Does science shed light on why we don't believe rape victims?
An interesting article from Jezebel, positing that there are neuroscientific explanations for the appalling prejudices held against rape victims:
"Tremblay could see why they were doubtful once he started interviewing the victims himself. The victims, most of them women, often had trouble recalling an attack or couldn’t give a chronological account of it. Some expressed no emotion. Others smiled or laughed as they described being assaulted.
...
The brain’s prefrontal cortex—which is key to decision-making and memory — often becomes temporarily impaired. The amygdala, known to encode emotional experiences, begins to dominate, triggering the release of stress hormones and helping to record particular fragments of sensory information. Victims can also experience tonic immobility — a sensation of being frozen in place—or a dissociative state."
All of which is undoubtedly valid, and inordinately helpful - provided the information is appropriately assimilated and utilised by the various agencies - when dealing with victims of such horrific crimes.
HOWEVER. As the Jezebel article itself goes on to state;
"...it's worth noting that fragmented memory formation is not unique to sexual assault trauma. This is the same neurological process the brain undergoes when forming memories of other violent, scarring incidents (car jackings, muggings, beatings, armed robberies, etc.)."
So, what gives? If the very experience of traumatic events themselves causes this universal breakdown in memory - why should victims of rape be singled out? Well, sadly, it brings us right back round to the patriarchal principles which govern our society: "Women are feeble-minded, unreliable, lacking in intellect, confused, but also coquettish temptresses"; and "Sex is vile, disgusting, shameful...in so far as women engage in it (men, on the other hand, are granted 'stud' status when discussed in relation to it)". Thus is the cycle perpetuated - a woman who reports rape is fundamentally suspect from the first. A woman! Openly discussing - whisper it! - her VAGINA? Clearly a hussy! And what exaggeration! Men; honourable, upstanding men would never countenance behaving in such a manner. Obviously she's either a) scorned and looking for retribution or b) merely confused by her misunderstanding of the situation! Silly, flappable girls! And, unfortunately, due to the vast preponderance of rapes being perpetrated upon women, and thus this particular atrocity being generally understood as a 'female issue', those men who are subject to the same awful experience will find themselves grouped together by societal preconceptions of the crime, as opposed to what actually happened to them, and will often find themselves on the receiving end of the same bullshit.
Consequently, insofar as these new perspectives have the potential to alleviate the suffering of victims post-rape during the 'legal' investigation (provided anyone actually notices and implements changes, of course), we are left with the depressing reality that this will have absolutely no impact on any victim anywhere, until we finally shift the global status quo from the patriarchal oppression we all currently suffer under.
80 percent of US packaged foods may contain dangerous chemicals
"One of the most common 'Bad Boys' is different variations of food coloring, which actually is made from petroleum and is found in everyday items like soda, sports drinks, mac and cheese, cake, candy and several other common, American products. One of the chemicals in that food coloring, they add, has been proven to cause various different cancers.
...
Another additive, brominated vegetable oil, has been banned in over 100 countries because it’s been linked to causing major organ damage, birth defects and hearing loss, among other side effects.
...
Another additive, potassium bromate, is used in American bakeries to speed up the process of preparing wraps, rolls and other bread products. It’s derived from the same chemical as BVO, though, and has been tied to causing kidney damage and cancer.
...
Azodicarbonamide is “approved to be a bleaching agent in cereal flour” and is “permitted for direct addition to food for human consumption,” according to the Food and Drug Administration. Along with waxy preservatives called butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) used in bubble gums, though, the additive has been banned in parts of Europe for potential health risks.
...
Rounding out the authors’ 'Bad Boys' list are Synthetic growth hormones rBGH and rBST and the chemical arsenic."
So, riddle me this...if this constitutes one of the absolute fundamental prerequisites for life (pure, nutritious air, water and food are the three elements without any one of which, human life would cease to exist), then who could possibly argue that having 80% of that necessity corrupted and poisoned with carcinogens, neurotoxins, excitotoxins, cytotoxins, et cetera (and that's without even broaching the prevalence and toxicity of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)!) is an efficient way of keeping the species alive - never mind nutritionally sound!? Doublespeak alone can justify this kind of outright insanity.
UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) tapping global communications
"The agency’s controversial plan is to scoop up as much online and telephone traffic as possible, under its Mastering the Internet and Global Telecoms Exploitation program.
...
Even though many analysts may see the move as a breach of innocent people’s privacy, it is being carried out without any debate or the public’s knowledge.
...
GCHQ has the ability to tap into and store huge amounts of data taken from optic-fiber cables for up to 30 days so that it can be filtered and examined."
Well now, doesn't that just make you wonder just who it is exactly that elevates certain of the human race to rule others' lives? Who decides which unelected officials get to trawl their way through your e-mail argument with your ex? Who decides which governmental employees are granted free rein with your personal, private data? Because I was sure as hell never given that responsibility, and I know you weren't either.
So just what was the point at which the concept of equal citizens of the world was negated entirely?
Feudalism reins supreme over this planet, and if "they" can decide your own thoughts, opinions and right to self-expression are no longer yours, just how long before "someone else" is deciding the value of each citizen's life as a whole?
...and still the question hangs unanswered - just who did decide that some human beings, exactly the same as you or I, are inherently 'better', and therefore have the 'right' to judge YOU?
No comments:
Post a Comment