| |
A blog of all section with no images
|
Rape, Sexual Assault and Abuse
|
|
Written by James Landrith
|
|
Tuesday, 15 November 2011 |
|
If you’ve been around the blogosphere for longer than five minutes, you may have noticed recurring discussions on sexual violence and feminist related blogs related to the need for men need to step up and take a bigger role in prevention and recovery. I’m not going to dispute that. Men do need to assume a higher profile, but as equal and respected partners, rather than out of guilt or as some form of penance for the actions of other men. That said,some people may not like the form that such involvement can take. Putting Away the Keyboard More often than not, the role that men are expected to assume by such bloggers, particularly by those who are not directly involved in real world advocacy themselves, is that of background support for the work of women already in the field. There is a philosophy, promoted by some, that men involved in sexual violence work should never seek leadership roles or question the present orthodoxy in any way. For some men, that may be a good fit. However, there are far greater opportunities available to men interested in making a real difference in sexual violence prevention or survivor advocacy programs. Typically, men involved in sexual violence work are expected to engage ONLY in the following ways: - Attend Men Can Stop Rape events and programs.
- Raise funds for crisis centers and prevention programs.
- Participate in protests and walks such as Slutwalks, Take Back The Night events, or locally inspired actions.
- Join campus organizations as an ally.
Making a Difference There is nothing wrong with any of these approaches to involvement. If that is how you choose to make an impact, then I encourage you to make the most out of it. That said, there are many other under-utilized opportunities for men to get involved in sexual violence work. Some examples are below: - Volunteer and train as a crisis line counselor. – Contrary to opinion among some in the blogosphere who do not engage in real world advocacy, not all female survivors want to talk to another woman. Some female survivors are impartial with regard to the gender of the person on the other end of the phone. Others still, prefer a male voice on the phone. Additionally, some male survivors may prefer to talk to another man.
- Join an advocacy organization that is involved locally. – Attend meetings, sign up for committees and participate in campaigns and events. Make your presence known through your actions and attitude. Don’t be afraid to make suggestions or question the status quo if you believe there is a better or more efficient way to accomplish a particular goal. Remember that an idea’s validity is not determined based on the genitalia of its proponent. The people who believe such nonsense tend not to be involved in the real world grunt work.
- Participate in a survivor speaker’s bureau. – If you are a survivor and at a place in your healing where you feel comfortable sharing, this can be a very healing and high impact form of involvement. Please remember that most survivors will NEVER feel comfortable with public disclosure. It is not a reflection on your healing or courage if you choose to not get involved with public speaking. For those of you who do get involved, you will be surprised at how many organizations are eager to hear from male survivors. The overwhelmingly vast majority of survivor speakers tend to be white females and event planners are looking to diversify their discussion topics. The impact of your presentation may be the very thing a survivor suffering in silence needs to feel validated and worthy of healing. Your words can help change someone’s life and further heal your own wounds.
- Speak out online and offline when you feel the need. – There are so many ways to change opinions and make an impact that don’t require the access and approval of specific organizations. Campaigns to rid Facebook of troubling groups that make light of sexual violence; correcting rape myths in everyday life as you confront them; and getting involved in legislative and legal campaigns when possible are additional options.
Potential Obstacles and Challenges As a man involved in sexual violence work, you can expect to confront some very uncomfortable situations. For instance, you may be put into the “perp” box from time to time. This can come in the form of fellow advocates who promote generalizations based on gender. Also, you may experience the same while in contact with female survivors of male rapists. The latter will be the hardest to overcome as you are dealing with a person who has had their trust violated in an extreme and traumatic manner. The former may come via people who are confusing advocacy work with ideological agendas. While this is far more common online with people who do not commit to real world advocacy, it can still occur offline in more limited supply. When in contact with female survivors struggling with severe trust issues, you will need to work hard to gain trust and this will take patience. It is not your job to “fix” anyone. You are support to those who want your support. Your actions, more than anything, will communicate loudest to such female survivors. For some, you will never be trustworthy. You cannot control this and should not be made to feel guilty for the actions of those who hurt them. It is not possible to truly make a difference if you are attempting to atone for the actions of others. It is not a burden you can bear and no good will come of it for the survivor in the end. All you can do in such a situation is to put forth your best work and stay focused on the organization or campaign’s goals. Advocates, however, have no excuse for treating male volunteers like pariahs or subjecting them to abuse or discrimination. Such treatment should be challenged as it is not appropriate in what is expected to be a healing environment. Bigotry and hatred have no place in sexual violence related efforts. If such advocates are willing to treat men who have volunteered their precious time and money in such a manner, they surely cannot be trusted around vulnerable male survivors or even female survivors who have been hurt by other women. Keeping It Real It is important to remember when dealing with any trauma survivor, that the healing process is theirs to own. It is entirely their decision as to how they heal and who they allow to assist them on that journey. No survivor should be made to feel pressured or emotionally manipulated to accept anyone’s help regardless of how sincere it may be offered if said help is not something the survivor is comfortable accepting. Everyone heals at their own pace and on their own terms. That should be respected without question or debate. Sexual violence survivors often create multiple layers of emotional barriers to protect themselves from harm. It is entirely the survivor’s decision who they allow to breach those walls. Please remember to respect that while serving the greater needs of the survivor community. Far too often, advocates and volunteers completely lose sight of the real reason they are doing the work – the needs of the individual survivor and potential future victims. So long as you always bear in mind both the why AND who, you will be prepared to make a real and lasting impact. Whatever your reasons for getting involved, please remember to take care of yourself as well. Working with survivors or on related campaign issues can be exhausting and emotionally stressful, even if you are not a survivor yourself. Practicing good self-care will ensure you are able to participate to the best of your ability and keep your mind and body in tune with your goals as a volunteer. Why I Do It In 2008, I finally decided to acknowledge what happened to me so many years ago as rape. I was drugged, raped and then blackmailed into silence by a female friend of a friend. As I’ve been involved in civil liberties work for years, it was a natural progression for me to add sexual violence work to my agenda. I had already acquired a thick skin from years of publishing The Multiracial Activist and The Abolitionist Examiner magazines online as well as participating in multiple civil liberties coalitions and efforts to include a U.S. Supreme Court case. Since then, I have blogged about my own experience and related topics frequently on multiple websites. I’ve been interviewed online, via podcast and for print publication. As an active member of the speakers bureau for RAINN and speaker/trainer for the Survivors Caucus of the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance I’ve visited college campuses, youth groups and churches to discuss rape myths, survivor needs and participate in panel discussions on sexual and domestic violence. My own story has been adapted for use by the Empowerment Theatre on stage. In addition, I was interviewed for a video segment that is shown during Precious Porter’s awesome one-woman performance of “No More Drama: Love Should Not Hurt”, which was recently performed/screened for a group of over 3,000 attendees in Atlanta, Georgia. Online, I am moderator for the Facebook group associated with the healing handbook Resurrection After Rape. In addition, I serve as a Section Moderator at Pandora’s Aquarium, one of the largest online mixed gender rape survivor communities. Offline, I have served as a secondary survivor for several female and male survivors who have done the same for me. However you choose to make an impact is your decision. Just remember to keep your goals in mind and take care of yourself mentally and physically. This is important, but emotionally painful work. I salute each and every one of you who decide to take on such a burden. ___________________________ James Landrith is a rape survivor, public speaker, internationally syndicated blogger, civil liberties activist and the notorious editor and publisher of The Multiracial Activist (ISSN: 1552-3446) and The Abolitionist Examiner (ISSN: 1552-2881). Landrith can be reached by email at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
or at his personal website/blog.  Be first to comment this article |  Add as favourites (37) |  Quote this article on your site | Views: 975
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 05 December 2011 )
|
|
|
Immigration
|
|
Written by Sheldon Richman
|
|
Friday, 11 November 2011 |
|
What Immigration Problem?
by Sheldon Richman Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia have each enacted stringent laws aimed at curbing illegal immigration. Before saying more, let’s be clear about the alleged problem. What is an “illegal immigrant”? It’s simply a person — possessing natural rights, mind you — who comes to the United States without the permission of the U.S. government. Now isn’t it curious that in this country, which began in rebellion against and secession from an empire, people are upset about other people moving around without government permission? In revolutionary times the smuggler of goods was a hero, and the customs agent was a villain. If we were true to the best parts of our heritage today the “illegal” would be a hero, and the border agent would be a villain. This shows how far we have slipped from America’s substantially libertarian origins. This is really quite sad. Imagine if we Americans needed government permission to move from state to state. We’d be appalled at the hassle, not to mention the grave interference with our freedom. Would we put up with it? I hope not. Then what is the justification for having an elaborate, presumptuous, tax-financed bureaucracy whose purpose is to determine who may live in this country? Rights belong to all human beings, not just to Americans. Note that the Constitution expressly protects the rights of persons, not just those of American citizens. But, we are told, a country is not a country without secure borders. Why? This premise goes unexamined. A country is defined by its traditions and attitudes rather than by its border checkpoints and armed guards. It is disheartening to hear people claim to believe that America is not synonymous with government and yet favor harsh measures to “secure our border” and stop free migration. All the economic arguments for stemming the flow of immigrants fall when examined even casually. The nativists can’t quite get their story straight. Are the newcomers ambitious go-getters trying to “take our jobs,” or are they freeloaders planning to collect welfare? Those who are afraid of the former fail to understand that people not only produce when they hold jobs, but also consume. Newcomers expand the market and the division of labor, which Adam Smith taught us is the path to higher living standards. Some opponents of immigration bring up the current high unemployment as an objection. But that is purely a government-produced phenomenon, and it has nothing to do with immigrants. Seriously, scapegoating does not become us. As for any government-financed services that immigrants might use, let’s not forget that they also pay a good deal in taxes. There’s no reason to think they are a net drain on the welfare state. But that is really beside the point. If we don’t want people living off the taxpayers — and this should apply to American citizens as well — we should transfer welfare services to private charity and the free market. There is no good reason for government — the essence of which is physical force — to be running schools and hospitals, which are the tax-financed facilities most likely to be used by immigrants. I really see no moral difference between a citizen and a noncitizen taking advantage of a government program. The most objectionable aspect of government largess is not whoaccepts it but how the politicians obtain the resources that they then distribute. Taxation is robbery. Finally, there is a good deal of worry on the Right these days that immigration is making “white America” a thing of the past. Those who hold this view say earlier immigration presented little concern because most newcomers were European and could assimilate into American culture. But this is selective memory in the first degree: virtually every group from Europe was at one time spoken of in the same degrading and alarmist terms as are today’s Latino and Muslim immigrants. In fact, as Thaddeus Russell documents in his fascinating book, A Renegade History of the United States, almost every European immigrant group — including Italians, Irishmen, Poles, and Jews — were initially not considered to be white! As a result, many of the new immigrants felt close to blacks and African-American culture. Only with the passage of time were they admitted into the ranks of the white race by the establishment. The more things change, the more things stay the same. Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org ) and editor of The Freeman magazine. Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (30) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 649 |
|
|
Economics and Financial Services
|
|
Written by Sheldon Richman
|
|
Saturday, 05 November 2011 |
|
Opponents of Occupy Wall Street Harm the Cause of Freedom
by Sheldon Richman After many weeks, Occupy Wall Street and its kindred demonstrations around the country are still a source of headline controversy — even aside from the police manhandling of protesters. And yet the disparate coalition of discontent with contemporary America has not coalesced around a single set of aims. Unfortunately, the loudest voices call for more government management of the economy, when it is precisely that which got us into the mess we have yet to dig out from. The protesters don’t seem to understand that the great meltdown which began in 2008 grew out of joint management of the finance and housing industries by several government agencies — including the Federal Reserve System — and the captains of those industries themselves. Contrary to popular misconception, this was no case of rampant deregulation, but rather one of rampant regulatory privilege .. Avoiding the debacle would have required not only actual deregulation but also, and crucially, “de-privilegization.” Every device to protect banks from their own folly — from deposit insurance to implicit guarantees to the Fed’s promise of emergency cash injections — has contributed to the misery that sent the protesters into the street. Oddly, Wall Street’s critics give little attention to the constellation of privileges that were championed by housing and finance for years. Instead, they believe that justice lies in more vigorous government regulation. The problems here are that regulatory agencies invariably end up serving the regulated industries, which sometimes write their own rules, and that even regulators with the best of intentions can’t know what they would need to know to serve the public’s true interest. So they are bound to do more harm than good. The protesters need to understand that a free economy is not an unregulated economy — far from it. Market forces, when not impeded by politicians and bureaucrats serving special interests — are the toughest regulators, punishing firms that waste resources, destroy value, and fail to serve consumers. In other words, the authors and administrators of the Dodd-Frank financial-regulation regime are the enemies, not the friends, of justice for the 99 percent. Who will be in a better position to participate in the rule writing: the average person or the head of a big bank? Demanding more power for government is equivalent to demanding more privileges for Wall Street. When will the protesters realize that? Another source of confusion hangs over Occupy Wall Street, and it comes from many critics of the protests. It is a sad spectacle to see self-styled advocates of the free market come to Wall Street’s defense, as though it were the natural product of spontaneous market forces rather than a creature of the corporate-state partnership that has characterized the American economy for generations. When people who claim to favor free markets rally to Wall Street’s defense, seemingly oblivious to the poisonous corporatist partnership, they harm the cause of freedom by encouraging the protesters to conflate freedom with probusiness statism. Free-marketers should not be protecting Wall Street from criticism; rather they should be educating the protest movement about the true nature of the problem. How can Occupy Wall Street activists be taught that their real adversary is the corporate state, not free markets, if defenders of Wall Street talk as though we have free markets today? (That message is subtle, but it’s coming through just the same.) Part of Occupy Wall Street’s complaints concerns income inequality, specifically the growing gap between the top 1 percent of income earners and everyone else. Income statistics are tricky, and much is hidden by the fact that people move to and from the various income levels all the time. Moreover, the influx of poor immigrants can depress the median income even though no one is worse off. Nevertheless, it is true that a few people in banking and housing made and held onto fabulous fortunes thanks to government — that is, taxpayer — help. In other words, America’s skewed income configuration cannot have been the result of purely free exchange. Yet many advocates of a free market respond defensively to any criticism of income inequality as though it is their cherished system of natural liberty that is under assault. But we have had no such system, and free marketers set back the cause whenever they imply otherwise. Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org ) and editor of The Freeman magazine. Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (29) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 657 |
|
|
Foreign Policy, Military and War
|
|
Written by Sheldon Richman
|
|
Monday, 24 October 2011 |
|
Drone Warfare Is Fraught with Danger
by Sheldon Richman One can understand why Libyans would celebrate the end of the Qaddafi dictatorship. But the American people should nonetheless be concerned about what the U.S. government did in North Africa. On the day Qaddafi was killed, the New York Times reported that “the death ... is the latest victory for a new American approach to war: few if any troops on the ground, the heavy use of air power, including drones, and, at least in the case of Libya, a reliance on allies.” The Times noted that this minimalist strategy was not in favor a few months ago. But the last six months have brought a string of successes. In May, American commandos killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. In August, Tripoli fell, and Colonel Qaddafi fled. In September, an American drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a top Qaeda operative and propagandist, in Yemen. And on Thursday, people were digesting images of the bloodied body of Colonel Qaddafi, an oppressive strongman who spent decades flaunting his pariah status. The danger is that President Obama and the war party will be further emboldened now that they apparently have found an approach to war that minimizes if not eliminates the risk of American casualties and keeps a lid on financial costs. The last thing the American people need is a government that feels it can intervene costlessly anywhere in the world. Empires areexpensive, but the budgetary consideration was never the most important reason for opposing America’s imperial policies. It is grossly self-centered to think only of the potential for American casualties when the U.S. government intervenes in foreign conflicts. We should be just as concerned that the lives of other people are threatened. Thus, the fact that America can fight foreign wars “safely” with drones piloted from far away should be of no comfort to the American people. Drones invariably kill innocent people, who have the same rights as Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fact that the U.S. government menaces foreign populations who present no threat to us should offend all decent people. Americans have wearied of drawn-out, expensive wars waged by thousands of U.S. ground troops. One gets the impression that the policy elite is now delighted it has found a way of making war that avoids precisely what the public most abhors. But such interventions are nonetheless dangerous. Dropping bombs on people tends to make them vengeful. Drone warfare over Yemen and Somalia has radicalized individuals there (and here), heightening the threat of terrorism against Americans. Thus, the apparent safety of the new form of intervention may be misleading. Moreover, no one can be sure that the minimalist tactic won’t lead to bigger commitments, because the U.S. government could be drawn into conflicts that flare out of control. The Libya matter is not over yet. If chaos erupts there, as it did in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, can we be sure Obama won’t send in ground troops to restore order? Ominously, he also recently sent a so-far-small force into central Africa against the Lord’s Resistance Army. Who knows where that will lead? The danger lurking in the minimalist strategy is hubris — the pretence of knowledge. When embarking on an intervention, no one knows how things will end up. Randolph Bourne, who coined the phrase, “War is the health of the state,” also said, “If it is a question of controlling war, it is difficult to see how the child on the back of a mad elephant is to be any more effective in stopping the beast than is the child who tries to stop him from the ground.” That Libya “went well” is no reason to feel good about this sort of intervention. Americans live under a government in which the president can unilaterally and arbitrarily inflict lethal force on foreign countries, unchecked by Congress or the courts. He can order the assassination even of American citizens without indictment, charge, or trial. Nothing could more flagrantly violate the principle of checks and balances, which supposedly distinguishes the American constitutional system from other forms of government. When one contemplates the autocratic war-making power today held by the president, it is hard to conclude other than that America is a rogue state. Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org ) and editor of The Freeman magazine. Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (30) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 606 |
|
| | << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 33 - 40 of 3467 |
|
|
