he said.
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:36 pm
by TPFKA@W
Misogyny is rife the world over. I just watched a video yesterday of the Australian PM dressing down the leader of the opposition for his misogynistic remarks. The sad thing is after so much progress we are taking a big step backwards. Anyone paid any really close attention to Mormonism? If you are female it is freaking scary. From a blog I frequent:
Basically, I don't respect The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, they can be very nice people. That's not what I mean. They shouldn't feel hurt; there are many sects and religions I don't respect. Join the club. I just respect you guys less. A lot less.
What I don't respect are the beliefs. I'm not talking about gold tablets or (early) polygamy or racist policies, although I have a hard time "getting" any of that. What gets me is the frank misogynism.
Many religious systems, if not most, are misogynistic to a greater or lesser degree. Women are considered lesser in the eyes of God, dirty, the bearer and source of sin, tempters. I'm looking at you, Christians (Catholics in particular), Muslims, conservative Jews, in general any religion invented by (ok, divinely revealed to, if you insist) men of the male persuasion. But at least in those religions, women are still children of God, even if they are allowed no voice or role.
Of all, Mormons are the worst offenders against women.
If you were born into a Mormon family I can understand why you stay. We cling to what we know. I'll give you a pass. But I absolutely cannot respect someone's choice to convert to that religion. I can understand why a man might. The temporal (this life) advantages are enormous. And the promised afterlife for a man is amazing. (I have a belief that whatever you truly believe will happen to you after death, does. Any man who also believes that will absolutely love what the Latter Day Saints promise.)
However, I cannot understand why any intelligent, sane, self-respecting woman would convert to, consciously join, a church that tells women that they have no value to God or anyone else except as given to them by a human-type man. Any woman who does must be missing one of those three attributes.
Here's how it works. When a Mormon man dies, he becomes a god, literally, and gets a whole planet for himself to be the god of. He can then populate the planet with women, as many as he wants apparently, who will be absolutely compliant to his wishes and are happy to act as sexually available handmaidens.
Women aren't so lucky. When they die they don't go to "heaven" (a male god's planet) unless they are called to heaven by a man. If no man calls them, they stay in torment for eternity.
Thud.
What does that tell women? They'd better find a man in this life and keep him happy until one or the other of them dies. Shut up. Be compliant. In this religion, God doesn't consign you to Hell, a man does. He can even do it by default.
Of all the world's religions, this seems the most obviously designed by males, for males, period, the least spiritual religion of all (at least of all I know of).
I don't understand why ANY woman would believe that crap. I can understand why men would want to, but they certainly get no respect from me for not saying, "Hey, this isn't right. Something's wrong here."
Ladies take out your copy of "A Handmaid's Tale" and reread it. It's not as far out there as you think.
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:05 pm
by Guinevere
One of my all time favorite reads. And I always suspected Ms Atwood had Mormanism in her mind when she wrote that book. Although it applies to far too many other religious beliefs (or religiously justified beliefs). Pretty sure it was that book which made me start to look at religion differently.
As for ladies re-reading, perhaps the gentlemen should read it instead.
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:13 pm
by Grim Reaper
dgs49 wrote:By the way, if Attorney Delaney is reading this, it is yet another example of media bias. Republican candidates make statements that are cogent and relevant, and the MSM goes out of its way to characterize them in a way that is controversial and places the candidates in a bad light. When does this ever happen to Democrats?
It's a good thing we have you and Fox News to tell us the "truth" that we're apparently too stupid to understand. Mainly because we get too caught up with what they actually said before PR goes into turbo-spin cycle to tell us what these people really meant when they said something monumentally stupid.
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:15 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
IIRC I was kind of jumped on (sometimes from a great height) for suggesting that I would not vote for Mr Romney on the grounds that anyone who could be so wrong in religious beliefs (and the above is a clear example that frankly makes genuine Christianity look positively liberal) could not possible have correct ideas for governance of an entire country.
Despite theological differences, I would not say that about an atheist, an agnostic, a Jew, a Catholic - not sure about a muslim but I'd like to think so. Certainly my feeling is open to criticism.
"The Handmaid's Tale" eh? It looks interesting and I'll get it. Well I'll read it - I may not "get" it of course. I did enjoy the Poisonwood Bible very much which despite apparent differences of approach was surely a similar examination of women and religion?
Meade
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:36 pm
by Sue U
For a certain segment of the Republican Party, The Handmaid's Tale is a how-to manual.
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:49 pm
by liberty
Gob wrote:that some girls rape so easily?
Another US Republican politician is under fire for remarks about rape, in this case saying, "some girls, they rape so easy".
Wisconsin representative Roger Rivard first made the statement when discussing the case of a local high school student who'd been charged with sexual assault for having sex with an underage girl.
The Chetek Alert paper quoted him in December as saying his father had warned him "some girls rape easy" - meaning that some girls could decide later that sex wasn't consensual.
He doubled down on the comments in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Wednesday, saying he took his father's warnings about the dangers of premarital sex seriously.
"He also told me one thing, 'If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry,"' Rivard told the paper.
"Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she's not going to say, 'Oh, yeah, I was part of the program.'
"All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she's underage. And he just said, 'Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,' he said, 'they rape so easy.'
"What the whole genesis of it was, it was advice to me, telling me, 'If you're going to go down that road, you may have consensual sex that night and then the next morning it may be rape.' So the way he said it was, 'Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning."'
The controversial comments from the freshman Republican come weeks after a Republican congressman from Missouri drew widespread condemnation for declaring that a woman's body can prevent conception in cases of "legitimate rape".
About three hours after speaking to the paper, Rivard - who is engaged in a tight reelection race - sent a statement to the Sentinel in which he said he hoped his comments would not be "misunderstood" and acknowledged that "rape is a horrible act of violence".
Republican vice-presidential hopeful Paul Ryan - a Wisconsin congressman - has withdrawn his endorsement of Rivard due to the comments, his campaign said on Thursday.
Why would anyone be out raged by this, is it not good advice?
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:14 pm
by TPFKA@W
Why is there no Special Ed forum on here?
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:20 pm
by Gob
I've missed you.
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:47 pm
by The Hen
Thread Diversion Alert.
TPFKA@W wrote:Misogyny is rife the world over. I just watched a video yesterday of the Australian PM dressing down the leader of the opposition for his misogynistic remarks.
I would just like to bring to the attention of the Board a brilliant fifteen minute speech of burn and pain to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott.
The speech was the Prime Ministers response to an Opposition Motion of debate on Mysogeny and Sexism.
In her passionate speech to parliament, Julia Gillard seized on Tony's attempt to paint her as a misogynist, calling him a sexist and a hypocrite and bombarding him with a series of examples when she was "personally offended" by his comments and actions.
To give some background, the drama started with Abbott's repeated calls for the resignation of Speaker Peter Slipper after a series of crude and inappropriate text messages came to light. Abbott seized on the scandal by saying that Gillard's defense of her colleague would be "another day of shame for this parliament, another day of shame for a government which should already have died of shame." In the video, you can see Abbott grow increasingly uncomfortable as Gillard's rhetoric continues
I KNOW it is a long bit of Aussie Parliament, but please watch. It is fifteen minutes that I am sure the Leader of the Opposition wishes he wasn't there for. (All speaker in a debate on a Motion are allotted fifteen minutes. I do not believe that there is one second that Tony is not off the burner.
BURN BABY, BURN.
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:50 pm
by TPFKA@W
I watched it yesterday and lurved it! Oh and for my fellow Mericans I will tell you it is in English, not scary Australian.
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:56 pm
by Scooter
Someone sent it my way earlier; she cleaned his clock seven ways from Sunday, and he sat there looking absolutely gobsmacked. After having that twit at the Young Liberals dinner say, with several opposition members in attendance, that Gillard's father had "died of shame" owing to her alleged "lies", it must have been particularly galling to her for Abbott to resurrect that line to open this debate, and she threw that squarely back in the opposition's face along with a host of other zingers.
You go girl!!!
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:06 pm
by Gob
Well our PM is a Welsh bird.
Never fuck with a Welsh bird.
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:17 pm
by The Hen
I'm Welsh.
(She sounds more Kath and Kim than Nessa though.)
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:25 pm
by Gob
The Hen wrote:I'm Welsh.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:34 pm
by The Hen
Was it wrong of me in the middle of her Motion response to think "Oh Julia! That salmon top, blue jacket and your hair AREN'T a good combination."?
(I'll change me name to Mr Rabbit immediately.)
Re: Have you noticed..
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:12 am
by liberty
TPFKA@W wrote:Why is there no Special Ed forum on here?
