Day: February 1, 2011

Republicans re-re-define rape: to the original definition rape had for 2000 years before re-definition 30 years ago

Redefining rape: all feminists are up in arms. Feminists re-defined rape 30 years ago, and now republicans want to re-re-redefine rape to the original definition. The definition "rape" had since the old Romans and Greek before Christ was born. 

This bill takes us back to a time when just saying ‘no’ wasn’t enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women’s Law Center.
(The House GOP’s Plan to Redefine Rape)

And when being too young for sex were not called "rape" either, kissing a minor was not called rape either. In the old times, when language still had its own precise terminology, like "indecent act with a minor". And when the age of consent was lower, so 17 year olds enjoying sex were not "rape victims". As ‘Whoppie Goldberg called it "it was not real rape-rape".

Human-Stupidity Analysis

We are language semantics freaks: we don’t like that one word defines 2 different things. Not every killing is murder, and not every problematic sex act is rape.

Readers might disagree, if a irresponsible teen who got herself pregnant should get free abortion. Or if it is better to get an, even undeserved, abortion then the prospect of an immature poor mother traumatizing a baby. Or one might wonder why the immature teen girl that got pregnant from an immature teen boy the same age was not statutorily raped and thus does not deserve a free abortion.   But if she had a relationship with a more sensible, responsible, mature man, then she was statutorily raped and deserves a free abortion.

 

The House GOP’s Plan to Redefine Rape

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law. […]

Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.[…]

"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying ‘no’ wasn’t enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women’s Law Center.[..]

Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.

Continue reading “Republicans re-re-define rape: to the original definition rape had for 2000 years before re-definition 30 years ago”

Wikipedia discriminates against women? Or gender differences are real?

Surveys suggest that less than 15 percent of the online encyclopedia’s hundreds of thousands of contributors are female. […]

Sue Gardner, the executive director of the foundation, has set a goal to raise the share of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015, but she is running up against the traditions of the computer world and an obsessive fact-loving realm that is dominated by men and, some say, uncomfortable for women.

Her effort is not diversity for diversity’s sake, she says. “This is about wanting to ensure that the encyclopedia is as good as it could be,”  

Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List

Is Wikipedia creating a glass ceiling, actively blocking women from participating? Well, or maybe women are different. Or maybe men really are the gender that creates knowledge, wealth, public services, etc?

I would imagine that if less than 15% of the contributors are women, then much less than 15% of the work is done by women.

Considering that almost nobody gets paid for Wikipedia, the most obvious thing that can be said about its existence from a gender point of view is that the human race owes a debt of gratitude to the male sex.

[… men see the point] n working for free to expand access to information for people they don’t know. But blaming any problem, even one as exiguous as women not contributing much unpaid labor to Wikipedia, on women is a no-no, so the fault must lie with “misogynists.”

Guys Create Wikipedia For Free: That’s A Problem
Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

17 year old "children"? United Nations confesses political manipulation of "child" definition

The United Nations manipulated the definition of "child" on purpose! So child protection laws could be extended to adolescent youth without need to be voted again. Human-Stupidity.com found the smoking gun. Proof is on the United Nations web site.

Q – What does the UN mean by "youth," and
how does this definition differ from that given to children?

The United Nations, for statistical purposes, defines ‘youth’, as those persons between the ages of 15 and 24 years,[…]  By that definition, therefore, children are those persons under the age of 14.
It is, however, worth noting that Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines ‘children’ as persons up to the age of 18. This was intentional, as it was hoped that the Convention would provide protection and rights to as large an age-group as possible and because there was no similar United Nations Convention on the Rights of Youth. (www.UN.org)

The United Nations web site confesses, expressis verbis, that the language confusion was created so that childhood laws could be transferred to adolescents, without undergoing scrutiny and without needing to be voted for. The United Nations, on their own website, admit that this age definition was made for manipulative purposes, and in contradiction of  their own age definitions elsewhere.

"Seduction of an adolescent" or "unlawful sex with a 17-year-old" does not sound dramatic enough. It is easier to get harsh laws against "child rapists". Equally, it is easier to convict for "child pornography" then for possession of tasteful "nude photos of a 17 year old".  Just manipulate the language to manipulate the masses! And government, press, judges, jury.

For the past 2000 years, before feminists took over the United Nations,

  • a child was a person under 12 or 14 years of age
  • pornography was depiction explicit sexual activity
  • rape was violent forceful sexual penetration against a resisting victim
  • consent was, well, consent. Saying yes. Independent of age.

Is it not strange that all these terms were diluted to create confusion?

We will focus on how the United Nations manipulated the definition of "Child" in order to force the world to ratify child protection laws for adolescent youths.
"If you look under 35 years of age, show ID to buy alcohol"

"If you look under 35 years of age, show ID to buy alcohol" read the sign at the supermarket checkout. For the supermarket cashier, it is "Better be safe then sorry."

Nobody goes to jail for 15 years for selling alcohol to someone slightly underage.  So to be safe,

"If S/he looks under 35 years of age, don’t propose sex, nor kissing, nor possess nude photos of her/him

Most people are unaware: Age of consent  laws and "child" porn laws don’t just scare people away from "underage" persons.

To be on the safe side, one should not possess porn with anyone that looks under 25 or 30, and not try to get involved romantically with anyone that looks under 30.

"Eschew obfuscation"  (avoid being unclear)!

Legal argument and laws about "child pornography" and "child abuse" severely violate this basic rule from from college writing classes English 101. Science and law also try to get clear and concise definitions.

To foster the political goal of curbing adolescent sexuality and erotic depictions, the United Nations leads the world into obfuscation.

Due to United Nations influence,
our language lost the capacity to differentiate between totally different situations

,,,people assume that a person labeled with possession of CP [child p ornography] automatically is looking at pictures of 4 yr olds having sex with adults etc…when the law actually is worded to where you could have a clothed picture of a 16yr old female and have it be considered CP…  prisontalk.com

 

 
The following are all the same now.

2 year olds, 7 year olds, 11 year old children

=

 15 y or 17 year old adolescent youth.

=
All above are "Children"

 

 

As a result of United Nations language manipulation, the following are the same:

Indecently fondling a 17 year old 
fully dressed long term girlfriend, with her consent

 = forceful non-consenting violent injury causing rape of a kidnapped 4 year old
Both above are "child rape". "Non-consensual" sex.
And the depictions of both are the same. Child Pornography.

We think this is demagogic. unscientific. Purposeful misleading.  Disgusting.

You did not understand that this is the same? click on "more" below and we will show you why, step by step

Furthermore we will also use medical science and developmental psychology to scientifically define "child" and the phases of childhood.  In a subsequent post, later, we will critique the Copine and Sap scales for failing to differentiate between infants and adolescents, between consent and non-consent.

Continue reading “17 year old "children"? United Nations confesses political manipulation of "child" definition”