Rick Ross Rapist?

You will probably have heard about the Rick Ross controversy concerning his rape lyrics. We have tried to collect the facts and come up with an evaluation that is objective and fair. The lyrics that are debated are these:

Put Molly all in her champagne, she ain't even know it.

I took her home and enjoy that. She ain't even know it.

Molly is the powder or crystal form of MDMA or ecstasy (XTC), an illegal drug. (This drug, by the way, changes mental states but does not knock out users, making them fall asleep or lose consciousness.)

There is no direct reference to sex and rape in the rape but the narrative of the text is like this: Someone – apparently the singer Rick Ross himself – treats a woman to alcohol in a public place and spikes it with a drug that makes her unconscious. He then transports her home and has sex with her in an unconscious state and against her will.

“It” in normal English refers to something that has been mentioned earlier on or to something we point at at the moment. In modern urban slang, however, “do it” means to “have sex”. That is what it means in Chris Brown's song Do It as well. “I'm looking for a girl who gonna do it for me ,, , I'll be turning it up all night.” In modern usage “it” refers to sex,Our reading of the lyrics is therefore correct,

Sex is relatively unproblematic if both partners really want it. In that case what happens to the woman is what the woman wants herself. Such sex is consensual.

In the rap lyrics we hear twice that she does not know it. She accepted the champagne but she did not know that drugs had been added to it. She had sex but did not know that because she was unconscious. Being out of her senses and being in the dark about the man's motives she definitely was not consensual. Non-consensual sex is rape. Sex that only men enjoy – as stated in the lyrics - is rape.

Rick Ross states in a questionable apology that he did not sing about rape and therefore did not propagate rape either, that is not convincing because he repeatedly refers to he non-consensucal aspect of the affair.

That the woman Rick says he slept with was not a virgin and was not hurt in the process and, hopefully, not impregnated or infected with STDs does not improve things. He does not condemn the activity described by him. He even tells or orders the audience to follow suit: “Put Molly all in her champagne!”

The feminist group Ultra Violet has protested against the song and asked Reebok that uses Rick as an advertising celebrity to scrap his employment and his fat pay cheques.

The media ensure that Rick Ross in the distant USA is a next door neighbour in Namibia. Young Namibian men may very well idolize Rick Ross and what he stands for. If Molly is less available here, Namibian men have long considered alcohol as a self-control reducer that you use to make women less willing and able to resist male sexual advances. Some even think that such gifts of alcohol are a down payment on sex and an entitlement to demand surrender. In such a mindset the step to spiking drinks for date rape is not very far.

We find it impossible to like Rick Ross.

We are especially disgusted by Rick's so-called apology:

"Woman is the most precious gift known to man.  I would never use the term 'rape' in my records and as far as my camp, Hip-hop don't condone that, the streets don't condone that, nobody condones that. So I just wanted to reach out to all my queens that's on my timeline, all the sexy ladies, the beautiful ladies that have been reaching out to me with the misunderstanding: We don't condone rape, and I'm not with that.”

Women are not gifts and thus merely objects, Women are givers – givers of care, love and life when giving is the right thing to do. We are not gifts whether glossy luxury consumption articles or wares from the cheap Chinese corner shop.

Sister Namibia wants gender equality. We do not want a place on a pedestal as greatest gift to man, queens, sexy and beautiful ladies. We do not want a place under man's foot. We want the place and respect that everybody is entitled to.

Rick's pedestal and praise for women the wonderful is especially insincere because this is a pedestal that still fits under a man's foot. The sexy lady is there for man's arousal and satisfaction. The lady's beauty makes her a trophy woman that man can brag about among his mates. Queens, not surprisingly, is often used as a synonym for prostitute or – in rap lingo – ho.

Thanks for the compliment, Rick, but we don't want it.

In soccer, racist remarks and gestures by players and audiences are taken very seriously and are punished quite harshly, We think it is about time that the entertainment and advertising industry starts punishing sexist offenders. They can be excluded from advertising contracts, Grammy /Awards, airplay. Colleagues can boycott offenders. But that does not seem to be happening. At the moment, racism and sexism are not treated with equal contempt. Discrimination because of race is as bad as discrimination because of gender. It is unacceptable that bad-boy musicians get the boys-will-be-boys treatment. Otherwise we might as well live with a 'racists will be racists' attitude.

On Our Culture Of Violence

I just got off the phone with someone who shares our concern with the apparently escalating incidences of violence against women and girls in this country.

The caller was not certain whether violence against women really is on the rise or whether it is just that reporting on this issue is increasing. Perhaps he has a point there. In my mind, however, this country is rooted in a culture in which violence against anybody considered to be an underdog was widely accepted and condoned. Dark-skinned people were taught that there was a social hierarchy and that we had to know our places in that hierarchy. Failure to know where you belong, inevitably, would result in the full wrath and violence allowable to the system and the state. Many lost their lives in that manner.

That system of state violence by necessity had to sanction all other forms of violence against those under-dogs of the underdogs who did not know their place and rank in that dog eat dog world also. This – as a trade off - allowed or tolerated black men perpetrating all forms of violence against their women.  So within a violent system, sub-systems of oppression and subjugation flourished. The black man who was picked upon and dominated at his work place, went home and beat up his wife and children. It was not uncommon for groups of young men to frequent parties where girls and young women were targeted for gang rapes. Reporting these abuses were futile – for the attitude was that the woman was looking for it. Boys saw that this was how a man behaved, and now, that they are grown men themselves, are perpetuating their this “culture” in their own homes, relationships and society.   Unfortunately, no women or girl can be sure that her male friends will not rape or kill her – should she join them for a drink as in the case of Melody Urikhos murdered by her supposed friend.

 This time, the person on the other side of the line argues, it is because the majority of men are disempowered and marginalised socially and economically and that this is one of the reasons why men are raping and killing. However, while I agree wholeheartedly that it is WRONG that the majority of people in this country are excluded from participating and benefitting from the wealth that clearly exists in this country, I refuse to see this as a significant contributing factor to the spate of killings, rape and disrespect that seems to be so rife in this society. For if this argument is true, women should also feature significantly as perpetrators (at least towards children and the elderly – who in the “grander” scheme of things are even more marginalised than we are.) Also, one would then not expect any form of gender-based violence among the “haves” of this country. How would one then explain Selma Shaimemanya’s murder in which Lazarus Shaduka is implicated?

No, unfortunately I think there is something fundamentally wrong in Namibia. We have allowed a culture of sexism and hate to become the dominant culture. Just like racism is maintained through the indiscriminate use of violence by one population group against another , so the pillars that uphold sexism are also violence, subjugation, and robbing women of our basic right to respect and dignity. 

Humans Turned Into Cattle

After one futile attempt to do some unavoidable business last week, I again spent the whole of this morning at that probably most hellish of institution, the Home Affairs office, pursuing a document without which you might as well be non-existing in this country. Standing there for many hours, I was already thinking what I was going to write about the Kafkaesque experience I shared with perhaps a few hundred people – women and men, young and old, sick and healthy, some with babies on the back, others on crutches - all of us essentially equal in the contempt that the civil “servants” in that institution must be feeling towards the citizens who are forced by law to seek their assistance.

Since the experience I shared with my son at Home Affairs is by no means unique to the two of us, I am wondering who one would have to address when writing about it. For surely, every person born in this country at some stage or the other will be confronted by the abuse and caprice of the paid-by-us  officers who are manning and “womaning” that office.

So while I am thinking who to address this to, a bit more detail about the proceedings of the morning:  In anticipation of what was coming, I made sure that we had all the correct and original documents with us when we left the house sometime between seven and eight. Having managed to beat the morning traffic, we arrived at the said office to find that there were already long queues waiting. It not being 8h00, doors remained tightly shut while more people joined the queues.  

By half past eight the doors were still shut, but one person started directing – no separating in a manner not unlike that of a cattle handler – the crowds into their appropriate enclosures. Those wanting death certificates to the outmost left, those looking to replace lost ID cards to the right, those who have to register the births of the newborns, somewhere in the middle and so on. And we, patiently, like cattle or sheep, moved into our appropriate pens.

It emerged that this officer or civil “servant” (CS from here on) was responsible for the queue to which we were “directed” for he started collecting documents from the front. After a short scrutiny of every document, said CS started an interrogation practically of every persons wanting to be served; (Imagine a booming voice, raised to drown out all background voices, very angry right from the onset.) “What is this!?” (Soft answer from the one interrogated) “Who are you talking to? (mumble again from the interrogate) “Look at me while you are talking!” “Don’t come and look for your document with us! Go back to .....” And so the abuse continued. Our queue was quickly reduced to about 20 persons as a direct result of this onslaught, intimidation and even insults that many had to endure.

We remained steadfast in our confidence that our documents were in order and that there was no reason to leave our place in the now much shorter line. Within a relatively short while, my son was also seated opposite another CS who was filling in requisite forms. After which he was pushed into another row, this time to be finger printed, measured and shipped off again. Still confident that we will be out of there soon, we dutifully and obediently – like everybody else - sat down and waited for the next station.

About three hours into the process, we are cattle prodded through another door. Not one of the “prodders” volunteered any information. Those queuing who were brave enough to ask for anything received a bark, but no answer. So we did what we were told and waited for our turns. Except, no-one moved in the prodded-to direction. While people kept on joining the back of the line, the front came to a complete deadlock. No-one knew where to go, what to do, who to wait for and most importantly who to ask for any information. The only information provided was “You must wait!” At one point everyone was sent out of the room where they were sent to only half an hour before and back into the first “waiting” room.

Almost four hours later, the day was heating up, the room was completely crowded with people sitting and standing shoulder to shoulder, sweating, smelling, coughing, sneezing, babies crying, all just waiting. By about 11h30, the long wait seemed to be over. For a woman walked into the room which by now was bursting out of its seams with people and body smells. She carried a big black case which concealed the state of the art camera for which everybody was so patiently waiting.  It took her an additional half an hour to find the right cable, to set up her machine and to call for the person who was the very first person to enter through the doors of that office just before half past eight that morning. I could not help but uttering a relieved “Yuhooo!” For finally, the queue started moving again.

The thing I learned at that office –and not for the first time - is that anybody who might be counting on the sympathy – or empathy of any of the CSs in the home affairs office, must put it out of their mind. Even if you are there looking to certify the death of a loved child, mother, or spouse. You are considered an inconvenience to the officer placed there ostensibly to help you. For an institution whose vision is to provide “Population register and immigration management that is rated the best in the world” (gleaned from the internet,) I would say, first, teach your officers to respect the people they are supposed to be serving. Without this, my dear Honourable Minister of Home Affairs, they are turning your core values, namely respect, professionalism and transparency – if I remember correctly - into a joke.

My Two Cents On Abortion

Every once in a while I get nostalgic for my debate days at UNAM and I’ll go through the posts on their facebook page. Yesterday as I was doing that I came across a proposed motion: This house believes that all girls above the age of 16 will be mandated to use birth control pills and other birth control methods as cautionary measure for rape, teenage pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies, as opposed to allowing abortion.’ This motion was proposed by a young woman who I can only I assume is anti-abortion for “morality” reasons, so instead she would rather have the powers that be dictate choices about reproductivity to young girls and women, there’s absolutely nothing immoral about that!

Naturally, the discussion is a theoretic one, but this is a platform where the youth pride themselves in engaging on the issues that affect them and in “spearheading” possible policy change, so we have actual engagement going on here and these are the ideas that the youth are going around with. When a medicine student pointed out the side effects of birth control on people, one guy commented that perhaps it is exactly these side effects that might deter young girls from engaging in – as he put it “their reckless sexual ways.”

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to just so they protect their “moral high ground” on abortion, the lengths people will got to in justifying making decisions over women’s bodies, decisions they really have no business making. At the 5^th African Health, Sexual and Reproductive Rights workshop last year, I happened to be in a seminar with an abortion specialist who told us that when done correctly in a safe environment, abortion can actually be less risky than giving birth. I think that’s what we should be advocating for, legal and safe abortions. Back street abortions are an expensive public health issue and we cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the real issues or try to side step abortion by calling it a sin.  The girl who proposed that debate motion went on to say that she would propose for the rule to apply to women of the ages of 16-25. For me that raises the question ‘what then about the women above 25 who want to have abortions?’ because they too will turn to the back streets for unsafe abortions risking their lives, which apparently is not as big an issue for the people who may just be our future policy makers!  For them, it is always the right to life of the fetus, never the right to life for the woman!

When a Woman Rapes

The last weekend has been a long weekend dedicated to the commemoration of our 23^rd year of political independence. As things go in Namibia, our post-long weekend papers reported on all the vile acts that people of this country commit against each other. This time many children were among the victims of rape and sexual assaults that occurred over the weekend.  While we are desperately trying to fight becoming desensitised and losing our ability to be outraged by the ongoing violence against women and children, we have to acknowledge that a few more rapes are nothing out of the ordinary in Namibia. What is out of the ordinary, however, is that one act of sexual molestation was reported to have been committed by a woman – against a much younger female person.

Only last week I posted something I read on the internet to the extent that while not all men are rapist, all rapist are men. Undoubtedly, the report from the weekend shows that women are also capable or rape and there are women who rape. Statistics show overwhelmingly that rape is most commonly committed by male persons against female persons. However, other forms of rape also occur and this consists of male-male, only very rarely female-male and almost never female-female rape.

Whatever form sexual assault and rape takes, or whatever the statistics of rape, rape and sexual assault are always about the relative power that one person exhorts over another person. As a feminist organisation it is our duty to condemn all forms of violation regardless who the perpetrator or who the victim. If a woman commits an act of sexual assault against another woman, because she has power over that person by virtue of her status/ age/ position relative to the victim, we should have the courage to stand up and speak out against this act just like we would against any other rape manifestation and hate crime.

Just like men who are raped or assaulted by other men too often are not taken seriously, therefore they cannot or do not access services and support, so one can assume that women assaulted by women may be reluctant – for fear of being ridiculed or not believed – to seek help and/or report the assault. It is in the best interest of the victim that reports of women raping other women are take seriously. It is our moral obligation to confront all forms of injustice, abuse and molestation regardless the statistical insignificance thereof. 

This is a man's world!

The debate has started in northern hemisphere countries about who’s to be blamed for the fact that women continue to lag behind men when it comes to climbing the corporate ladder. Sheryl Sandberg, in her new book “Lean in” puts the blame squarely on women’s shoulders.

After all, she argues, it is because women want to have children and care for them that we cannot compete with men in the corporate world.  Sandberg urgently advises that if women want to compete with men, they have to behave like men. In other words, leave child bearing and childcare to others- in fact forget about having children, (maybe forget that you have children) and “lean in.” Meaning, put our shoulder to the wheel. Spend your weekends and evenings at work. Forget about a social life and ruthlessly pursue your work ambitions.

She is of the opinion that this will bring about equality and equity in the workplace.

Not that I have any particular ambitions to climb any corporate ladder – to the extent that such a ladder may exist in Namibia – when I look at my own life and the lives of my sisters (biological) who are all professionals, I see women who are working from the morning to the evening, then go home and continue working in the family. When at work, we do as more and better (more better as we say here) than (most) male colleagues who will go home and expect that there is a cooked meal. So maybe, Sandberg is not so wrong.

I almost conceded! Then I remembered the women who do give their all to their workplaces. They are there early, don’t go out to lunch, stay late and weekends, and still they are overlooked for promotions and pay increases. They do not have children, they do not have husbands, they do not have lovers who could possibly distract them. While these women are working their butts off, their male colleagues often are found clustering the water coolers, walking the golf courses or hogging the men’s clubs. The men are networking and forging relationships. This is what seems to count in the corporate world; Being in the “in” and exclusive boys-only clubs, in the inner circle. Too many men are all too happy to neglect their work duties- a woman will pick up the slack – their home and family duties – their wives will look after the house and children when she gets back. If she is too tired to do it herself, she will pay someone else to do it on her behalf. She will wear herself down, trying to catch up with the men who have made it to the top of the ladder. This is the game that women are excluded from. This is why we will almost get there, but not quite. The world Ms Sandberg, is a man’s world. Unless you can join the men’s exclusive zones, I am afraid, you will remain on the outside, doing your male bosses’ work!

Not Again!

It is happening again! We only just in February wrote about how mainstream media manage to find extenuation for crimes committed against women by focussing on the offenders’ fall from grace (as a direct result of their misdemeanours- one has to add) when they reported on  the “golden boy” losing his “shine” referring to the fatal shooting of a woman by a former Olympic runner. 

This time, it is the omnipresent CNN that managed to show sympathy  with the offenders of a violent crime against a woman. Reporting on a judgement in a case of rape by two teenage offenders, a journalist decided to focus reporting on the smashed aspirations and dreams of the two teenagers who were convicted of raping a young girl somewhere in the USA.

CNN correspondent, Poppy Harlow, is reported to, after the conviction of a pair of gang rapists to have remarked that is was  “(i)ncredibly difficult, even for an outsider like me, to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believed their lives fell apart.” What is going on? The demise of these two came about as the direct consequence of their criminal violation of a young woman, whose life has been cruelly and ruthlessly disrupted because of these two scoundrels.

Where is the sympathy for this girl? Why could the journalist not unequivocally side with the victim in this story? Why not a categorical condemnation of their crime? What is this sympathising with the offenders?

To many of us – probably especially we living in the developing world, CNN – probably undeservedly – became a standard for journalistic and media ethics. We often try to emulate or to become like the big-brother reporters of that agency – and too often we are probably to ready to overlook

The media – especially highly influential media - does (well...) influence public and popularly-held opinion. In an apparently global social climate where women can so easily be blamed for being raped (she was drunk, she was naked, wrong place at the wrong time, whatever,) this type of reporting adds to the exoneration of criminals who commit crimes against women.

As usual, we will speak out against these conscious or unconscious transgressions against women and other marginalised persons and we want you to join us in expressing your chagrin whenever, where-ever they occur.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8--ccFWUhBg