Rant about the UBC Rapist (satire)

I am a man and according to feminist thetoric I am inherently sexist. Isn't that too a sexist statement? Yes, neither side of the gender divide is innocent of sexism.

Oh wait1 I am not supposed to be ranting incoherently that is off topic. :p

Feminism is not free of bias itself. Since it is too inherently biased, then it becomes like a filter that facilitates dialog between all genders.

At 50, I realize that my biases are partially inherent. I refuse to exaggerate the sexism inherent in male rhetoric. There is no such thing as male sexism being totally inherent because such extremes are few in number.

For confirmation bias denies this, and a few feminists prove my point when they discuss the male stereotype.

Another feminist bias regards women as a visible minority when unemployed and underpaid. This depends on the age group.

Sometimes feminist rhetoric tends to turn grey areas of human civilization into black and white caricatures of reality while presenting it as reality.

Overall there is a gender bias present which is more subtle than men acknowledge.

How am I to be free of such bias if the confirmation bias of feminists label some of my actions as sexist yet sometimes deny theirs to be sexist by use of the fallacy that all men are sexist while subtly stating that only men are sexist.

The truth is, belief in the gender binary makes men and women equally culpable in being sexist. Either gender, be it male or female, is capable of using fallacies to propagandize their confirmation biases about gender.

When a person encounters such biases and does not question them, there are many reasons for non-confrontation of these biases.

Confrontational methods of dealing with gender biases common to the limitations of the gender binary may be observed by a person as a political ploy to exercise freedom of expression and of associations.

So feminists protest publicly the glass ceiling's effect on women's wages. Then the term "rape culture" is used to morph sexual assaults of women into attempted rape and label the survivors of such assaults as victims.

In response, I deny that there are victims; there are only survivors of sexual assault. Even when the perpetrator escalates his violence against some women in the future, and rape become likely, they are then survivors of rape.

My reason for removing the term "victim" from my rhetoric is to imply that the human species is capable of surviving violence.

Not all men are rapists, nor is a man inherently violent. Both genders are capable of violence.

Therefore, the introduction of victimology into the discussion of sexual violence is inherently an artifact of the patriarchy that pervades society at this point in time.

Thus, by using the term "survivor" I have reframed sexual violence in a pro-active manner, rather than catering to a patriarchal bias by calling a victim a survivor.

This reframed view turns a victim into an empowered individual, and negates the perpetrator's impact. For victimology implies that there is a victim and a perpetrator as well as a them versus us ideology.

Calling such a victim a survivor does not negate the victim's experience. Rather, it removes the survivor from remaining powerless.

What does this make the perpetrator but a potential rapist? Especially when he escalates his violence.

As for myself, I have no sympathy for the rapist. He thinks he is entitled to exercise his power over a potential victim because in doing so, his loss of control over his sexual urges motivates him to gain control over someone potentially weaker than him.

How ironic that something that uncontrolled results in a show of power that reflect a hidden impotence!

If a man needs that much excitement in his life, then he is truly a sexual psychopath. Even though he may have a partner, not even she and his circle of friends would suspect him of such a crime.

A prime example of this is the UBC rapist whose six victims I only see as six survivors of an inept offender who gave up when his crimes became known.

To the survivors I have this to say: "through no fault of your own you survived a terrifying act of violence and prevented rape.

Thus you six prove that there is no rape culture at UBC."

These six acts of violence reflect instead a rape culture inherent with the perpetrator's family within their community.

Murder and Sexual Assault Not Related to Psychosis

April 24, 2007: "In America, the homocide rate is a little over 5 per 100,000 with 3/4 of victims being men and almost 90% of perpetrators also men. This works out to 12.4 per 100,000 male victims, 16 per 100,000 male perpetrators, 3.6 per 100,000 female victims and 1.9 per 100,000 female perpetrators.

So unless it happens to be the rare case of a man being murdered by a woman or even rarer, a woman by a woman, most men murder mostly other men. One in four victims are female."

Therefore, violent men murder mainly men, but one in four of victims are female.

As well, the rate of sexual assaults has decreased over the past 7 years.

Even if we assume 1/3 of assaults are reported, that's still about 100 assaults per 100,0000 people.

There are more people who may report psychosis and usually without any causal link with murder and violent crime.

Even so, with the rate of psychopaths committing a violent act, there has to be a casual relationship with murder and sexual assault.

Update: 20120118.0055

Even in light of recent murder suicides in the US, and the new assault weapon bill, it is doubtful any of the people involved were psychotic.

Thuis being said, a few of them might have acted psychotic but they planned everything. A few of them even planned to die, too.

As for the Aurora theatre murder, that is like most of these mass killings where the perpetrator chooses to shoot a substitute (people he didn't know) for matricide and patricide.

For at the root of most killings is self-hate reflected first on our parents. Yet because killing one's parents is so big a taboo, it becomes easier to kill complete strangers rather than having a big argument with your parents.

At least, that's what psychopaths might believe.

Crime Rate is Dropping

Only for homicide (murder) has the crime rate gone up from 1.7 per 100,000 in 2001 to level off at 2.0 per 100,000 from 2004 to 2005.

In America, the homicide rate is 5.5 per 100,000 for 2005 with 3/4 of victims being men and almost 90% of perpetrators also men. This works out to 9 per 100,000 male victims, 2.3 per 100,000 female victims, 12 per 100,000 male perpetrators and 2 per 100,000 female perpetrators.

So unless it happens to be the rare case of a man being murdered by a woman or even rarer, a woman by a woman, most men murder mostly other men. One out of four victims is female.

Regarding rape & sexual assault, it went from 160 per 100,000 in 1995, 120 per 100,000 in 2000, 80 per 100,000 in 2005, to 100 per 100,000 in 2007 in the US according to US Census Bureau records:

If 1 in 10 incidents of sexual assault are not reported, the rates dropped from 1600 to 1000 per 100,000 in the US from 1995 to 2007.

Over the same period, Canada's sexual assault rates were lower: 100 per 100,000 in 1995, 80 per 100,000 in 2000, 75 per 100,000 in 2005 and 70 in 2007.

If in Canada, 1 in 10 incidents of sexual assault are not reported, then the rates dropped from 1000 to 700 per 100,000 in Canada from 1995 to 2007.


Reference:
Crimes and Offenses: http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/ind01/l2_2693-eng.htm
Homicide Trends: 1980 to 2005: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0301.pdf
Criminal Victimization and Victimization Rates: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0304.pdf
Chart 1, Sexual Assault in Canada 2004 and 2007: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/85f0033m2008019-eng.pdf