"Break the silence around rape and violence against women" but don't mention grooming gang rape and violence against girls

[ReleaseTheBats]

The Guardian is at it again.

"Why we need to break the silence around rape and violence against women"

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/11/break-silence-rape-violence-women-bosnia-srebrenica#comment-101890889

There is a lot in the article that I don't agree with. For example:

As in Bosnia, the root of these crimes is the dehumanisation of others – the belief that the perpetrator is superior by reason of sex, race or nationality, and has the right to control, humiliate or hurt their victims

It seems odd to leave religion of the list of reasons for perpetrators to believe they are superior and to dehumanise others, particularly in the Bosnian context.

But my issue is with the Guardian moderation of comments. Apparently, under an article about how we need to break the silence about rape and violence against women, posting a comment about breaking the silence in certain sections of the media about recent grooming gang cases (eg Oxford and Huddersfield) will get you deleted.

Could the Guardian get any more hypocritical?

Also from me, knobofstork.

I think what all these gangs of groomers have in common, regardless of rape, is some sort of subculture which makes them feel they are both entitled and untouchable - whether that's religious (gangs from Muslim backgrounds, Catholic priests, recent cases in the Anglican church), celebrity based (the group in the BBC - Savile, Hall), educational establishments (boarding schools, reform schools), politicians (Cyril Smith), sporting groups (football coaches offering the chance of fame and fortune in the Premiership).

Opportunistic and perverted men from any ethnic background and culture will do this - what is at issue for the wider society is the way the rest of us collude or whistle-blow on these subcultures. Do we brush reports under the carpet because we might be called racist/ sued by people who are extremely rich and powerful/ think they do good work for charity so can't possibly have done what they're accused of/ are sporting heroes we look up to/ insert excuse of choice here? Or do we pursue suspicions effectively and impartially? Do we "other" the victims or do we take their testimony seriously?

M0stly the women I know who were involved in Rochdale gangs etc were targetted specifically because in the main they were not girls that were massively cared about. Girls who were chronic absconders being delivered back to their pimps by the police when they were caught soliciting and received drug and prostitution convictions when their pimps and dealers were caught and named them. Their social workers were too busy to check up on why they were staying away for days on end because eventually they were brought home by the police. I remember Jeremy Forrest taking Megan Stammers to France and people suggesting she should have known better than to seduce a married teacher and what about his career, if she loved him she should have waited until she had left the school.
Each culture has it's own share of misogyny and male entitlement. I know a group of teenage and young men on trial for one crime (not sexual assault but potentially outing details, though I doubt it's that uncommon) some of whom have physical disabilities etc which mean they would not have been able to commit the crime, most of whom are on trial based on their connection with one man seen on cctv after the crime, they are all black. Why are the police not worried about being labelled racist for that? I feel that fear of being accused of racism is a convenient excuse. Maybe it is sometimes the case.
I think it's very clear that certain crimes are brushed under the carpet as "reward" or as a result of the power and status of the perpetrators and it's that much easier to do in the case of sexual exploitation, abuse or violence against women and young girls because the victim blaming attitude already exists.
It doesn't mean that some X demographic don't commit these crimes but they're a convenient scapegoat when it goes tits up.

The girls in the example who were pimped were not related to Asian gangs, just to clarify.

Nice rant. You're completely wrong of course. One obvious factual error is that the children of immigrants are markedly more likely to do well in education than their native born peers.

Hedgehog I think your post at 22.22 yesterday is very well said.

Interesting that my post was deleted. What rules did I break ?.

Any other factual errors Mrs T.

Can't fact check you now!

scallops Think about the child abuse and sexual abuse cases in children's homes during the last 50 - 70 years. Predominantly white males.

But the population is predominantly white... (Though only half male.) Surely the percentage compared to the general population or the population that would have access to the children is what matters. Are men from other cultures over/underrepresented in the stats? Sorry if I'm being dim.

No joining of the dots about how white males have a problem not abusing children whilst being left in charge of them.
It is easier, more identifiable and more people buy in to the thinking around brown men raping white girls.

I guess this takes us back to Vestal's excellent point that men are so reluctant to acknowledge misogyny and male violence that they can only join the dots on the "brown men" issue, and then bury their heads in the sand for fear of being racist. It's ridiculous - if the men at Cologne (for example) had attacked white women and men, then you could say there is a race issue at stake. But men attacking women is clearly about misogyny! Its like some stupid identity politics thing where being from an ethnic minority somehow cancels out their crimes against another oppressed group.

Good point Mrs T, you pointed out a factual in accuracy in my post, correctly as it happens because I double checked it. That seems to me to be better than simply deleting something because you don't like it. That was my point about how the Guardian will just stop accepting comments on contentious articles, CNN will threaten to expose people who make memes, Goverments will clamp down on non violent "hate speech" on facebook and twitter. And we'll pretend we live in a democracy.

The attacks in Cologne and Hamburg and the grooming gangs in the UK are the same as the rapes in Srebrenica and the treatment of the Yazidi women in Iraq. Its rape as a weapon of war. Its also about showing the wider white community male and female that they are powerless to stop it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal_rape

I love the guardian and subscribe and pay for it too.
However I was deleted x 2 for asking how to address the issues of violent males prisoners and male Atheletes who identify as women.
Supporting trans issues is great and I am glad they do it but they do it blinding and they aren't interested in women's rights.

I think the Guardian is increasingly about promoting "a good society" which doesn't exist and never will outside the heads of their columnists . Anyone who dares to point this out will be deleted. Increasingly on articles where they know the comments are going to be either hostile of simply pointing out the absurdity of it then no comments are allowed at all.

You keep making it about race lessworried. Why?

Incidentally, I suspect your post was deleted because it was hate speech. This is Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech: www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html Your post pretty much paraphrased it.

"Surely the percentage compared to the general population or the population that would have access to the children is what matters. Are men from other cultures over/underrepresented in the stats? Sorry if I'm being dim."

...Part of the reason why one particular form of abuse (grooming gangs) might be particularly perpetrated by one ethnicity might be to do with the proportion of Asian men employed in the "night time economy"; Minicab drivers, kebab shop owners, etc. Not the only reason, of course, but it could be a factor.

So abuse requires would be abusers having easy access to vulnerable groups, and that may be partly why shits like the Rochdale gangs carried out that particular form of abuse - because they had access to adolescent and teenage girls through their jobs. A shit who happens to be a priest will abuse the children he has access to, and a shit who happens to be a celebrity will abuse the children he has access to. The patterns of abuse look different in all cases, because the opportunities available to the abusers differ, but they are all despicable.
I'm not saying that there isn't a cultural factor too.

Jiggly maybe Enoch Powell was right.

Jiggly maybe Enoch Powell was right.

I hope you are trolling

Link to the speech. Utter bullshit and actually it just shows how much idiocy the talk of immigration problems is because 50 years on nothing he says has come to pass
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html
I've read some shocking things on here but suggesting Enoch Powell was right, on the feminist board of all places, really takes the biscuit. Yuck.

There is a reason why we are talking about a speech made in 1968 by a man who died in 1998. Are people being blown up my Islamist fanatics yes, are we seeing child abuse on an Industrial scale in Britain's cities being perpetrated on one ethnic group by another yes. Now of course its being carried out by men. However it is also being carried out by men from a particular background.

If Enoch Powell was predicting that Britain would be an unhappy divided society as a result of mass immigration then he was right. We are, we've just voted to leave the EU in a large part because of immigration.

Was Enoch Powell right? Was he fuck.
"In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."
Bollocks.

There are problems in today's society, but Powell didn't predict any of them.

He was right that the UK would change over time, and that the children and grandchildren of immigrants would be considered "British". But his concerns over the "descendants of commonwealth immigrants" living among us as British citizens is not really seen as a bad thing by most people, surely? Only people who object to black faces or (shock horror!) some of those commonwealth descendants marrying white British people to produce mixed race British citizens.

Go back 4 generations, most of us are immigrant descended. Go back further, all of us are and that was true in Powell's time as it was now. What he was objecting to in his speech was the colour of those immigrant descendants. I expect I'd be alright in his eyes, because my immigrant grandparents were white Poles.

That whole speech is ludicrous, as is the stupid anecdote about the racist old lady who we are supposed to pity because her business is failing, when the whole reason her business is failing is because she excludes customers based on the colour of their skin. Talk about entitled!

So no, he was not right. Unless you think that the race relations bill is responsible for Rochdale, and there would be no grooming gangs if only we were allowed to discriminate against black people.

"We are, we've just voted to leave the EU in a large part because of immigration."

We voted to leave the EU because of commonwealth immigration?

I think Rochdale and Rotherham etc happened partly due to good old fashioned British class prejudice and misogyny and partly because we've imported an unpleasant alien culture and failed to challenge it in the name of diversity. Not all cultures are equal. Cultures that practise FGM, forced marriage and honour killings are inferior.

People from different religions and races marrying and having make raced children is a good thing because it means that people are mixing interacting and getting to know each other.

People marrying their cousin and having 8 kids who will also marry their cousins is not a good thing even if they get a test done to insure their not passing on any genetic problems.