Saturday, September 18, 2010
Some Jewish, Christian and Islamic scriptures promote pedophilia and/or child marriage. Jewish law sanctifies child marriage of girls as young as 12 and boys as young as 13 (Rich). An ancient Jewish scripture called the Mishnah decrees that “A girl three years and a day is betrothed by intercourse,” therefore the law allows men to marry girls as young as 3 if they have sex with the girls (Weinberg & Margalit, 2007). The Mishnah is thought to be the first Rabbinical text and is considered a major part of Jewish law.
The Book of Numbers from The Old Testament of the Christian Bible quotes Moses after a battle: "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man" (“Numbers 31:17-18…”). Then as now it was common for soldiers to take women and girls as sex slaves, though this might refer to taking the girls as wives also. There is no minimum age limit for using the girls so apparently this indicates tolerance of sex with children.
The Book of Judges says that after the Benjaminite women were killed during a battle, Israili leaders decided to give the remaining Benjaminite men new wives by stealing virgins from Jabesh-gilead: "This is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin" (“Judges 21:10-24…”). Note that they don’t say to kill children, so apparently all males (boys and men) were killed and all girls were taken as wives. In a hellish battle it’s impossible to know if a woman is a virgin so presumably they just grabbed every girl and killed women who showed signs of aging.
But there weren’t enough girls for each man, so they went to Shiloh to abduct more girls: “When the girls of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, then rush from the vineyards and each of you seize a wife” (“Judges 21:10-24…”). Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says that if a man randomly meets a virgin and decides to rape her she should be forced to marry him. Therefore, the Bible’s Old Testament approves of raping, enslaving and marrying girls without specifying a minimum age to protect children.
And though the Old Testament is a Christian (and Jewish) scripture, these violations are committed by Jews since Christ hadn’t arrived yet. I previously proved that underage marriage to girls as young as three was allowed in the Jewish tradition, so logically the rape and marriage of virgins described in the Old Testament was committed against underage girls. My brief research of the New Testament did not find scripture allowing pedophilia or underage marriage.
The Quran apparently allows underage marriage. Sura 65:4 describes divorcing a wife who is not menstruating but is not post-menopausal or pregnant which implies she is a child who hasn’t begun menstruating yet. Furthermore, several hadith scriptures state that the founder of Islam, Muhammad, had sex with his 9-year-old bride which Islamic clerics cite as justification for allowing underage marriage (“Islam and Underage Marriage,” 2010).
Therefore, it seems that the Jewish religion specifies the age of a child bride/groom, the Islamic religion implies marriage to children is allowed in the Quran and from Muhammad’s example of having sex with his 9-year old wife, and the Christian religion implies that raping underage girls was acceptable at least before Jesus arrived. It is unethical for an adult to have sex with a child because that harms the child physically, mentally and spiritually. It is also unethical for an adult to marry a child even if they don’t have sex with the child because marriage harms the child mentally and spiritually since they can easily be taken advantage of in non-sexual ways and the marriage prevents equality because one spouse (almost always the male) acts as a parent, disciplinarian and dominator of the child spouse (almost always a female).
Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same god. Assuming that this god is good, they would not allow adults to rape and marry children in my opinion. By this reasoning, the scribes did bad when they promoted pedophilia and child marriage. Thus, the solution would be to improve the scriptures by removing text that allows rape and marriage against children.
When people learn some scriptures allow men to rape and marry children they may decide to leave their religion and/or destroy all the scriptures. However, some scriptures are helpful. Why not recycle scripture to eliminate the bad and keep the good? This is like when a gardener removes weeds, pests and mold in order to help the garden grow stronger.
Likewise, removing the bad scriptures would promote the healthy growth of the good scriptures of which there are plenty in the Talmud, the Bible and the Quran. Religious scholar Leora Tanenbaum said, “There’s a very common belief that if we are critical of religion, the response should be to simply leave religion. But it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Critical thinking can lead to action, which leads to reform” (Savage, 2009).
“Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version).” BibleGateway.com. Retrieved on September 17, 2010 from
“Islam and Underage Marriage.” (2010). Journal of Feminist Insight. Retrieved from
“Judges 21:10-24 (New International Version).” BibleGateway.com. Retrieved on September 17, 2010 from
“Numbers 31:17-18 (New International Version).” BibleGateway.com. Retrieved on September 17, 2010 from
Rich, T. R. “Marriage.” Judaism 101. Retrieved on September 17, 2010 from
Savage, E. (2009). “‘Catfight’ Author Takes A Swipe At Religious Inequality.” JWeekly.com. Retrieved on September 17, 2010 from
Weinberg, P. & Margalit, N. (2007). “Review of Selected Feminist Approaches to Rabbinic Judaism (pdf document).” Retrieved on September 17, 2010 from
Posted by Nancy Kallitechnis at 12:06 AM
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Islam's primary religious book is the Quran and it allows men to marry underage girls which is a social evil. The scripture about divorce said that a man should count his wife's menstrual periods to decide how much time to wait till completing the divorce. However, there are three times during a female's life that she doesn't menstruate: 1) during middle age after menopause, 2) during pregnancy, and 3) when she is a child. Sura #65, section 4 describes how to count the menstrual cycles of a wife who is not menstruating:
"Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who are pregnant, their period is until they deliver their burden"(“The Holy Quran”).
Apparently, a man is allowed to marry a child because he can divorce a wife who is not menstruating yet is neither pregnant or menopausal, which indicates she is a child. Furthermore, the narrator of the Quran, Muhammad, married a 6-year-old girl named Aisha and had sex with her when she was 9 according to numerous hadith scriptures (none mention that she was an adult or teen at the time of marriage). Because the founder of Islam is said to have married a child and the primary Islamic book allows child marriage, Islamic religious leaders often approve of child marriage.
Saudi Arabian marriage clerk Ahmad Al-Mu'bi said "The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow. He took 'Aisha to be his wife when she was 6, but he had sex with her only when she was 9" (“Sex OK at 9…”). Hadith scriptures mention that Aisha brought her dolls with her when she went to live with Muhammad (Silas). Saudi Arabia's top religious authority, the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Shaikh, confirmed that it is not against Islamic law for girls to marry at age 15 or younger (Ori, 2010).
Aisha, named after Muhammad’s 6-year-old bride, was 10 when she was married and forced to “leave school, move to a village far from her parents' home, cook and clean all day, and have sex with her older husband:
"He took out a special sheet and laid me down on it," Aisha told IRIN, wringing her small plump hands. "After it, I started bleeding. It was so painful that I was crying and shouting, and since then I have seen him as death" (“Law Stipulates Girls Can Marry At Just 9…”).
Aisha escaped and sued for divorces. Her family didn’t support her right to avoid rape. She said, "My Dad told me to sleep with my husband, or he would kill me."
Elham Assi, a 13-year old Yemeni child bride, died from bleeding as a result of being raped by her husband. To prevent this from happening again feminists tried to ban child marriage but mosque leader Sheik Mohammed Hamzi, though aware of the rape-killing of Elham Assi, nevertheless said “I am against the child marriage law because it restrains the freedom of others…For example, imagine a young man of 13 or 14 years of age who wants to have sex…This is a violation of his rights,” (Sandels, 2010), so apparently he thinks it’s okay for girls to be raped and killed so that boys can enjoy sex. Although he is exhibiting psychopathic behavior Sheik Hamzi is a respected community leader because the Quran allows child marriage, therefore, many people believe promoting child marriage is the same as promoting Islam. Yemen’s Ministry of Social Affairs reports that “a quarter of all females in Yemen marry before the age of 15” (Sandels, 2010).
A Saudi Arabian father sold his 12-year-old daughter for $22,600 to an 80-year old man who had married three other underage girls. The girl pleaded to a journalist, "I don't want him, save me!" Feminist Eman Al Nafjan, said, “We should set a legal minimum age at which girls can be married…Without a law we get people like this 80 year old guy who takes advantage of the system to fulfill his sick obsession with little girls…Where else in the world can a man openly say that he is in a polygamous marriage with four underage girls and not get arrested? At this rate we might as well start a tourism industry to attract rich Muslim pedophiles" (“Saudi Girl, 12…”). Though Saudi religious leaders frequently approve child marriage journalist Wajiha Al-Huwaidar explained that "Whatever their religious justification, this is just a way of legally justifying the rape of little girls."
In Afghanistan pedophiles with money are finding it easier to buy girls. In 2008 MP Fauzia Kofi says she’s seeing more child brides and she explains, "I don't call it marriage, I call it selling children…A nine or 10-year-old - you give her away for wheat and two cows." Midwife Hanufa Mah tries to teach parents not to marry their girls young. She recalled the birth of a 10-year old mother: "The girl was so small. I held her in my lap until the child was born." A girl who was sold at age 13 said, "I didn't want to marry, it was my parents' decision…I dreamed I would be able to finish my education. I had no choice" (“Child Brides…”).
Yet Muslims have a choice about whether to change the Quran and hadith scriptures or not. Sura #99 says on Judgment Day "anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!" and "anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it" (“The Holy Quran”). Thus, the Quran implies that the god Allah is good because Allah rewards good and punishes evil. However this creates a contradiction because allegedly Allah told Muhammad that it is acceptable for men to marry children which is evil but a good god would not do that.
Since logically Allah has to either be good or the Quran falsely states that Allah said child marriage is acceptable, then Muslims must choose one or the other. If they choose to believe Allah is good then naturally they will remove the false statement in the Quran allowing child marriage. And that seems to be the way out of the nightmare of child marriage and rape that has plagued the Muslim world.
“Child Brides 'Sold' In Afghanistan.” (2008). BBC News. Retrieved on September 10, 2010 from
“The Holy Quran.” IntraText.com. Retrieved on September 11, 2010 from
“Law Stipulates Girls Can Marry At Just 9 In Yemen.” (2010). Alarabiya.net. Retrieved on September 10, 2010 from
Ori, K. O. (2010). “Nigeria: Senator Marries 13-Year Old, Rights Activists Appalled.” En.Afrik.com. Retrieved on September 10, 2010 from
Sandels, A. (2010). “YEMEN: Islamic Lawmaker Decries Child Marriage Ban As Part Of 'Western Agenda'.” LATimes.com. Retrieved on September 10, 2010 from
“Sex OK at 9, Says Saudi Cleric.” (2008). wnd.com. Retrieved on September 11, 2010 from
Silas. “Muhammad, Aisha, Islam, And Child Brides.” Answering-Islam.org. Retrieved on September 11, 2010 from
“Saudi Girl, 12, Married Off To 80-Year-Old Man.” (2010). AllHeadlinesNews.com. Retrieved on September 10, 2010 from
Posted by Nancy Kallitechnis at 2:57 PM
Friday, June 11, 2010
The SAT, like other things in our sexist society, is rigged against girls.
The SAT has questions about traditionally feminine subjects and traditionally masculine subjects. Note the word “traditionally”; I’m not saying these subjects are masculine or feminine, only that boys and girls are socialized to view those subjects as masculine or feminine.
There are some questions on the SAT where there is a big difference in girls’ and boys’ scores and a 1989 study by Phyllis Rosser (The SAT Gender Gap: Identifying the Causes) found that the vast majority of questions where there was a big difference in girls’ and boys’ scores were questions about traditionally masculine subjects. Rosser discovered that overall girls performed better than boys on questions about “feminine” subjects like relationships, aesthetics and the humanities and boys did better on “masculine” questions about sports, physical sciences and business. So the College Board stacks the deck against girls by deliberately including a lot more questions about traditionally masculine subjects.
Further proof that “masculine” themed questions increase boys’ scores is ETS researcher Carol Dwyer’s 1976 report that documented that during the first few years of the SAT females got higher scores on the Verbal section and female’s superior performance on the Verbal section upset the ETC policy makers, so they added questions about “masculine” subjects of politics, business and sports so males would feel more confident answering the questions. The “masculine” questions increased the males’ scores so much that they scored higher than females on the Verbal section for the first time in the history of the SAT. This shows that the more “masculine” themed questions the SAT has, the higher boys’ score will be. So the fact that the College Board deliberately chooses more “masculine” themed questions is proof that they rig the test in favor of boys. Also, although Dwyer’s research was about the change of the questions on the Verbal section, logically, it would apply for “masculine” themed questions on the Math section as well. Thus, boys would score higher (and girls lower) on math questions using traditional “masculine” themes such as sports.
The Educational Testing Service (ETS) and the College Board conducted a study of different question formats (i.e. short answer, essay, constructed response, and multiple choice). Females got the lowest scores when answering multiple choice questions. Sex differences disappeared or decreased with every type of question except multiple choice. Thus, females’ SAT scores are different depending on the format of the question and the absolute worst format for females (that results in the lowest scores) is the multiple choice format. Yet, all questions on the Critical Reading section and the majority of questions on the Math section are multiple choice. Thus, the College Board has rigged the SAT in favor of boys by formatting almost all the questions in the format that they know will lower girls’ scores the most. The saddest thing is that the College Board does this deliberately; they knowingly administer the test format that inflicts the maximum damage to girls.
Sexist Guessing Penalty
The SAT’s guessing penalty deducts one-quarter point for every wrong answer. Because students often know some of the multiple choice answers are obviously wrong, that often narrows their guess to three answers; thus, if they guess they have a one-third chance of getting the answer right which favors them since they only lose one-fourth point for a wrong guess. Research on the SAT found that females have a strong tendency to avoid answering a question unless they are certain of the answer and this revulsion towards guessing lowers girls’ scores. It’s well known that females take less risks than males (i.e. research that shows males have more of a preference for reckless driving, risking jail time by committing crime, and making riskier investment decisions), thus the SAT is rigged against girls by scaring them with the wrong answer penalty to prevent them from guessing by implying to the more law-abiding females that it’s bad to guess and because it’s well-known that females take fewer risks than males, while at the same time rewarding boys’ increased desire for risk by designing the test in such a way that actually rewards risk guessing.
So on the surface the SAT is saying “guessing is bad and will be punished,” but on the sly they reward “bad” risk-taking question answerers. This exploits differences in male and female psychology in a way that favors males. As disciplinarian teachers and juvenile detention wardens can attest, girls obey rules and the law much more than boys do. Thus, warning test takers that “guessing is bad” has a much more powerful restraining effect on girls than on boys due to girls’ greater desire to obey the rules and avoid being bad.
I’m not arguing that this is genetic, merely that girls are much more likely to avoid doing something that they’ve been told is bad (probably due to socialization). So, when the College Board tells girls “guessing is bad” girls obey and refrain from guessing more than boys do. Note that the sex gap is smaller on the ACT which does not have a guessing penalty.
Sexist Time Limit
Research by FairTest documents “Numerous studies have found that when the time constraint is lifted from the test, females' scores improve markedly, while males' remain the same or increase slightly.” Thus, the time limit is sexist against girls because the only thing it does to students’ scores is lower girls’ scores while leaving boys’ scores virtually unaffected. The time limit has nothing to do with knowledge, but only measures working fast in a high-stakes once-in a lifetime short test, and punishes the much more valuable life ability pg taking the time to consider different aspects of a problem and checking for errors which girls do more than boys and for which they are punished by the time limit.
Considering the many ways the SAT is rigged against girls, I wouldn’t be surprised if the College Board suddenly removed the sexist practices girls scored 10-30 points higher than boys on all subjects. Until the sexism is removed that obviously favors boys and has nothing to do with knowledge of the subjects, then we won’t know how much knowledge girls really have. And since the SAT doesn’t accurately reflect what boys and girls have learned about language and math, then there is no solid basis in theories about female and male intelligence based on the SAT so-called “intelligence test.”
Gender Bias in College Admissions Tests. (2009). OpposingViews.com. Retrieved from
Posted by Nancy Kallitechnis at 8:00 PM
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The media’s sexist reporting of yesterday’s Bridgeville, PA murder rampage is another example proving they won’t acknowledge hate crimes against women. A male blogger wrote for months about his problems relating to women then walked into an all-female dance class and shot twelve women, yet none of the articles I read mention the words hate crime, bigot, sexist and the reporters didn’t call feminist groups for a quote.
The media reports the details of hate crimes against women and girls when they are very gruesome and horrible because that will increase readership. But they avoid reporting the violence is a hate crime because the media is extremely male dominated, thus they promote male domination which is threatened when the public is informed about the enormous damage sexism causes. So they’ll write things like: “…Sodini wrote rambling messages about his hatred of women and how he was tired of being rejected by them” without actually stating he was sexist. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jCr-8hvMxT_o93eW1whvXEAyJfqAD99SO2601
They’ll write, “a gunman walked into a fitness center near Pittsburgh, firing up to 52 shots only at women” without actually using the term hate crime. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jCr-8hvMxT_o93eW1whvXEAyJfqAD99STEN83
Earlier this year Marilyn Ferdinand wrote an article for Feministing criticizing the media for generally ignoring the fact that the German school shooter targeted women and girls (Gender "disappeared" in Albertville school shooting). http://community.feministing.com/2009/03/gender-disappeared-in-albertvi.html
When a man went to an Amish schoolhouse, separated the boys from the girls, bound the girls and shot them the media avoided calling it a hate crime. I read many articles about the shooting but none of them stated the man was sexist, and they apparently never contacted feminist groups for a quote and they framed the story as a revenge crime for something that allegedly happened to the shooter 20 years earlier but all the victims were age 13 or younger.http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/02/amish.shooting/index.html
Complaining to the media will help motivate them to stop being prejudiced against half the population of the world. If the new hate crime bill gets passed that will also help to increase awareness of hate crimes against women and girls because it would protect victims of violence based on hatred of a person’s gender as well as other demographics. Currently the law only protects people who are victims of violence motivated by hatred of a race, color, national origin or religion. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/16/outlook_improves_for_hate_crimes_bill?mode=PF
A fair press is essential to democracy so citizens have the knowledge necessary to rule. If a gunman had targeted blacks then this would be reported as a racist incident and black leaders would be constantly on the news talking about racism in America. But when there’s a hate crime against women and girls the media does everything in their power to block out the feminist community from speaking out in support of our own.
Posted by Nancy Kallitechnis at 3:30 PM
Sunday, August 2, 2009
U.S. citizens condemn Middle Eastern countries for jailing rape victims but our justice system does that every day. Here, the average age a girl becomes a prostitute is 12-14, and the average age for boys is 11-13 (http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/prostitution.html). Child prostitutes are victims of statutory rape, yet a perversion of the law says that when a rapist pays money to rape a child the child becomes a criminal who can be arrested, prosecuted, humiliated by the justice system and imprisoned no matter how young they are. They have suffered enough; these children don’t deserve to be punished for being raped.
Strangely, anti-trafficking laws grant more protection to foreigners raped in the United States than to our own citizens. For example, if a 12-year-old Sudanese girl is trafficked into the United States and forced to work in a New Jersey brothel the law would not view her as a prostitute. They would classify her as a sex slave. The police would give her federal protection under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. In contrast, a 12-year-old U.S. citizen forced to work in the same brothel would be treated like a criminal, thrown in jail, probably fined and get a criminal record.
The documentary “Very Young Girls” about underage prostitutes in New York documents the case of an underage prostitute named Nicole who was jailed for being raped:
Nicole: “I got off the train cause the other train wasn’t working and I was walking. Some dude came up and said, “Well, I’ll give you a ride.” He was driving to Queens and I told him to stop. He wouldn’t stop. When he opened the door I was trying to run out but the pimp grabs me and he put me in the house. He says if I tell anyone he’s gonna get somebody to kill me.”
Natalie [Nicole’s lawyer]: “She said that she was with the pimp for four or five days. During the course of those four or five days she was forced to have sex with 30 men. The day that she was arrested she was 14. In any other situation she would be too young to consent to sex. To have her charged on prostitution charges is a little absurd.”
Nicoles’s mother: “She’s treated like a criminal after all the stuff that happened to her. Instead of them taking her to the hospital, they took her to the jailhouse.”
The reason our country punishes girls for being raped is the same reason Middle Eastern countries jail rape victims: because we live in a patriarchy that treats males as superior to females. The vast majority of child prostitutes are girls and most boy prostitutes are raped as girls. Femaleness is devalued so much society almost always takes the side of the rapist making it very easy for them to rape and escape punishment.
For example, the documentary shows a mother who posted flyers of her missing daughter and got a call providing a tip stating her daughter was being held captive as a sex slave yet when she reported this to a male NYPD officer he refused to send someone to investigate immediately:
LaSharon [mother]: This is a pimp and he has a bunch of underage girls in his apartment this girl told me anonymously, caller, they saw the flyer. She just called tonight. The girl said they’re armed and dangerous, they have guns there’s three of them.
police officer: They were in the apartment?
LaSharon: She said this is where they’re, where he’s keeping the girls at. That he got them in there. He locks them in the apartment, he beats them.
officer: What do you want me to do for you?
LaSharon: I need to speak to somebody because this is where somebody said where all the runaway girls are at…with my daughter at this apartment.
officer: We don’t have any authority to kick in the door.
LaSharon: This is where she said they are, here.
officer: We have to have a court order to kick in a door.
LaSharon: But how do we do that?
officer: Listen, let me explain something to you. We need a court order. At this point, four o’clock in the morning on a Saturday morning that’s the best I can do for you right now.
After the incident LaSharon expressed her shock:
This is ****in unbelievable. I feel like I’m in a ****ing dream and I need to wake up. Like this is a ****ing nightmare.
That sums up this issue. The horror is that we live in a society where police can get away with refusing to immediately investigate a child rape report. They go to people’s homes to investigate minor complaints such as a rock thrown through a window, but the NYPD wouldn’t send officers to stop someone from raping a child. The system is set up against rape victims and that’s the main reason rapists are almost never punished. It’s a nightmarish reality that our country actually prosecutes child rape victims every day. It is beyond horrible. However, LaSharon was able to find her daughter after several months of searching. Her daughter’s pimp was prosecuted which is unusual because pimps are almost never jailed.
Another disturbing part of the documentary was a scene of a roomful of convicted johns at the Brooklyn John School, a one day program for first offenders who get a clean record if they attend the lecture and avoid being convicted for the next 6 months. When a woman speaker told the johns that “the average age of a prostitute is 13 to 14 years old” and began describing a typical sting scenario where the police arrest the prostitute and john saying, “We gotcha. …And you know what? This little girl next to you, she’s already been locked up 30 times” suddenly a john raises his hand and asks, “How long before the break?” A lot of men thought it was really funny that he interrupted her talking about children being jailed 30 times for being raped. The room was full of loud laughter as I watched the sickening smiles of the sexual predators. That left no doubt that many of the predators had little or no remorse and would continue to rape knowing that society makes it easy for them to do it.
But although child prostitutes shouldn’t be jailed, they should be sent to a safe house for protection. Many child prostitutes return to prostitution after jail because they have nowhere to go, can’t get a job because they’re underage, are scared of their pimp and/or have a psychologically damaging attachment to their pimp and prostitution. In a July 29, 2008 article the Huffington Post reported:
“…according to a study conducted through the University of Pennsylvania, 75% of known child prostitutes work for pimps, who are adept at creating a pseudo-family environment by promising money, love and affection to children coming from dysfunctional homes who are seeking care and nourishment.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/children-of-the-night-chi_b_115348.html?view=print
Unfortunately, there are few safe house programs for child prostitutes in the U.S. therefore, some people who want to help the rape victims escape resort to jailing them as a flawed option that is the only way to keep the children away from pimps and johns. The May 3rd, 2008 PBS episode “Fighting Child Prostitution” described this reasoning:
[Senior correspondent Maria] Hinojosa: “Sgt. Earnest Britton runs the Atlanta police department's Child Exploitation Unit. He and the few officers who work here are attempting to treat children caught up in prostitution as victims, not criminals. But, Britton says, cops are often forced to charge a child with a crime just to get her off the street.”
[Sgt. Earnest] Britton: “Now, what will normally happen is if we take them to a regular shelter, they just run out of that shelter. So that's another reason why some officers charge them with that charge, not because they wanna punish them, it's—there's no place we can place you. There's no one that will take you. And the detention center will only take you if we put this charge on.”
[Child advocate Alicia] Adams: “As a society you're going to tell me that the only way we can protect these children is to lock them up in jail.”
Britton: “The system is not adequately designed to deal with this type problem.”
Hinojosa: “What part of the system needs to change?”
Britton: “All of it.”
My solution to this problem is based on the core of the problem:
raper of children = criminal
child prostitute = victim
Therefore, the criminal should pay for the rehabilitation of the children. Punishment of criminals should be much more severe and they should pay steep fines for child prostitution safe houses and public education programs. This is my preliminary plan and I welcome suggestions to improve it:
Punish rapists and rehabilitate the victims
Change the law so that renting a prostitute aged 15 or younger is classified as a type of statutory rape. The minimum age of consent for sex with an adult should be 16. Eliminate jail sentences and fines for underage prostitution rape victims, however the law should have the authority to send victims to rehabilitation facilities.
No immunity for allegedly not knowing the prostitute’s age
Whether the rapist knew the prostitute was underage is irrelevant. The person paying for sex is responsible for knowing whether the prostitute is underage.
Dramatically increase police and FBI sting operations to prosecute criminals who rent underage prostitutes. Many police resources used to arrest prostitutes will instead go toward arresting johns who rape children. It may be necessary to hire more police officers. They should have women officers posing as underage prostitutes, entrapment using fake underage online IDs, police posing as customers asking for underage prostitutes, etc.
Jail and fines for pedophile rapists
Mandatory jail time for pedophiles who have sex with child prostitutes. Fines are mandatory and will be docked from the rapist’s paycheck and/or government seizing of rapists’ property.
Rape of child prostitute under the age of 7:
Minimum 40 years imprisonment and mandatory chemical castration for 15 years upon release or option of surgical castration.
Fine of $100,000
Attempted rape of child prostitute under the age of 7:
Minimum 3 years imprisonment and mandatory chemical or optional surgical castration for 15 years.
Fine of $35,000
Rape of a child prostitute aged 7 to 12:
Minimum 25 years imprisonment or option of 10 years prison and 25 years chemical or surgical castration
Fine of $30,000
Attempted rape of child prostitute aged 7 to 12:
Minimum 1 year imprisonment and mandatory 10 years chemical or optional surgical castration.
Fine of $10,000
Rape of child prostitute aged 12-15:
Minimum 10 years imprisonment or option of 3 years prison and 10 years chemical or surgical castration
Fine of $15,000
Attempted rape of child prostitute aged 12-15:
Minimum 6 months imprisonment and mandatory 6 years chemical or optional surgical castration.
Fine of $6,000
Convicted pedophiles should be included in the sexual offender list available to the public. The law applies only to adults, aged 18 and older. Persons under the age of 18, if they are prosecuted at all for non-forcible statutory rape, should be prosecuted under the juvenile system.
Public Education Campaign
A national public safety education office should be set up and paid for by pedophiles convicted of renting underage prostitutes. The office will educate the public about the scope, severity and danger of child prostitution. They will distribute information to the press, place warnings in ad space on print, radio, TV and Internet media. Schools receiving state and federal assistance will be required to teach a workshop to warn children about child prostitution and inform them about safe houses where they can go for assistance if they are prostituted.
A national network of safe houses for underage prostitutes should be built and maintained at the expense of convicted pedophile johns. Prostitute rape victims should be sent to a safe house as soon as they are found to keep them away from pimps and to provide information to authorities to prosecute their rapists. Safe houses should enable children to complete their education, get psychological and career goals counseling and provide a family-like environment. Safe houses for male and female victims should be staffed and supervised by 90% females since the vast majority of pedophiles are men and that will help prevent sexual abuse of vulnerable wards. After an initial time at a safe house a prostitute should have the option to move in with family or live in a foster home but must stay in contact with the safe house until the age of 18.
If some people think these punishments are too harsh consider Britain’s recent child prostitution law change:
“Sex with a child under 13 will carry a life sentence, between the ages 13 and 15 may attract a maximum 14-year prison sentence, and seven years in cases when the child is 16 to 17. The law will regard the child involved in prostitution as a victim and they will not face charges.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/nov/19/ukcrime.childprotection/print
As a final note I believe that if women held 51% of the top government jobs, which is our proportion of the population, we would have a system that is much more compassionate towards child prostitutes and much more harsh against adults who rape them. Sexism is the main reason we have a system that favors child rapists instead of their innocent victims. Please contact your local representative to demand they change the federal and state child prostitution laws to stop punishing raped children and instead protect our children.
Posted by Nancy Kallitechnis at 9:33 PM
Saturday, January 3, 2009
First Woman to Be Appointed Australia’s Governor-General
Hillary Rodham Clinton
First Woman to win the most votes in the U.S. presidential primaries (http://tinyurl.com/2hbf4a)
Colonel Stephanie Dawson
First Woman to Lead the Harlem Hellfighters
First Woman to Become a Four-Star General in the US Armed Forces
Catherine “Cammi” Granato
First Woman to Be Inducted Into the US Hockey Hall of Fame
First Kenyan Woman to Win an Olympic Gold Medal
Dr. Marjolein Kriek
First Woman to Have Her DNA Sequence Determined
First Female Executive Board Member of the United Steelworkers Union
First Woman to Serve as Speaker of Pakistan’s National Assembly
First Woman to Be the Republican Candidate for Vice President
First Woman to Win a Major Closed-Course Auto Race
First Female Governor of North Carolina
First Woman Elected to the US Senate From NH
First Muslim Woman to Become a Michigan State Representative
First US Swimmer to Compete in 5 Olympics
First Woman to Command the International Space Station
First Woman to Join a Men's Professional Baseball League in Japan
The 13 Women of New Hampshire's State Senate
The First Female-Majority State Legislature in the Nation
Biographies of the women on this list:
Posted by Nancy Kallitechnis at 6:40 AM
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The photo of speechwriter Jon Favreau and his friend sexually grabbing a Hillary Clinton image is hate speech (http://tinyurl.com/5j3my5). Hate speech is wrong. Favreau should be fired for this act of hatred against 51% of our population.
WHY THE HILLARY GROPING PHOTO IS HATE SPEECH
First, remember women and girls are the most oppressed group in the world (http://tinyurl.com/6bk5rz). Men dominate women politically, economically, and socially. That is wrong. Women have a long way to go before we achieve political equality with men. Thus, lowering the status of women politicians in general is wrong.
The Favreau photo lowered Hillary Clinton's status in a vicious, cruel, and extremely disrespectful way. I believe most people would agree that portraying a politician as a sex object does lower the status of the politician. It reduces them to just a sexual being which takes attention away from or blots out entirely the mental part of the politician, the part that sets policy, that makes decisions, that creates a vision for our nation’s future. The mental part of a politician is extremely valuable and is largely responsible for the politician’s high status. Thus, by blotting out the mental part of a politician, the hate speech perpetrator seeks to lower the politician’s status in the eyes of the viewer.
But the Favreau photo didn’t just harm Hillary Clinton; it harmed women politicians in general. Hillary Clinton is a member of an oppressed group. This is self-evident since Hillary is a woman and men dominate women in society. Women are currently striving to raise their status to the level of men. I believe most people would agree with that because the existence of feminist organizations is well known and the purpose of feminist organizations is to raise women’s status higher towards equality with men, to give us equal power. Even women who don’t identify as feminists are often trying to raise their status to the level of men. Hollywood, the news, our friends and relatives are constantly telling us stories of women who fight sexism. Hillary Clinton is a role model woman striving towards equality with men: she’s an international figure who has promoted women’s equality throughout the world, she broke the glass ceiling of first women NY senator, first woman to win a primary, and first woman to get the most primary votes. When a pioneer woman breaks through a glass ceiling like Hillary has done, she is not just helping herself, she’s helping all women and girls. If she wins, we all win; yet if she loses, we all lose.
Thus, when Favreau humiliated Hillary Clinton, he humiliated all women and girls. As Obama’s speechwriter, Favreau fought against Hillary Clinton during the primaries. The Obama camp won the nomination with the help of the sexist media and DNC sabotaging Hillary Clinton. After his camp won, Favreau and a male wearing an Obama shirt publicly humiliated Hillary Clinton by creating a horrid tableau in which they grab her image by the hair and breast and shove a bottle in her mouth similar to a gang rape scene. Andrew Breitbart of the Washington Times said on December 8th that the Favreau photo was like “the early stages of the barroom rape scene of "The Accused" with Jodie Foster” (http://tinyurl.com/553b6p). The Obama supporters' sexual humiliation of their defeated opponent mirrored the common act of soldiers raping women of the country they have conquered. It was not about sex, it was about power. In describing the current problem of military rape in the Congo, Anneka Van Woudenberg of Human Rights Watch said, "This is not rape because soldiers have got bored and have nothing to do. It is a way to ensure that communities accept the power and authority of that particular armed group” (http://tinyurl.com/2ogl8s).
Similarly, Favreau’s sexual humiliation of Hillary Clinton was apparently acted out to show the power and authority of the victorious Obama camp over the defeated Hillary Clinton camp. And since if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency it would have helped free women from male domination, Favreau’s domination of Hillary Clinton was by default men’s domination of women. Thus, the Favreau photo is hate speech against women because it promotes male domination of women.
Furthermore, hate speech is defined by Wikipedia as:
a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech).
I’ve read many people saying Favreau’s action and photo degrades women so just by that definition it is hate speech according to Wikipedia. Furthermore, the basic principle of sexism is treating one gender group different and in a worse way. Women politicians are more often portrayed as sexual and less mental than men politicians, so that establishes that they are treated differently. For example, during the 2008 election Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were often portrayed sexually but their male counterparts almost never were (http://tinyurl.com/6jz4ww). And this different treatment, sexualization, lowers women politicians’ status. Therefore, since this practice creates an environment where women are treated differently and in a worse way (lowers our status) it is prejudiced against women. The lowering of women’s political status decreases women politicians’ power, which means it makes it harder for them to get support, to raise funds, to get positive media, to get votes, etc. Thus, sexualizing women politicians incites people to treat them in a prejudiced way. And according to Wikipedia speech that incites prejudicial action against a group is hate speech.
Also, photos are considered speech as are actions, thus the sexist photo of sexist action is speech.
A lot of people looked at the Favreau photo and immediately thought it was hateful. I read commentary about it and dozen’s of people have written that it is hateful against women and girls. Sexism takes many forms and has different levels of severity, but it is the same stuff. Sexist hate speech leads people to believe women/girls are inferior to men/boys and that leads to violent hate crimes, hate crimes that kill women and girls every day.
HATE SPEECH AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS
Favreau should be fired for his hate speech against Hillary Clinton and every woman and girl. People are often fired for hate speech. For example, when actor Isaiah Washington used the word f****t in regard to his Grey’s Anatomy coworker T.R. Knight who had announced he was gay ABC fired Washington for hate speech against homosexuals. Though Washington publicly apologized, went through counseling, met with officials from the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and filmed a public service announcement in which he said "words have power" to hurt or heal, nevertheless his hate speech was deemed too damaging to allow him to continue working for the Grey’s Anatomy series. Shonda Rhimes, the series creator, issued a statement saying ""I speak for all the executive producers here at ‘Grey's Anatomy’ when I say that Isaiah Washington's use of such a disturbing word was a shocking and dismaying event” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16791621/).
HATE SPEECH AGAINST WOMEN, BLACKS AND LOW INCOME PEOPLE
While Isaiah Washington spoke hate speech in private, Don Imus spoke it on air. When Imus mocked the Rutgers women’s basketball team by saying that in comparison to their “cute” competitors the Rutgers women were “nappy-headed hos” (frizzy-haired prostitutes) he was perpetuating prejudices against women, blacks and the lower classes. Most of the talk about the incident was about racism but both the Rutgers team and their Tennessee competitors were mostly black. Thus, since both teams were mostly black Imus wasn’t just making a racist comment as some believed; he was commenting negatively about lower-class culture and women. By saying the Rutgers team were “rough girls” with tattoos, Imus implied they were low-class compared to their Tennessee competitors. On the radio, Imus and others compared the Rutgers team to low-class “Jigaboos” and their competitors to lady-like “Wannabees” (http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040011).
And by referring to the allegedly low-class Rutgers women as prostitutes (“hos”) Imus was representing low-income women as prostitutes. Since almost all prostitutes are from the lower classes, lower class women are often falsely cast as prostitutes. For example, women are often referred to as hos (prostitutes) if they wear low-class clothing and makeup. Yet, lower class men are almost never referred to as prostitutes if they wear low-class clothing even though a significant percentage of prostitutes are men and boys. Thus, false charges of prostitution against women simply because they’re lower class is sexist because men are almost never attacked that way. Thus, for all the above reasons when Imus called the Rutgers women “nappy-headed hos” it was hate speech against women, blacks and the lower classes.
Imus’ hate speech had consequences. NBC News immediately announced it was dropping MSNBC's simulcast of Imus in the Morning. The next day CBS said it fired Imus. Staples and Miralus Healthcare pulled their ads from Imus's MSNBC show, while Procter & Gamble took its ads off of all MSNBC daytime. Imus publicly apologized for his hate speech.
HATE SPEECH-FREE GOVERNMENT
It is important to note that several presidential candidates publicly denounced Imus’ remarks because that relates to the Favreau hate speech. For example, Obama was the first candidate to say Imus should be fired:
…there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody
It was a degrading comment.
Insults, humor that degrades women, humor that is based in racism and racial stereotypes isn't fun,
And the notion that somehow it's cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case (http://tinyurl.com/2u7kg4).
Favreau’s hate speech was also referred to as amusing and people who complained against it were referred to as silly on the news (http://tinyurl.com/6nczxk). Today Washington Post writer Eli Saslow implied Favreau did nothing wrong, yet the first photo of Favreau illustrating the article belies Saslow's opinion. The photo shows two men looking at Favreau, one with a serious look on his face the other smiling at him. Look at the woman: http://tinyurl.com/542848. She is turned away from Favreau with look of disgust. She crossed her arms in front of her breasts (to prevent Favreau from humiliating her by groping or looking at them?). The Favreau hate speech runs deep and has had a profound negative effect on men and women. So far it has shown men that they can treat women like scum sexual objects and the highest levels of government may protect the sexual harasser. And based on what I've read and seen it has made women frightened and defensive and lowered our already very low status. Yet as Obama noted people can try to mask hate speech as fun and amusing but it is not, it is hate and hate is a serious problem.
Favreau’s hate speech is much worse than Imus’ hate speech so of course what goes for Imus should also go for Favreau but more severe. As it’s said, “A picture is worth a thousand words,” and Favreau’s humiliation of a women’s rights international figure by sadisticly portraying her in a gangbang scene is an attack against not just Hillary Clinton but against all women. In describing Imus hate speech Rutgers coach C. Vivian Stringer explained the hate speech didn’t just harm Rutgers women it harmed all woman:
It’s more than the Rutgers women’s basketball team. It is all women athletes. It is all women. Have we lost a sense of our own moral fiber? http://tinyurl.com/4d5o5c
Gender-based hate speech, like other hate speech, has a particular psychological and emotional impact which extends beyond the original victim. Thus, this attack on Hillary Clinton was an attack against me. It was a dishonorable, cruel, hate-filled attack against all women and girls.
It’s important to note that Don Imus and Isaiah Washington worked in the entertainment and sports industries and these industries are not specifically designed to promote social good. Yet even though social good is not their main goal they enforced good anyway by condemning hate speech by firing those who inflicted hate speech. If entertainment and sports organizations take strong action against hate speech, how much more important is it that the government whose primary purpose is to promote social good take even stronger action against hate speech? Allowing a man who has committed extreme hate speech against women to work at a high level in government sends the following message: women are inferior to men.
The government should not be promoting the idea that women are inferior to men. If sexist speech is allowed to continue without even the bare minimum of a public apology to its victims then sexist hatred will continue. The government must stop it in its tracks. Hate speech encourages the subjugation of women and girls which is harmful to our society.
It makes no difference whether the hate speech was done using cardboard, film, a live performance, or a combination of these things. Hate speech is wrong regardless of what media is used for the hatred. It is wrong regardless of whether it is one word or a picture worth a thousand words. Favreau must stop hiding and turn and face his victims and speak words of apology to begin the healing process of the enormous damage he inflicted on women and girls.
Posted by Nancy Kallitechnis at 12:17 PM