Skip to content


October 19, 2009

A couple of years ago, a cousin of mine told me that one of her ex-b0yfrieds admitted that he, along with some of his male orderly co-workers, raped and sodomized one of the female patients in a home for adults with special needs.  She refused to turn him in, and would not tell me his name or place of employment.  Unless the law has caught up with him for other crimes, against property perhaps, he’s still free, raping women with his buddies.

It’s horrifying, but, given the nature of males, it’s not to be unexpected.  What recourse does a woman of limited mental faculties have in such a place?  She’d first need the capacity to conceive of the injustice, and she’d secondly need to be able to inform a sympathetic party of her plight, neither of which is guaranteed.  Even if she were able to get all of this across, the institution itself has a vested interest in denying that they’ve ever hired rapists to contribute to the care of some of society’s most vulnerable women.  There is virtually no hope for her liberation from male predation.

So, what’s to be done, then?  The men running the care facility aren’t the only people adamant in their refusal to brand men rapists.  The particular rapists in this case would be mightily defended against her charges, and the institution would only hire more males to fill those positions in the event that the first batch of rapists was sent elsewhere.  The wider society would applaud the institution’s purge of those bad apples, and welcome the orientation of new, “normal,” ostensibly “non-rapist” males to take their place.

The faith-based belief in the “good man” is a blatant sacrifice of the well-being of all women and girls, especially those of limited means.  But, since, as we’re all quite aware, the belief in “good males” isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, what options remain for those of us concerned more about the uninhibited rape of defenseless women than the reputation of males as a sex?

I don’t expect my opinions on the topic to be popular, but I think there are certain life experiences that are better left unlived.  I don’t think there’s anything morally sound about bringing deficient infants into the world, knowing what goes on in establishments billed as facilities for their care.  I hardly see anything ethical about bringing into the world infants who have the potential to develop to full mental and physical capability, given our species’ refusal to see males for what they are.  I’m not of the mind that my mother did me any favors by birthing me into a system founded on the rape of bodies like mine, after all, but at least I have at my disposal certain skills and abilities that allow me to navigate the obstacle course we inhabit.  If we are unwilling to do the one thing that might save the most vulnerable of women from male predation – acknowledge as a rapist every human creature with a penis, and treat him accordingly – is it completely unreasonable to consider halting the production of caged female quarry?  I mean, women with certain kinds of disabilities are quite literally caged with their predators.

In a lot of ways, I think animals are much more merciful to offspring with little to no chance of thriving on their own.  I know that it might be difficult to draw a line between those who live and those who should be spared, but I don’t think this difficulty should preclude discussion about how to prevent the use/abuse of female bodies by males under the current circumstances, in which males of every level of mental capacity, or lack thereof, are permitted free reign at the expense of girls and women.  Like I always say, my preference is that women stop breeding and raising males, but barring that, it would be nice if males weren’t handed easy prey.

  1. October 19, 2009 2:34 pm

    This whole thing closely ties in with female infanticide and abortion of female fetuses. So many women want “those women” to stop killing their girl children, but if you suggest that the boys would need to be killed instead in order to make the lives of the girl children worth living, then, well, that’s just out of the question. So, they don’t want to prevent the production of new oppressors, and they don’t want female children spared an existence of rape and servitude… What exactly is it that they want???

  2. October 19, 2009 3:57 pm

    Like I always say, my preference is that women stop breeding and raising males, but barring that, it would be nice if males weren’t handed easy prey.

    There are a few mental grand canyons people will have to cross over, and those crossings cannot be accomplished without investing time and energy, particularly, the mental energy to dive into the actual details of our reality. For starters, unmolested/violated/raped women will have to recognize and admit that they benefit from easy prey, as your title asserts. “Better her than me. She doesn’t know what is happening anyway! I would. I have a life to live and it is much more importance than hers.” Then women would have to admit the privileges they get from having boy children. Only this morning I heard CNN praising Jim Carey for supporting his girlfriend/wife Jenny McCarthy with her autism campaign. Why is she campaigning for autism, —because her son has it. What sex of child is most likely to have autism? A boy? Of course, he is going to support that shit. Would he or she wage a campaign if she had a daughter who was raped by a man?

  3. October 19, 2009 4:08 pm

    Ooh, this is a prickly topic. Personally, I have depression and a severe anxiety disorder (the former controlled by medication, and latter notsomuch), and my family tree is full of same plus lots of alcoholism, and I haven’t ever felt remotely grateful to have been born. I would never, ever want to bring a child into this world knowing she is at risk of going through the pain and suffering I have (at the hands of men, certainly, but also within my own head). I do plan to adopt/foster/mentor girls in the future. I really think women as a whole should stop having children for awhile and turn their attentions to all the girls already in existence. I say this as a strategy, not to judge women for their individual choices.

    Mentally disabled women and girls get raped in much higher numbers than the general population (and the numbers for the general population are much, much too high anyway). The more severe the level of disability, the more likely a girl is to be abused. It’s fucking sick.

    There are certain things women can do to minimize the risk of their daughters being raped and abused, such as not having a husband or boyfriend, not having sons, not hiring a male babysitter, not going to a religious organization run by males, using only female pediatricians, sending the girl to an all-girls school, etc., but I don’t think you can get rid of the risk altogether in this patriarchal world. And even the options I mentioned require a lot of privilege to attain.

    I don’t like your use of the term “deficient infants” though. It’s ableist and just ick. I don’t have a more intelligent argument to offer against it, sorry, it just makes me wince.

  4. October 19, 2009 5:15 pm

    Hi Joce Claire, yes, mentally and physically disabled women are at outrageous risk of rape by their “caretakers,” as well as by males in general, as was amply demonstrated in the Megan Williams case. I know that “deficient infants” may sound harsh, but, like you, I have nothing better at my disposal. I think, too, that using the term sort of brings home the similarities between ourselves and animals – and there’s no denying that certain offspring are deemed deficient and disposed of as such in the animal kingdom. I’m not sure that we can claim any sort of ethical superiority in our reluctance to admit that there are similar deficiencies in human offspring.

    I think able-ism is only parallel to other facets of oppression insofar as there are technologies available to help people sidestep or overcome disabilities. Yes, it’s bigoted to discriminate against people who cannot walk, for example, because there are technologies available to help people who can’t walk move around on their own in other ways. But the fact of the matter is that there are certain conditions that doom the afflicted to a life dependent upon the mercies of others – and not just the availability of technologies. There was a case not too long ago in which a girl was sterilized and stunted, among other mutilations, which treatment was named the “Ashley Treatment.” There was no technology, no medicine, no surgery, that would ever make that girl even partially self-sufficient, and I think a lot of the outrage against the path her parents chose had more to do with the misogynist notion that women ought to be eternally responsible for whatever infant she births than with any concern over Ashley’s quality of life. I just think that there are certain ugly truths – and the fact that we inflict on human beings a standard of living we wouldn’t allow a dog to endure is one of them.

  5. atheistwoman permalink
    October 19, 2009 6:18 pm

    “The faith-based belief in the “good man”…”

    First I just have to say, LOL!

    But I believe men can be good, men can change!

    And yeah, you’ve said before, the relative freedom certain women have is because it is relative, somewhere there are women being kicked under the bus, sacrificed, to satisfy male sadism, even if you aren’t. And this is the perfect example of that.

    In a post I wrote a while ago I said something similar on the having children thing:
    “Why would I want a child born into a world that allowed its mother to be raped?

    Answers on a postcard…

    Now I’m going to go all scandalous (yeees) here (bring the idiots, no doubt they’ll have something to shake in my face) and I have to wonder why any person with resources similar to mine would choose to have a child in a world where its mother could be raped. Doesn’t seem like a world worth bringing a child into. I mean what, misery loves company? ”

    SO yeah, I agree with this:
    “I don’t expect my opinions on the topic to be popular, but I think there are certain life experiences that are better left unlived. ” Including the part about not having severely disabled children. I know women with severely disabled children, and it’s not that they don’t love them, but that the children are their life, period. Even mildly disabled children can become a serious lodestone without the proper resources and community understanding (neither of which are available to most women). And so to shame women into giving birth to children she knows will be disabled, and holding her up as “motherly,” and “saintly” and “self-sacrificing,” is absolute bullshit.

    This isn’t some weird eugenics thing, it is the facts.

  6. Mary Sunshine permalink
    October 19, 2009 7:34 pm

    Margaret, Kitty, Joce Claire, AW – you all speak as I think. Thank you for speaking that which all females, at some levels, must know.

    I was the only female of my mother’s 5 children. From my earliest pre-verbal memory I have always wished I had never been born. If we loved a beautiful, free, wise female spirit, why would we ever want to subject her to being incarnated on this planet, to a destiny of rape and slavery?

  7. October 19, 2009 10:26 pm

    But I believe men can be good, men can change!

    I hope that was a joke AW? Because actually I don’t think men can be ‘good’ or change (I am speaking of the majority). I don’t see the evidence that men can change, for every gain that feminists have made, there has always been a backlash. That does not bode well for the male-kind. It does evidence that they are either defective or vindictive, my money on the latter.

    Getting back to the topic of the post, I despair that women in care have male ‘carers’ around. These male ‘carers’ just cannot be trusted to keep their dick in their pants. Whilst the rape of women in care happens a lot, I am sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. I would guess that it has happened to almost every woman in care. Think about it, if the average is 1-in4 of able bodied women being raped, what are the odds of a captive victim with limited capacities?

    I for one do not support the idea of ‘disposable women’ or ‘disposable victims’.
    Nor will I ever support the idea of prostitution until it is proven that it is 100% chosen.

    If even some of us are not free from rape, then none of us are.
    The basic stat is that is can happen to any of us, at any time.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      October 19, 2009 10:37 pm

      It was definitely a joke Stormy! Ha. I was making fun of the true-believers TM.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: