Search This Blog

Wednesday, 22 July 2015

Dear Cis People...

The Question:

The Answer:
The fact that all of you people keep insisting that the world accept you for who you are and not judge you and love you and think that your choices are appropriate and not depraved and/or insane. 

Thursday, 9 July 2015

Teach Men not to Rape

Today I must admit that I lost my temper. And what made me lose my temper you ask? This did:


A small Facebook post. One that on the face of it has a great message behind it. But when you read it again you get to see that it is the embodiment of the sexist feminist rhetoric.

I am sick and tired of men and only men being branded as rapists. And I am equally sick and tired of women being told that they do not have to take responsibility for their own safety and actions. 

Do I condone rape? Not at all.
Do I blame the victim? No.
Do I think women should have no responsibility? No.

Why is it that these people think that a woman should have all of the freedoms in the world but have no responsibilities? Why should a woman be able to come and go as she pleases and act as she pleases in any places she she chooses and not have any responsibility? 

I know they have been said before but saying that women should not have any responsibility in protecting themselves is the same as:

1. Telling people to stop stealing instead of telling me to make sure my property is protected;
2. Telling cars not to hit people instead of telling people to look both ways before crossing the road;
3. Telling children to behave instead of telling parents to discipline their children;
4. Telling people not to get fat instead of eating healthily and exercising;
5. Telling people not to murder instead of telling me to make sure my person is protected;
6. Telling people not to get pregnant instead of telling them to use contraceptives;
7. Telling people not to have a hangover instead of telling them not to drink too much;
8. Telling water not to drown people instead of teaching people how to swim...

I'm sure you can think of quite a few to add... don;t be shy in the comments.

I am seriously getting sick and tired of the no responsibility brigade parading around in their feminist colours. I am sick and tired of being told that I am weak and cannot and should not protect myself. That I have to depend on others to fight for me by making me more of a victim. 

I for one will be teaching all of my children that:

1. Rape is wrong - perpetrating it or accusing someone of it without reason; and
2. How to protect themselves from any and all possible situations to the best of my and their ability. 

All of us have the responsibility to look after ourselves and take steps to make sure we are not harmed in any way... why should women be exempted from being responsible for their own safety.

But here is the real kicker that people who would post this message again and again don;t seem to get:
WE DO TEACH MEN NOT TO RAPE.

Rape is a crime in almost every single country. 
A conviction for rape usually carries a hefty prison sentence.
After being convicted (or even just accused) of rape a man will forever be treated like a rapist and will be shunned.
Rape is in no way condoned and this is taught from an early age.

And as a final thought - maybe feminists should actually look at the legal definition of the crime of rape to get a better idea of what rape is and what rape is not. ie:

Rape IS the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

Rape is NOT:

1. getting drunk and having sex with someone and regretting it the next day;
2. having a one night stand with someone and feeling guilty about it;
3. deciding the next day that you wanted to take back the consent you gave the night before;
4. being looked at;
5. being spoken to by an unattractive person; 
6. consensual heterosexual sex;
7. having sex and saying you were raped because your parents would be mad; or
8. cheating on a partner and calling it rape when you get caught out. 

Rant over for the day.

Time to halt BEE

A warm hello to my friends who are not in South Africa but who are interested in what is happening here. And another warm hello to all of those lovely liberal bunny huggers who think South Africa is a country of rainbows and happiness and that the white population is not being squeezed out of all aspects of citizenship (and that if they are they deserve it for daring to be successful 21 years after blacks took power) - including the economy which is almost literally a death sentence. Here is a piece by the extremely intelligent Anthea Jeffery regarding the South African policy of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) which directly benefits the majority black population (80% and if you include coloured and the Chinese and Indians and everyone who is not white 91%) over the minority white population.

Time to halt BEE – replace with “economic empowerment for the disadvantaged”

by *Anthea Jeffery
Dr. Anthea Jeffery is Head of Policy Research at the IRR and author of Patents and Prosperity: Invention + Investment = Growth + Jobs, published this week by the IRR and available on the IRR website.
Dr. Anthea Jeffery is Head of Policy Research at the IRR.
A comprehensive audit of black economic empowerment (BEE) ownership deals since 2001, recently compiled by Intellidex, a consultancy, shows that R317bn, free of debt, has been transferred to black South Africans by the top 100 companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE).
The overall value of these deals is, of course, very much higher – and was estimated at some R600bn in 2013. Yet, despite the high costs of what has already been done, the pressure on business for ever more BEE deals is relentless.
The revised BEE generic codes of good practice, which took effect on 1st May 2015, make ownership a “priority” element for companies both large and small. For the first time, qualifying small enterprises or QSEs (those with annual turnover of between R10m and R50m) must also implement such deals, or see their “levels of BEE contribution” reduced by one level.
In the past, QSEs could choose four out of seven BEE elements to implement, which meant they could earn significant points without complying with the ownership rules. Under the revised codes, this flexibility has been removed.
Moreover, the aim of the new codes is not to encourage “broad-based” deals with employees or community trusts, which are to earn only 3 points out of 25. Instead, the emphasis is on narrow deals with the “100 black industrialists” the Government is trying to promote.
In addition, President Jacob Zuma claimed earlier this year that black South Africans own only 3% of listed shares on the JSE. According to the Presidency, only “direct” black ownership counts, while “indirect” black ownership – through the pension funds and other institutions that own the bulk of listed shares – is irrelevant. This means, the Presidency adds, that 22% of the JSE, with a value of some R2.6 trillion, still has to be transferred.
However, this perspective overlooks both the content of the codes and a series of research reports commissioned by the JSE. The latest JSE research (published in February 2015) puts black ownership of the JSE at 23%: 10% direct and 13% indirect.
Moreover, writes BEE expert Jenny Cargill, since black South Africans hold significant stakes in pension funds and the like, the aim should be to “measure black shareholder wealth in its entirety – not just the shareholding directly held by BEE entities”.
© 2012 Zapiro (All Rights Reserved)  Printed/Used with permission from www.zapiro.com
© 2012 Zapiro (All Rights Reserved)
Printed/Used with permission from www.zapiro.com
In addition, some 40% of JSE shares are owned by foreign investors and are not available for BEE redistribution. If this 40% is left out of account, as logic suggests, then black-owned shares make up 38% of the shares available and the 25% target has been met.
Far from acknowledging this, the Government is now using the revised codes to ratchet up the level of BEE ownership required from 25% to 51%. The pressure here comes not from the ownership element itself, but rather from the new element of “enterprise and supplier development” (ESD), which counts 40 points on the new scorecard.
The first sub-element of ESD is preferential procurement. Under the revised codes, extensive preferential procurement from firms with 25% black ownership now earns a mere 5 out of 25 points. By contrast, 13 points out of 25 are available for buying goods and services from BEE firms that are 51% black-owned or 30% black women-owned.
Then there is the “supplier and enterprise development” sub-element of ESD, for which 15 points can be earned for assisting BEE firms within and outside company supply chains. Under the revised codes, all contributions of this kind must now go to firms with 51% black ownership. Larger enterprises, those with annual turnover above R50m, are expected to contribute 3% of net profit after tax (NPAT) to such firms, while QSEs must put in 2% of NPAT.
No points are earned for contributions to firms with less than 51% black ownership. For larger enterprises, this is also a “priority” element – so failure to achieve 40% of the specified target will result in their levels of BEE contribution being reduced by one level.
Already, the new rules are putting pressure on companies that sell goods and services to larger enterprises to transfer 51% of their equity or assets to black people if they want to retain supply contracts often vital to their viability.
At the same time, Eskom wants the mining companies that supply coal to it to have 51% BEE ownership, even though the mining charter requires only 26%. So coal mining companies wanting to do business with the parastatal at a time of weak export markets are also under pressure to do additional BEE deals to reach this level of black ownership.
In 2013 wealthy Nigerian businessman Aliko Dangote warned against BEE ownership requirements, saying Nigeria used to have similar rules but had shed them because they deterred foreign direct investment (FDI).
In addition, where BEE ownership requirements rise to 51%, this could be seen as indirect expropriation and is likely to become a still more potent barrier to FDI.
However, instead of heeding Dangote’s warning, the ruling party is steadily shifting the goalposts on BEE ownership rules. Its underlying aim is not to provide redress for past injustice but rather to “eliminate” existing property relations in this more “radical” phase of the national democratic revolution (NDR).
It is time to call a halt to BEE, which needs to be replaced by a new focus on “economic empowerment for the disadvantaged” or “EED”. Instead of breaking down property rights in pursuit of a socialist nirvana, EED would emphasise all the right “Es”: from economic growth and excellent education to employment and entrepreneurship.
* Anthea Jeffery, Head of Policy Research at the Institute of Race Relations. Jeffery is also the author of BEE: Helping or Hurting?