690. Can Women Be Protected By Electronic Tagging And Monitoring The Known Beasts?

690.  Can Women Be Protected By Electronic Tagging And Monitoring The Known Beasts?

Abuse happens, whenever a victim is available and a (usually not-partnered) man

• is in the state of dishomeostasis, which causes his perceiving an urge to use a female body as a toilet for his body waste.
• has the attitude, that women exist for the purpose to be abused, independent of the women's own wishes and experience.

Abuse can be either violent or by payment, deceit and manipulation, the choice depending upon the abuser's ability for self-control and his subjective estimation of the probability of unpleasant consequences as are legal or social punishment.  

Women have brains to at least attempt to avoid deceit and manipulation, and not all blatant female stupidity can be blamed on men.   But women have no chance against violence of someone stronger than themselves and they need to be protected.  

Violent abuse can be caused or facilitated by not expecting any risk of being punished.   In this case a man with sufficient self-control refrains from further acts of violence after having learned a lesson by the first punishment.  

But there are those, who repeat violent abuse in spite of being sentenced and imprisoned several times.  This indicates their behavior as being completely determined by strong urges and by the lack of sufficient self-control.   These beasts are too dangerous to be ever let out again.  In too rare cases, here in Germany they are indeed kept in Sicherheitsverwahrung (preventive detention).   Unfortunately by some flaw in legal proceedings, some of these beasts where recently set free:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131025091830.htm
 

"Criminologists at the University of Tübingen will lead research into the effectiveness of electronic monitoring of criminal offenders in Germany."

"Some 60 offenders in Germany are monitored using the electronic tag around one ankle."

"Electronic tagging is used on those convicted of serious violent or sexual offences who have served their prison sentence but have had to be released from preventative detention. The monitoring devices are used as part of the supervision of their conduct and are meant to prevent former offenders from relapsing into criminal behavior. The tags must be worn at all times and may not be manipulated. Some of the tagged offenders are not permitted to enter or to leave certain areas. Electronic monitoring was introduced in Germany in 2011 in response to a European Court of Human Rights decision, which held that certain forms of preventative detention contravened human rights law. Electronic tagging is now used to maintain a watch on offenders who prior to 2011 would have been kept in preventative custody."

This is absurd and an outrage to women, whose safety is at stake.   Women and their own human rights to be protected from harm are sacrificed in favor of the human rights of beasts, who have proven not to meet the standards of behavior which would justify to call them human.  
Nobody would put an electronic tag around a lion's ankle and expect the lion to refrain from killing prey.  These criminals are as much beasts as are lions.   As a woman, I prefer not to meet neither lions nor violent abusers without a strong fence or wall between them and me.  

I do hope that the study comes to the conclusion, that such dangerous beasts are just not fit to be allowed to be free.  

658. Who Is Really Responsible For Killing The Workers In Bangladesh?

658.  Who Is Really Responsible For Killing The Workers In Bangladesh?

The tragedy in Bangladesh is once more revealing the cruel truth about capitalism.   

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22296645

How many more victims are going to die, before people learn to attribute deaths elsewhere to the western habits of careless and unreflected consumption?  

It is easy to blame the collapse of a building upon those responsible for the illegal construction and neglect of safety.   

The real culprits are here, between us, in all the rich countries.   
 

The wholesale merchants and the managers of the big chains of markets and stores are the real murderers, they are murderer by proxy.    They use their economic power to dictate the low prices paid for the production in Bangladesh and other poor countries.   Those who there attempt to cope by disregarding building regulations and the basic human rights and needs of the workers act themselves under pressure, they are the hired killers.  They kill others to avoid perishing themselves, even when they add own greed to aggravate the workers plight.

 
When workers are not directly killed as has happened now, those dictating the prices are at least armed robbers.   They use the weapon of giving the choice of fast starvation by not having any job at all, unless they submit to be slowly destroyed by harsh and unhealthy underpaid work.

If I buy a t-shirt for 5 €, I know that it has been produced by someone suffering in misery.   But if I would pay 50 € instead for a luxury t-shirt in a fashion shop, this t-shirt would have been produced by the same exploited people in the same misery.   The additional price would add to  the profit of the shop owners or of the shareholders, it would not reach the workers.   

There are some organizations attempting to bring fair trade products upon the market.   But these products are difficult to find.    Shop managers and retailers also have power.  While those, who dictate the prices to the producers, are the primary culprits, those who decide to sell products from exploitations instead of fair trade products, are accomplices to murder and robbery.  


These culprits do not allow a choice to the consumers.   What happened in Bangladesh recently, is only an extreme example, much of what else is consumed, is also produced by killing, damaging and harming people.  Only exceptionally extreme events make it into the media.  Often it is impossible to know the truth about how much suffering was caused by the production of other goods.    

If I wanted to live without harming and exploiting anybody anywhere, I would starve and freeze to death, because there would be nothing to buy.   The entire global capitalistic system functions because of the differences between the economic power of rich and of poor countries.   


Most of these culprits do not even have a bad conscience, and they do not feel responsible.   First they offer consumers no alternative and thus they can correctly point out, that the consumers profit from their success in enforcing low prices.  Instead of feeling guilty as murderers and robbers, they feel as the consumers' benefactors.   

Therefore I have no hope, that they ever renounce the ruthless exploitation, as long as they can remain in denial and let others do the dirty work for them.  


The best remedy could be some kind of legislation, making the import of goods illegal, if they have been produced by the violation of basic human rights.    But to press politicians towards any such initiative would first need a shift in the focus and targets of pressure groups.  
Right now, those groups fighting for nature, for animals, for ecology, are much stronger and much more active than groups fighting for an improvement of the situation of exploited humans.    

Whenever the plight of suffering people in poor countries is noticed and recognized, it is wrongly considered as a need for charity by those, who are underdeveloped and incompetent and have brought the plight upon themselves.
   
It is an outrage and it is preposterous at the same time.   People exploit workers in Bangladesh by stealing the result of their hard labor from them and by thus driving them into dire undeserved misery,  Then the same exploiters condescend to relief a fraction of this misery by deeds of charity to allegedly inferior and unable savages.    

What they call charity is in reality nothing better than the restitution of a tiny fraction of what has been stolen.

651. Modern Human Sacrifices

651.  Modern Human Sacrifices

I grew up here in Germany taking it for granted, that nature and forests are safe places.   As a child I had known of wolves and bears only from fairy tales as of a historical peril to humans in times long gone by.  I also took the general consent for granted that having eliminated all dangerous animals from densely populated Germany centuries ago was beneficial beyond doubt.  
I took this so much for granted, that I was not even grateful for the safety of German forests.  Today I am grateful to live, where there are no dangerous animals except those safely in cages in the zoo.  (It is bad enough, that some men are not better than dangerous animals.)  

But I do not take this for granted anymore.   I just watched a documentary about how humans are ruthlessly exposed to dangers by irresponsible people.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/predators-in-your-backyard/

"The cougar is also commonly known as a puma, mountain lion, mountain cat, catamount, or panther. The sub-population in Florida, which is the only population east of the Mississippi River, is known as the Florida panther.
At least 20 people in North America were killed by cougars between 1890 and 2011"

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North_America

Preserving the wild life is certainly important, but it is immoral to force risks upon people, who suffer without a choice, and who have no option to protect themselves.   There should be barriers like fences separating humans from predators.   Those who enable panthers or bears to enter peoples' gardens are irresponsible and cruel.   When such beasts invade a backyard, the people are helpless victims of a situation forced upon them.     

Adding the dangers of wolves to the already existing danger of bears in Yellowstone Park is a different situation, because people have a choice to keep away from such dangerous areas.   But to make this a real option of safety, such parks need to be fenced in to guaranty the safety outside.  

When capitalists' interests are protected, the money to build a fence is raised, as shows the fence along the border between the USA and Mexico.   But to protect humans from being killed by bears or panthers brings no commercial benefits, thus people are not protected by fences.

 

I am very glad for the restricted legal access to firearms here in Germany.    But I have full understanding for anybody, who needs a weapon as a means for self-defense against panthers and bears.      

I consider the safety of the home from invading dangerous animals as a basic human right. It seems absurd, that shooting a panther leads sometimes to less tolerance and condoning than shooting a burglar.   

It is criminal to endanger people by forcing the access of dangerous beasts upon them.   It is a form of murder by proxy, if someone gets killed by predators like bears and panthers released near human homes.  

It is even a variety of human sacrifices.   In many cultures through history, humans were sacrificed to deities, who were considered as more significant and more valuable than the lives of the sacrificed victims.  
Bringing or allowing panthers and bears enter human habitats is a variety of sacrificing humans.   The deity is substituted by some more vague entity as is nature, the planet, wildlife,.   This entity too is considered as having more value and more significance than the risked life of individual humans.   

There is just one difference.   The sacrificing priests were themselves consciously killing the victims and feeling justified to do so.   Those sacrificing human life by imposing predators upon victims do not feel responsible, because the do not do the killing themselves and consider it only as collateral damage.
(I am wondering, how many of those, who welcome and protect the panthers in Florida, at the same time define abortion as murder.   For them, a woman is required to have any unwanted child, but if the panther would kill the child, they accept this as collateral damage.)

244. Halo-Effect of Male Doctors as Saints

Halo-Effect of Male Doctors as Saints

There are huge cultural differences between Germany and the USA concerning the cross gender choice of doctors.

I wrote entry 241 after googling 'male doctor female patient' and finding a lot of discussion in favor of accepting the female right to choose female doctors and nurses.   I found like minded people, who agree that forcing a male doctor on a woman is a form of sexual assault and that the woman has a right to be protected from forced intrusion into her intimate space.  

There is no such sensitivity in Germany, absolutely none.   Whenever I have dared to mention to any person, male or female, that I consider a male doctor forced upon me in a hospital as an outrage, I am considered and treated as if I were in some way mentally ill.  
For Germans of both genders, a woman feeling uncomfortable with a male doctor is like someone feeling uncomfortable getting cold and wet in the rain.    Rain and male doctors are considered unavoidable events of life.    Even the German feminist movement, who ardently fights for the right of abortion, against pornography and many important issues, is oblivious to this issue.   The most prominent feminists seem to consult male doctors without thinking twice about it. 

I made the same google search as above in German:  männlich Arzt weiblich Patientin. 

I perused the first 100 findings.   Some major topics:

1. Statistics about the number and specialties of female and male doctors.  
2. Different communication styles of female and male doctors
3. Male doctors may lack understanding for the female way of experiencing sexuality
4  Female doctors may be the better qualified doctors for selected illnesses
5  Female gynecologists can be more knowledgeable by knowing, what they are examining and more rough for the same reason
6  General behavioral differences between male and female doctors
7  Male doctors' ignorance of the needs of female patients

But there was absolutely nothing about the suffering of women forced under male intrusion into their intimate space.  

Cases of doctors drugging and abusing women are reported once in a while in the media.   Only a few days ago, there was a case in the newspaper of a male nurse aged 27 having abused 7 women between 72 and 98 over a time of several years, some of them demented or in a coma.
http://www.mt-online.de/lokales/regionales/4222217_Pfleger_missbraucht_aeltere_Patientinnen.html
In this article, it is reported that some people expressed strong outrage and shock.   But it all focuses only on the misconduct of this one individual nurse.   

"Weder seine Zeugnisse oder die Bewerbungsgespräche noch seine Arbeit hätten Zweifel an seinem verantwortungsvollen Umgang mit den Bewohnern erkennen lassen"  
Translated:  Neither his references, nor the job interviews nor the performance of his work have led to any doubts concerning his responsible interactions with the inpatients.

That one bad guy is considered as personally guilty.   There is not even a hint of the question, if forcing helpless old women, who cannot even protest, into the power of a male nurse is a wrong decision and should be reconsidered.  

Whenever children are concerned, either when directly abused by adults or when indirectly abused by paying for child pornography, there is an outcry about what to do.   Child pornography is illegal, and when a child is abused, all those, who have not prevented it, bosses of institutions, child protection authorities and others are also hold responsible.  
But as soon as a victim is an adult woman, nobody bothers really, who enables the abuse, who could have prevented it.   There is no responsibility ascribed to anybody except by the direct felon. 

When the bishop moves a pedophile priest to another job, where he can continue the abuse, everybody holds the bishop responsible.    When the manager of a nursing home orders female patients to be nursed by male nurses, nobody here in Germany holds him responsible. 


I have only one explanation.   Even 66 years after the overthrow of the nazi dictatorship, some of their mentality is still ruling the German culture in a subtle but very detrimental way.  
It is the submission to both the authorities and to the authority of dominant and high status men.   It is not so much an external but even worse, an intellectual and emotional submission.    People are brainwashed, that authorities are right as are all men with the authority given to them along with high status and a high position on a hierarchy.

In nazi times, women were supposed to produce as many children as possible and raise them.   Doctors were men, they were supposed to help deliver the children.    

Doctors in Germany are considered as gods in white and by halo effect also as saints.   One reason is the German university system.   University is tuition free for all, who have passed the high-school end examination called Abitur.   So there are by far more people wishing to study medicine, than there are places available.   Accepted are only those with the best marks.   That means, those, who are both, the most intelligent and the most conforming to the requirement of school.   They were the most submissive to their teachers, later on they want to experience the submission of others. They choose to become doctors for the high status and the high income.  But there is neither a selection nor a self-selection for emotional intelligence, ethical fitness or altruism.  

Confronted with doctors with high status, considered as a sort of saints, women brainwashed to accept subtle male domination as something to be taken for granted are too much in awe to even doubt their obligation to be sheep to the doctor's treatment, whatever it is.     

There is also the islam problem.   When in the 60s Germany brought in lots of foreign workers, who then stayed and immigrated, all nationalities integrated, except the Turks, whose islamic culture kept apart.   I dislike any religion, that allows polygamy and male domination over women, so I also dislike the islam.  
Yet islamic women in Germany are the only women, who refuse and resent to be treated and nursed by men.    Unfortunately, the same people, who treat me as deranged and prude, also deny, that the islamic women want to protect their dignity the same way as I do.    These desensitized Germans have the prejudice, that it is a part of the islamic women's repression and that they want female doctors only in obedience to religion and husbands and not by their own personal sensitivity to their dignity.  
This is very flawed logic.   An islamic woman wants a female doctor.   The islam is bad for women, ergo wanting a female doctor cannot be good for women, even for German women. 

My only good luck is, that I only live 25km from the dutch border.   If ever I need to, I know, where to go to the hospital.  

"Female patients have the right to refuse treatment by a male doctor. Only in emergency situations can a woman be forced to accept a male doctor."

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2007/12/women_can_refuse_to_see_a_male.php

241. Homage to Medical Patient Modesty

Homage to Medical Patient Modesty

Wow, I just discovered this web page.  
http://www.patientmodesty.org
So much progress seems to come from the USA, this is another example.   I can only dream of an organization like this in Germany.   

Luckily enough, I am healthy at 61, but how much longer I can stay clear of hospitals, I cannot know.   Whenever I mention to anybody, that I am more apprehensive of the ordeal of the sexual assault of being treated and nursed by men against my will than about getting sick, I am ridiculed as a prude.  

But being prude comes from prudence, and  

"Prudence is the characteristic of exercising sound judgment in practical affairs."
"It is often associated with wisdom, insight, and knowledge."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudence

Finally, and for the first time in my life, I found likeminded people and even an organization, who back up my own perception and my own insights.    
I am sick and tired of being considered as the aberrant one in a pseudo-progressive and pseudo-liberated society, where mistreating and humiliating women is a social norm.   

Here are some examples:
http://www.patientmodesty.org/Case.aspx?GID=1

My reasons for prudence had started with my more intuitive perception of all the more scientific insights that I gained later by learning a lot about evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.   

I have very good reasons for my prudence:

The necessity of desensitization and denial to enable life in a crowded society does only cover the social and the personal space, but it does not include the intimate space.     Unrelated people can interact and fulfil all requirement of every day life without any intrusion into each other's intimate space.  
As a consequence of the spiral of desensitization and oversexation, as described in entry 237, society has given up the protection of the intimate space in a way, that cannot be rationally justified or warranted at all.   

Based on my understanding of evolutionary biology and psychology, I claim:

1. Nakedness inside the social, personal and intimate space is principally sexual, both as the reason for the display and the reception of the display by the instincts.
2. Touch by a person of the opposite gender of the naked body is principally sexual.   (I am not talking about handshakes etc.)  
3. When people consciously do not experience nakedness and touch as sexual, either on the perceiving or the initiating end, it is a result of psychological dynamics and social norms.    It is an individual disposition, that cannot be generalized by projection upon others. 
4. When two persons agree on defining an interaction involving nakedness and touch of the naked body as not sexual, it is their freedom of choice.   Not experiencing nakedness and heterosexual touch as sexual does not give anybody the right to define it as not sexual for others.  
5. When a woman experiences an interaction involving looking at and touching her naked body as sexual, her subjective experience counts and has to be respected, no matter how the man defines or experiences it and no matter, for what purpose he does it.  

It is a basic human right:
"to be free and protected from unwanted sexuality"
http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201010/2192565871.html  
That includes a woman's right to restrict, to whom she displays and whom she allows to touch her naked body.   It is her basic human right to restrict these sexual activities to a partner, whom she has chosen, and refuse them to and by any other man.
Touching and undressing a woman against her will is by law considered as the crime of sexual assault, when it is committed by an individual.   

But here in Germany, the same crime is committed on women every day with the consent of the law, social norms and many insensitive and ignorant people.    These completely irrational norms sort men into categories or harmless or harmful, which cannot be in any way justified as rationally.    Biologically, every man is an animal with instincts, no matter his training and professional career.   

Example:   A pair of identical male twins.   One is a warden in a prison, the other a male nurse.  
Every visitor to the prison has to accept being checked for not smuggling in anything.    But a woman has the legal right to only be examined by a female prison employee.   The male warden of the twins is not allowed to do it.  
But when the same woman has an accident and is brought into the hospital, without even being asked for her consent, the twin brother, the male nurse has his hands and eyes all over her naked body.  
The general justification of this is the firm belief, that by habituation and desensitization, for male doctors and nurses, handling a patients body is indeed not different from handling a pig's body or a wooden statue.   But for the woman, it is a sexual assault  without her consent and a violation of her basic human rights.

But the situation is much worse than that a woman is only being handled as if she were an object lacking dignity.  
The social norm forcing women into the hands of male doctors and nurses is based upon the wrong assumption, that indeed the woman's body is always experienced just as a piece of wood by the handling man.   This is a myth. 

The web and the newspapers are full with reports of sexual abuse by male doctors and male nurses.   

Some sources:

http://www.sexualmisconductbydoctors.com/index.aspx

"The database contained 728 sex-related orders taken against 542 physicians between 1981 and 1994 and 321 additional orders taken in 1995 and 1996. From 1989 to 1996, the number of physicians disciplined in each year increased from 42 in 1989 to 147 in 1996,"

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/279/23/1883.full

"In California, there were disciplinary actions against 2,309 doctors, including 57 for sexual abuse of or sexual misconduct with a patient."
"According to a survey reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 10% of psychiatrists admitted to having sexual relations with their patients. In a July 1997 report, published by the Public Citizen Health Research Group, 28% of psychiatrists were disciplined for sex-related offenses"
"The number of all doctors disciplined for sexual misconduct doubled from 1990 to 1994. Of the total disciplinary actions taken against doctors, 5.1% were for sexual abuse of patients or other sexual misconduct."

http://www.rapetraumaservices.org/settings.html

"...reported elder abuse cases ....  Three percent involve sexual abuse. "

http://www.brentadams.com/library/nursing-home-abuse-statistics-elder-care-neglect-stats.cfm

Sexual abuse of patients is far from an exceptional event, it is an frequent occurrence.  Unfortunately, it is more logical, that it happens than not.   When a male doctor or nurse has his hands on a naked female body, the instinctive urges get triggered in him just as in any other man.  
The doctors and nurses are the direct criminals, as far as they have chosen a profession, that needs more self-control and responsibility than they have.  
When someone leaves meat on the table, and the cat eats it, who is to blame?   The cat for following the instinct to eat, or the one, who puts the meat in the cats reach?
When someone forces a woman against her will naked under the hands of a man and she gets abused, who is to blame?   The man for not controlling his instincts, or all those people, who coerced the woman into the situation?
If a woman asks in a hospital to be treated and nursed by women, but it is denied, and she then suffers abuse, those, who have made and enforced the rules are as guilty as the perpetrators.   When men cannot control their instincts, then women need to be protected from getting under their power.  

The cases of abuse are a clear indication, that nobody can ever guaranty to a woman, that a doctor patient relationship will not become a sexual relationship for him.  The whole myth of the doctor patient relationship as never sexual is the common justification to force women into the hands of male doctors.    Forcing women into a situation, that they experience as a sexual assault, based upon a myth is an outrage.  


The tragedy in our modern society is the denial and ignorance of the power of the instincts and of their real danger to women.    A woman like me, who is fully conscious and sensitive to the fact, that a male doctor is always a hazard of abuse, is ridiculed as a prude.   Being desensitized and in denial in an oversexed world is the social norm and forced upon those, who know better.  

Without reducing or excusing the perpetrator's guilt, those women, who think to be modern and no prudes and who therefore choose to consult a male doctor, bring the getting drugged and abused upon themselves by their own ignorance.    But the male domination of society is responsible for this ignorance.   It is male domination over the forming of rules, laws and norms of society, that has caused this disrespect for women's intimate space and the brainwashing of so many women to participate in this themselves.     

As long as desensitized and stupid women choose to consult male doctors, they unfortunately not only enable and perpetuate the abuse by those doctors for themselves, but also for those women, who know better, but have no choice.      

Women could have a lot of power.   If every woman would only consult female doctors, then the male doctors would be left to treat the men.   If enough women would demand it, there would be the all female treatment and nursing for women in the hospitals and nursing homes.