Steve's Social Media:

Steve on Facebook

Music Samples

Bijan Hair Boutique

Bijan
Ope brief aan gay, wit student oor sy EFFense denke (aangepas uit Maroelamedia) PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 3
PoorBest 
Wednesday, 24 September 2014 10:10

 

Man, ek is lief vir filosofie, is geensins homofobies nie en maak werk daarvan om my geskiedenis te ken. En as daar geen konsensuele geskiedenis bestaan nie, is daar geen rede om ander s’n bó myne te kies nie. Laasgenoemde is dan die belangrikste verskil tussen die liberale denker en die behoudende een.

Dit het my ‘n paar jaar langer gevat om die realistiese scenario te eien vir wat dit is, bloot omdat ek geleer is om dinge te óórdink. Maar om te dink dat daar geen alternatiewe is vir nasionalisering nie, sê vir my dat jy, Jaco Oelofse, ónderdink.

Dit is fataal vir ‘n EFF philosopher-in-the-making.

Daarom ‘n paar vinnige notas:

1. As jong filosofiestudent (en dramastudent) was ons almal radikaal. Dis ‘n fase. Nie ‘n lelike fase nie. Dis ‘n omgee-fase. Ook ‘n rebelse een waarmee ons ons studente toevertrou om ons oues se asems weg te slaan met iets nuuts en unieks. Maar daarna gebeur die establishment met jou. Die regte lewe sal jou ook nie ontsien nie, Jaco. Jy werk, trou, kry kinders en swoeg vir hul gemak, ʼn paar voordele en sommer baie oorlewing. Jy staan verstom hoe groepe desondanks mooi, liberale teorieë steeds na hul hoekies graviteer en hoe dit ongelukkig altyd eensames oplewer. En hoe wreed en eensydig alles bly en hoe min beskerming ander jou, jou kinders en jou ouers bied as die k*k die fên slaat. Soos die Marxisme maar is, ‘n pragteorie met geen voete in realiteit nie, ontgroei baie dit ná kampus, ná sakgeld, ná subsidie en ná volwasse nabetragting. Jy gaan universiteit toe om jou eie voete te vind. Om jou eie voete te vind is onversoenbaar met Marxisme. ʼn Jaar later rasionaliseer jy en kyk eendag as ‘n reël terug uit ‘n meer gematigde posisie, soms in skaamte. Wie volhard dan in Marxisme, sou jy vra? Dié wat skaamteloos geen aversie toon vir ander se geld nie en ander se bates en inkomste as hul “regmatige” kwota sien. Hulle wat weier om die ware potensiaal van individue en dié wat die ekstra myl sal stap, te wil beloon. Die Aanstap Rooies soldaatjie-fabriek. Eendjies-eendjies-staan-in-’n-ry. Die ongenaakbare kleurloosheid van bestaan. Die tirannie van gemiddeldes. Die een waarvoor jy nou uitroep. Prestasie, kompetisie en vooruitstrewendheid – om beter te wees – ís die doel van die lewe en almal mag en moet saamspeel. Marxisme verlig geen armoede nie. Dit teel middelmatigheid en ek het vir jou ‘n hele kontinent as voorbeeld by Maandag se show&tell.

2. Miskien moes jy geskiedenis en regte ook oorweeg. Anneksasie in ‘n Tyd van Anneksasie was niks vreemd nie. Soos slawerny en kolonialisme in hul eras en konteks. Ons doen dit nie meer vandag nie, maar wêreldwyd het lande hul afbakenings aan dié ou polarisasies te danke. Ons almal het eintlik slawe as voorouers, weet jy, en kry boggerôl daarvoor. Reparasies en regstellings is aanvaarbaar, maar sodra dit oor generasies heen gebeur, word dit oneties; die verkeerde mense word vergoed en die verkeerde indiwidue word gestraf. Jy kan nie in ‘n moderne regsbank regverdiglik skuldig bevind word aan ‘n ander se ‘oortreding’ nie. Jy skep daarmee meer slagoffers, meer konflik en staan soos ons verbaas voor ‘n stagnerende werkloosheidsyfer – met al die mag, tyd en sosialisme in die wêreld, kon Suid Afrika in twee dekades nie ‘n enkele duik maak aan sy gruwelike werkloosheid nie.

3. Daar bestaan nouliks enige Suid Afrikaners wie se huidige eiendom met “geweld” bekom is. Almal se lewensgeldjies is in hul grond, hul lenings, hul bates en hul lewens daarop. Almal sou ryker wou wees, maar meeste van ons krap die potjie om ons gesin met ‘n mate van waardigheid uit die nes te verlos. Om dit te wil wegvat is siek afguns, krimineel en luigatgeit, algar fataal vir ‘n land wat, soos Suid Afrika, produktiefgestremd is.

4. Swart mense eis grond uit die geskiedenis in netjiese vierkante hektare. Tradisioneel het hulle grond so “besit” nie, beslis nie in die Westerse terme waarmee hulle dit nou wil opeis nie. Hulle kan die landgrypkommissies met geen titelaktes of dergelike kontrakte voorsien nie en moet oorwegend spekuleer oor waar hulle koeie eens gevreet het voor hulle nomadies aan beweeg het na groener weiding. Dis natuurlik onmoontlik om grond terug te eis sonder die eeu-oue beskawingskultuur wat daardie grond produktief en duursaam maak nie. Jy het die wysheid van Salomo nodig, nie die opportunisme van Malema nie, om daardie twee te kwantifiseer en dan te skei. Laat staan die feit dat 90% van afgeloste grond óf summier verkoop word óf gesteriliseerd agtergelaat word. Grondeise is maar selektief, omdat ek geen pogings waarneem waar die getekende kontrakte tussen my voorouers en eertydse swart indoenas enigsins eerbiedig word nie. Jy vergeet te maklik dat die 20ste eeuse Suid Afrika NIE ‘n swart soewereiniteit was nie. Hoe vreemd dit ook al nou mag klink, daardie eintlike alleenheersers se reëls was wet, danksy húl oorloë, húl grafte, húl inspanning, húl moed, húl Unie, húl Republiek, en daarmee saam hul verstommende ekonomie as minderheid, hul voorbeeldige verkrag- en moordsyfers, hul lae werkloosheidskoers, hul uitnemende skole en briljante universiteite, hul ongeëwenaarde hospitale, dokters en die algehele indeksuitblinkers in hul midde. Nasionaliseer dit.

5. As gay student is die vooruitsig van kinders maak moontlik en noodwendig[1] ‘n mindere prioriteit, en daarom die toekoms oorkant die vergesig, ook maar. As jy nou ál die denkskole kombineer sal jy verstaan hoekom jy aansluit by ʼn dissipline wat slegs in die nou konfigureer en aan onmiddellike versadiging ly, wat maar dweep oor die toekoms buite die nate van jou beursie. Die Marxisme het geen noemenswaardige prestasie ooit behaal by ontwikkelende lande nie en het vele nageslagte in enorme nood gedompel. Gays (en vroue) is vir my lankal nie meer sosiale buitestaanders nie en jou reaksie is een wat die strooiman lewe moet gee, want daarsonder kan jy jouself klaarblyklik nie definieer nie. Jy is ʼn ook ‘n leerling-gay. Die “moffies” in my vriendekring hoef geensins hul seksualiteit voor te hou om te presteer of erken te word nie.

6. Om hierdie konteks werklik te begryp sal dit nodig wees vir party swart mense om iets te doen wat by wit mense miljoene jare reeds gemeenplaas is: die gewoonte om te lees. As jou demografie of kultuur jul eers enkele dekades gelede met lees, skryf, analise, kuratorskap en argivale gewoontes begin bemoei het, sal julle altyd ander blameer vir jul agterstand. Sal die ware sondebok nooit op sy naam genoem mag word nie: dat die algehele verlamming in elke departement in jou universiteit – ekonomie, administrasie en militêre vernuf ingesluit – op jou voorouers blameer moes word.

Die vraag is, wit kind, Afrikanerkind, wat presies is jou verskoning?



[1] Hierdie is bloot ‘n biologiese waarneming. Ek spekuleer maar oor die sielkundige uiteindes daarvan. Ek staar my nie blind teen uitsonderings en uitsonderlike gay ouers nie.

 

 
The majority of white women are NOT murdered by their partners PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 32
PoorBest 
Thursday, 21 August 2014 18:50

This is Kevin Levey's final nail in the coffin of this debate. I place it here as it will NEVER be treated with the same prominence as the articles of Vetten, Rademeyer, Brodie and Africa Check, who have tried every biased move under the sun to elude this check mate position - that white SA women are NOT more likely to be murdered by their (white) partners than by a black outsider. It is also important to know that we did NOT pick this fight. (read round one here)

As they say in Afrikaans - KRY VIR JULLE.

Can we know transfer the right resources to the right places to once and for all, and for the first time, DO SOMETHING POSITIVE ABOUT THE PLIGHT OF MORE DEFENSELESS SOUTH AFRICANS CITIZENS AND CHILDREN.

It's not a question.

Steve Hofmeyr

"The non-debate of Intimate Femicide and Race – Africa Check vs Hofmeyr, Bridges

After posting my article titled “And the Straw Man’s name is Steve Hofmeyr” which questioned the conclusions reached by Africa Check and company regarding their statement that “the majority of white women are murdered by their white male partners”, I expected some sort of debate between the various parties involved. Instead I received not one word from Africa Check (“Racial scare-mongering in South Africa makes light of women’s murders”), Julian Rademeyer (“Dodgy stats just a means to an end for Hofmeyr, Bridges”) or Thorne Godinho (“The uncomfortable truth about white masculinity”). Instead of debate, all parties proceeded to block me on Twitter. Only one word comes to mind…

The white right, women's murders and a massacre of statistics

Instead of a constructive debate, Africa Check’s Lisa Vetten has hit back with the above mentioned article which in my opinion is a poor attempt to wash away the vast amount of evidence against Africa Check’s argument. Their key strategy remains to make use of terms like “white right”, “racially prejudiced”, “massacre of statistics” and “amateur statistics” to instil distrust in those who present well researched statistics that do not support their view. The attack on the Straw Man continues. So once again, I’d like to put it to you, the reader, to put on your objective hats and consider the facts I’m about to present. Once again I’d like to emphasise that this is a response to claims made by Africa Check and Lisa Vetten, and not a “scare-mongering” exercise.

A. “The majority of white women are murdered by their white male partners”

This claim is made by Lisa Vetten in an article published by Africa Check. SHE cites a 2002 report by the Medical Research Council (MRC) that finds that slightly more than half of South African women (14 and over) murdered are murdered by their intimate partners. But she ignores the racial breakdown which clearly shows that white women are least likely to die at the hands of their partners compared to all other races and that more white women are murdered by others than at the hands of their partners. These are facts.

In here latest article, suddenly the racial breakdown is in play and she backtracks on her previous article: First, the study – which sampled national mortuary data from 1999 - found that in that year white women were killed more often by men other than their intimate partners. In statistical terms 2.8 of every 100 000 white women were killed by their intimate partners while 5.8 out of every 100 000 white women were recorded as having been killed by "others". Second, 80.9% of killers in the "other" category were classed as "African". “. She clearly admits that in the period 1999 to 2002, the majority of white women who were murdered were not murdered by their white male partners. But now she guns for Steve’s statement “white women are likely to be murdered by "unknown black males”

B. “White women are likely to be murdered by "unknown black males””

Firstly she questions the assumption that these “others” are unknown and that they might be “a brother, a father, an uncle, a colleague, a friend or an acquaintance”. Basically what she is saying is that white women who are murdered by people other than their partners may have been murdered by their white uncles, acquaintances, friends etc. Then she rightfully questions the assumption that these “others” kill members of other races in the same ratio:

That sort of finding can only be made when separate analyses of each group of women is undertaken by perpetrator race. The MRC study did not undertake such analysis so we therefore do not know the racial breakdown of perpetrators per category of women”.

Strangely enough the MRC has this information but it just wasn’t disclosed in the final report. So why does Vetten, who was part of the research team, not use this information to prove Steve Hofmeyr and company wrong? Why plead the 5th? Nevertheless I’m very surprised that she would argue this without first looking at a worst case scenario from Steve Hofmeyr’s point of view.

Worst Case Scenario (Based on MRC stats)

Out of 1,000 women murdered:

· 529 killed by Intimate Partners

· 471 killed by Non-Intimate Partners

· 131 white women killed in total

· 43 white women killed by Intimate Partners

· 88 white women killed by Non-Intimate Partners

Assuming ALL white women’s intimate partners are white men (worst case scenario) and assuming that the 3.1% of white men responsible for Non-Intimate Partners femicide ONLY target white women (worst case scenario) then:

· 43 white women killed by white Intimate Partners

· 15 white women killed by white Non-Intimate Partners (brothers, friends etc)

· A total of 58 of the 131 (44%) white women killed by white men

· The remaining 73 of the 131 (56%) white women are killed by non-white men

What this WORSE CASE SCENARIO demonstrates regarding the 2002 statistics, is that even if white men ONLY kill white women, NEVER killing even a single woman from other race, at best she will be able to say that white women are more likely to be murdered by unknown black and coloured males and her statement that “the majority of white women are murdered by their white male partners” falls flat once again.

C. Women abuse, Intimate Femicide-Suicide and Race

Ironically the issue of race was not first introduced by Hofmeyr and company, it was first introduced by Vetten and her team at the MRC. Besides the excellent study of “Intimate Femicide” which was completed in 2002, the MRC undertook some other fascinating studies around the same period. The first was titled “Men’s Relationships with and the Abuse of Women”, which was about domestic violence against women, and the second titled “Intimate femicide–suicide in South Africa: a cross-sectional study”, which looks at when perpetrators of intimate femicide commit suicide afterwards.

All three of these studies included a looking at the race of victims and perpetrators. Obviously the decision to disaggregate the information into race was a conscious decision and obviously there had to be a reason behind this decision. Whatever the reason, the results came up with the following findings:

Abuse

· 48% of black men reported abuse

· 22% of white men reported abuse

· 54% of coloured men reported abuse

· 58% of Asian men reported abuse

Factors associated with abusing women which decreased the risk of abuse were identified as post matric education, participation in religion and age (the risk decreased as age of the perpetrator increased) while factors increasing the risk of abuse were identified as drugs, involvement in gangs, previous convictions and violent behaviour. These findings further contrast Vetten’s statement that “The majority of white women are murdered by their white male partners” because this study finds that white men are less prone to domestic abuse, probably due to their access to education financial standing. The assumption that all races were equally honest can be challenged if it’s proven that white males are more likely to lie about domestic abuse. I wonder if the MRC would conduct a study of the honesty of the white South African male in order to dispute their own report.

Intimate Femicide-Suicide

The study, which was a cross study of the prior research done on Intimate Femicide again stated that “the overall intimate-femicide (IF) rates were found to be lowest among white males”. It had the following results:

· 74.9% of victims of IF were black, 79.7% of victims of IFS were black, 1:1 ratio

· 2.5% of victims of IF were white, 10.2% of victims of IFS were white, 3:9 ratio

· 22% of victims of IF were coloured, 5% of victims of IFS were coloured, 0.21:1 ratio

· 0.7% of victims of IF were Indian, 5% of victims of IFS were Indian, 6.85:1 ratio

The study found that “Suicide among intimate-femicide perpetrators was more likely if the perpetrator was white; employed as a professional or white-collar worker; and owned a legal gun”.

D. It is 2014, not 1999

Vetten says: “Importantly, arguing like it’s 1999 assumes that somehow the violent events of that particular year have remained miraculously preserved in time, creating a kind of template for female homicide that replicates itself identically every year. This is not a plausible assumption. Trends in homicide cannot be established from one year’s worth of data alone but must be discerned in patterns emerging over years. In other words we do not know how representative 1999 was of patterns and trends in female homicide generally and we certainly cannot claim that what was the case in 1999 is still the case fifteen years later in 2014.”

 

There are two things that Vetten does here:

Read more...
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 62
Weskusplek
Helpende Hand Fonds
Photocommission.com - Pro Photographic Services