> That seems to be as much the source of the problem as the sigma itself.
No.
The original rape is worse than anything the relief agency does.
No.
The original rape is worse than anything the relief agency does.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You reacted to something the commenter didn't say, and have since been perpetuating a flamewar. We don't need that. Please don't.
However, at scale, agencies that try to censor information and reports about rape/violence other than male-on-female rape/violence might do a lot of harm regardless, be it through stigma, or be it through denying victims and future victims (preventative) information and help, or by getting government to marginalize these problems.
I remember some (women) associations campaigning/lobbying against "men's shelters", trying to get their funding cut or not allocated in the first place, or trying to get local governments to deny permits to operate such shelters. WTF.
Citation needed.
But you might be interested to read about this lady: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey
>She is known for having started the first domestic violence shelter in the modern world, Chiswick Women's Aid, in 1971 [...] Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her research into the claim that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally capable of violence as men.
Rape > social stigma == neglect by relief agencies
Still a resounding "no". Demonizing relief agencies as being as bad as societal homophobia? You honestly think relief agencies are in it for the money and are minimizing male rape?
Of course, my beliefs don't amount to anything other than researching who I personally give money to, but I do not find it far-fetched to believe that some agencies act in bad faith; I have a hard time aligning with the false memory syndrome foundation for example.
Like any other organization, relief agencies need funding, they need support from local government, they need positive publicity if they're to continue. The people doing those jobs are focused on those results, not the work those in the field are doing.
You asked for an example. About 20 years ago, my colleagues' three-year-old daughter was kidnapped from in front of her apartment house. She was a sweet, blue-eyed, blonde-haired child, and her search became a huge media frenzy: non-stop reporting as police followed lead after lead.
She started working with a local branch of a national missing children's organization. At her first meeting, the director told her that her daughter' disappearance was "the best thing that has happened to them" because the publicity pulled in so many donations.
He wasn't a bad person, or incident to get daughter; but his role was making the agency successful, and he evaluated things from that standpoint. I don't think that's at all unusual for these agencies.
Did you read the article? This is not an entirely uncommon situation, either. The corruption is often seen as a cost of doing business by interested parties with other priorities, something which all parties are usually generally aware. After a war (a scenario in which NGOs thrive) the existing social structure that has the capacity and organization to execute projects is often the winning faction, which as often as not didn't prevail by being virtuous.
You will notice I did not call out anyone for denying help to make rape victims, merely that I believe bad actors exist in all facets of society. I by no means am putting down the hard work of the heroes who give their time to help people. I find your black and white response just as disgusting, to ignore that people can take positions of power over others and abuse them.
As for naming names, I have given an example of an organisation I find abhorrent.
Because the relief agencies you accuse of predation contribute more towards human suffering than rapists? Keep fighting the good fight, hulahoof!