Boy, was I conciliatory when I was younger. Either that or I was a realist. Or maybe I just wrote what I had to write to get an A. Whatever. I’m not conciliatory, realistic, or seeking a grade anymore, so I can now feel free to lay out a theoretical and hypothetical solution to the rape epidemic. If I had my choice, we’d do away with rape by changing our cultural attitudes toward gender, toward sex, toward power, toward everything, thereby creating a world in which rape could not possibly occur. That would most certainly be ideal, and I believe it’s possible, but I think it might take an awfully long time, and I’m ready for rape to stop right now. Rape and other forms of sexual violence are hate crimes and are among the most heinous manifestations of the misogyny that characterizes our culture. As such, eradicating rape, in my opinion, is one of the most pressing feminist issues. Our current laws are woefully ill-equipped to deal with rape, and I’ve devised a little thought experiment to illustrate that point and get people to thinking about possible solutions:
Deuce’s Law of 2008
-
Section 1: The presumption of innocence, as it is not specifically iterated anywhere in the Constitution, will not attach to sex crimes. Instead, all individuals will be presumed to exist in a state of non-consent, as per Twisty Faster v. Patriarchy, which will replace Coffin v. United States as precedent in determining burden of proof for sex crime cases. As such, defendants accused of sex crimes will bear the burden of proof, and will have to prove their innocence. There is a danger inherent in such a system that a few innocent men will be punished, and this is quite unfortunate. It is not, however, more unfortunate than men raping with impunity in epidemic proportions simply because their victims are unable to prove to a room full of misogynists that, despite the ridiculous presumption of a default state of consent, they did not consent to a sex act. Victims will decide whether a crime has occurred, and defendants will not. This might frighten men, some of whom will claim that women will use the law to punish men out of vengeance. That might happen once in awhile, but our job is to protect the largest number of people possible, and false rape accusations are about a hundredth as common as rapes that go unpunished.
- Section 2: Rape will be broadly defined as intentionally taking advantage of a person’s physical or emotional vulnerabilities for sexual purposes, including creating fear in order to coerce a victim into performing or submitting to a sex act against her/his will. That includes fear of any kind, not just of violence. That’s right. Men will have to learn to have sex only with women who want to have sex with them, and will have to eschew high-pressure tactics, emotional and financial manipulation, as well as physical force if they want to avoid rape charges.
- Section 3: Any defendant convicted of rape will be assumed to have proven he is incapable of responsibly exercising his sexuality in society. As such, the penalty for rape will be immediate and irreversible castration. If a weapon is used in the commission of the crime, or if the victim at any time during the crime feels that her/his life was in danger, the added penalty of life in prison without parole will attach. Prison sentences are to be served at specially-constructed facilities at which offenders will perform uncompensated labor in service of women and children. What such labor will consist of will be decided by the administrators of individual facilities, but the result of the offenders’ labor must meet two criteria: 1) it must provide tangible benefits for women and/or children, but 2) offenders shall not come into direct contact with any women or children at any time.
- Section 4: Offenders may appeal their sentences one time only. Appeals must be made on grounds other than “women are emotional and unreasonable and so we shouldn’t let them define rape and decide who’s guilty.” Women, who have much less incentive to use sex as a weapon than men do, are much less likely to violate men’s rights through rape accusations than men are to violate women’s and children’s rights through rape. This is not up for debate, and is thus not sufficient grounds for appeal.
I’m pretty sure Deuce’s Law would bring us a dramatic reduction in rape, and most likely destroy the pornography industry and drastically curb sexual harassment (more on this later). Too bad men, even those with women and children under their care, will never submit to any sort of limits being placed on their sexuality (or, rather, their prerogative to use their sexuality as a weapon for controlling women), because this law would really work. It’s a shame they’re allowed to vote. They’re so hysterical and irrational about this sort of thing.
* Note: False rape charges are MUCH less common than rapes that go unpunished. Let’s say 1 in 100 rape charges is false (which is a VERY high estimate). Well, as it stands now, only 6% of rape cases ends in conviction. That means that of 100 rapes, 1 is false, 6 of the rapists are (often lightly) punished, and 93 go free. On balance, it seems that 1 innocent dude suffering is less of a problem than 93 rapists getting away with sexually abusing innocent women and children. Remember, I’m not talking about the death penalty here. Also, don’t you think, in the case of a false accusation, that almost anyone would recant before allowing an innocent person to be castrated? As it stands now, the legal system is asking us to trust men not to rape us, and they’re doing it anyway. If the legal system asked men to trust women not to have them castrated, I think it’d be more reasonable. Women are simply not as violent as men are. I know there are exceptions, but it’s a fact.
** Another note: credit is due to Davetavius for being one of the few dudes reasonable enough to think section 3 is a good idea, and for the conversations from which this post derived (though he would strenuously disagree with Section 1).
*** A final note: I’m not surprised or anything, but I’m getting some seriously gnarly comments about this. I suppose men don’t like to hear someone discuss treating them the way they’ve treated women throughout history. I wonder why? Anyway, if you’re thinking about commenting on this, have something to say or fuck off. I’m not posting bullshit insults, so if that’s what you’re planning to write, do one. Also, please read this before commenting as I’d rather not have to explain it.
202 Comments
June 12, 2008 at 2:07 am
Excellent. Thank you.
June 12, 2008 at 6:35 am
I love it, N.D., and yes it would definitely work. I especially like Section 2, and “Men will have to learn to have sex only with women who want to have sex with them…”
June 12, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Talk about evening the playing field. I want this to be a ballot issue here in Nevada (fat chance) for November’s election.
Our governor would be the first one convicted. That guy’s a sicko.
June 12, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I especially like Section 3. Now that’s justice!
June 12, 2008 at 3:10 pm
702 - I am surprised how many dudes I know think it’s a good idea. I think I’ll propose my new law to the state of California. They seem to be pretty forward thinking these days, or at least the courts are.
I don’t actually know a whole lot about your governor, but he is the governor of Nevada, so I assumed he was probably a pervert of one stripe or another. I mean, isn’t that part of the job? I think it’s in the official job description in California and New York.
June 12, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I think you nailed it. Governor Gibbons is even less competent than the shrub as far as leadership goes. He’s a complete moron. He’s also a philanderer with no sense of self control, which is the reason his wife, which for a republican first lady resembles less of a doormat than we’ve seen in a long time, is leaving his ass.
June 13, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Yeah! And those female teachers who have sex with their 12 year old male students? We should rip out their ovaries and sew their vaginas shut. amirite?
June 13, 2008 at 11:03 pm
What an idiot. First of all, the argument that rape laws aren’t fair because one woman takes advantage of someone sexually for every like 250,000 men who do so is stupid. Know why Mary Kay La Tourneau is a household name? Because that shit NEVER HAPPENS and so it’s noteworthy. We never hear about the zillions of cases in which adult men take advantage of young people sexually because, if we did, there’d be no room for coverage of anything else.
But fine, if I must answer such a dumb question, I’d say we put the women who sexually abuse children in jail for life, to serve sentences comprised of uncompensated labor in the service of children. But we’d have to determine whether what they were doing was predatory first in the same way I outlined above: the boy would have to bring a complaint. We’ll see how many times that happens.
We needn’t remove their ovaries because ovaries are not equivalent to testicles. Men cannot have sex without their testicles, women can have sex without their ovaries. We needn’t sew up their vaginas because you can’t penetrate someone against their will with a vagina, so it can’t be used as a weapon. Duh.
June 13, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Section 4 is a straw man. Can you cite examples of that quote coming from appeals? Appeals are accepted on the merit of the claim, or in the case of murder, automatic. Please don’t let your emotions run away with your logic. Oh, wait was that sexist? brb cutting off my penis for daring to challenge your views.
June 13, 2008 at 11:07 pm
You are a fucking fool. Do you even know what a straw man is? This whole thing is hypothetical, and I said that an appeal would not be accepted on those grounds because they are bullshit claims that idiots like you use when they are out of real arguments. Get the fuck off my blog.
June 13, 2008 at 11:31 pm
My biggest problem comes from section 1. The Bill of Rights takes huge precedence. And there is no way that this would be an amendment. Are you some kind of fascist? There are a lot more false rape claims than you seem to think there are. This would make it easy for someone to get revenge on a person that they don’t like- Consensual sex occurs, girl doesn’t like it. Suddenly, the burden of proof is on the guy to prove that it was consensual. That is bullshit and this law would facilitate childish crap like that.
June 13, 2008 at 11:34 pm
False rape charges are MUCH less common than rapes that go unpunished. Let’s say 1 in 100 rape charges is false (which is a VERY high estimate since very few women would go through the trauma involved in reporting and prosecuting a rape case just for vengeance). Well, as it stands now, only 6% or rape cases ends in conviction. That means that of 100 rapes, 1 is false, 6 of the rapists are punished, and 93 go free. On balance, it seems that 1 innocent dude suffering is less of a problem than 93 rapists getting away with sexually violating women and children. Remember, I’m not talking about the death penalty.
June 14, 2008 at 12:11 am
Only 1 in 100 rape cases are false - right now.
If this law was passed, there would be a dramatic rise in false charges, as the law would make such a crime (falsely accusing someone of rape) much easier to pull off.
Section 1 is bullshit. In any reasonable society, people are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof should always lie with the accuser.
June 14, 2008 at 12:14 am
I highly doubt that people would be accusing people of rape in huge numbers just because they could, especially when the consequences are so dire. Come on.
In any reasonable society? How is it reasonable that our legal system completely FAILS to protect 94 out of 100 women and children who are raped and allows 94 out of 100 rapists go free to continue to rape?
June 14, 2008 at 12:14 am
Is this…are you for real?
June 14, 2008 at 12:15 am
Section 1 criticism: You can’t just slap the burden of proof on the defendant; that goes against the entirety of the legal system. If you attempt to place the burden on the defense for rape, then it follows that for all crimes, the defense is responsible for proving his innocence. It’s a complete reversal of “innocent until proven guilty,” and quite disturbing.
Section 2 criticism: I’m with you here, for the most part. A broader definition is required; not to widen the net to catch more rapists, but to tighten the noose so that the ones we do capture can be held accountable.
Section 3 criticism: Completely and irrevocably unnecessary. Immediate castration is what’s called “cruel and unusual punishment,” which as I’m sure you know, is against the law. You’re not allowed to go around, chopping off dangley bits. Stricter punishment in the form of jail time? Yes. Mutilation? No, we’re not in the Dark Ages anymore.
Section 4 criticism: Once again, intolerable. Being able to appeal is one of many sacred pillars in our justice system. It’s also how you let the innocent have another chance, a chance to be let free. Limiting it to one per prisoner is insanity.
Overall criticism: You’ll hate me for this, but it reeks of a double standard most foul. Every example you set forth uses men as the offender; WHILE TRUE that men rape more, that is no excuse to completely disregard how men should be treated as victims. The only worthwhile section was #2. Please revise your “law,” discarding your bias, and rewrite it to be FAIR AND JUST.
June 14, 2008 at 12:15 am
Oh yeah, because only men are capable of doing wrong, amirite?
June 14, 2008 at 12:18 am
Jiminy - It’s intended to make people think. As of right now, we live in a society in which our laws fail completely to protect women and children from rape. When the law says that you are innocent until proven guilty, and when most rape cases come down to an accusation and a denial, the perpetrator wins, which is why our conviction rates are so low. That’s a colossal problem. It means, basically, that rape is allowed. I am offering an alternative model, which I admit is radical and even seemingly bizarre, but is it more so than a system in which rape goes unpunished?
June 14, 2008 at 12:20 am
Herp is right, the reason we don’t see as much false accusations is the fact that there are safeguards within the legal system.
And theres other more creative ways this can be abused,
if a company wants to get rid of its competitors it can go out and pay women to accuse the competitors employees ,excutives, owners ect…
June 14, 2008 at 12:20 am
What about protecting men from rape?
June 14, 2008 at 12:23 am
Zillions of cases? I think not, there’s not even that many people on the planet. Obviously you’re using hyperbole (and I think you abuse it), but I think it’s a sign of how weak your argument is. Reporting of any crime exaggerates the public perception of it’s rate of occurance. Look at school shootings for example, or something as “mundane” as murder. One would think it happens 20 times a day in every city in America. Ovaries are comparable to testicles because they are the gonads, the primary sex characteristic and produce the hormones that create secondary sex characteristics and makes WOMEN GO CRAZY ON THEIR PERIODS HYUK HYUK. Ahem. Anyway, when you said castration I thought you meant removal of testes and penis as is the common definition. Either way it is arguably a violation of the US Constitution’s provision against cruel and unusual punishment. There are some cases where chemical castration has been used in the US, but if I recall correctly that is voluntary. The principle of the American justice system is equity. That is one reason why the BLIND Justice carries a scale. Men and women are not Equal (it’s capitalized for a reason), but I believe that we should treat them as such when it comes to matters of government and law. “All men [and women] are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain and inalienable rights.” What you want is seemingly special treatment, and that is what I see as the typical feminist line these days.
June 14, 2008 at 12:24 am
“I am offering an alternative model, which I admit is radical and even seemingly bizarre, but is it more so than a system in which rape goes unpunished?”
You absolutely cannot think that a law full of holes can possibly be better than the current system? The problem of false accusation needs to be addressed, as in your scenario any woman would be able to walk into court, accuse a man, “break down” crying on the witness stand, and send an innocent man to jail and the clippers, JUST BECAUSE men are the primary offenders and it’s the man’s job to prove he’s innocent.
It pains me to think about.
June 14, 2008 at 12:24 am
No, Herp, but men do rape in much higher numbers than women do, and men are, on the whole, much more likely to use physical violence than women are.
Okinawa - No, it does not do away with the whole legal system. Burden of proof in our legal system shifts around depending on the circumstances. And “innocent until proven guilty” does not work in rape cases because it always comes down to an accusation and a denial, in which case the rapist walks.
Castration is not cruel and unusual punishment, it fits the crime. When a man uses his sexuality as a weapon, he ought to have that weapon taken from him. It’s only cruel and unusual to men who are frightened at the prospect of having limits placed on their sexuality, something women have always faced.
Appeal is allowed, but not on the specious grounds I outlined. I might even be willing to allow multiple appeals, but not on those grounds.
You might claim my law is biased, but how is current law not biased in favor of men and against women in the case of rape?
June 14, 2008 at 12:26 am
This…this is just silly!
June 14, 2008 at 12:30 am
Thanks for the ad hominem attack.
June 14, 2008 at 12:31 am
“And “innocent until proven guilty” does not work in rape cases because it always comes down to an accusation and a denial, in which case the rapist walks.”
Clearly, it works now, because we still have people going to prison for rape.
“Castration is not cruel and unusual punishment, it fits the crime.”
We no longer live in an age where “an eye for an eye” is an acceptable means of rendering judgment. Do not think for one second that murdering a man who accidentally lost control of his car and killed a pedestrian will solve the problem of vehicular manslaughter.
“You might claim my law is biased, but how is current law not biased in favor of men and against women in the case of rape?”
Perhaps it’s due to the fact that an overwhelming majority of rape cases are men on women. There are also plenty of cases where women will attempt to cry wolf in order to send a man she doesn’t like to jail. Suspension of belief, objective seeing of the facts, and most important, innocence until proven guilt are what our counts and legal systems work on.
Your law is as corrupt as you claim the current one is.
June 14, 2008 at 12:33 am
Jiminy - The law applies when men are raped as well.
Jean Lafitte - The accused would have the opportunity to defend himself in that case.
Derp - Hyperbole is a style convention, come on. Our legal system does not treat men and women equally. You need to do some research. And anyway, for crimes like rape it might not ever be able to. Our current system is a total failure on this issue. You are right about one thing: false rape accusations seem more common than they are because the media makes so much of the rare cases in which they are discovered. But how many actual rapes are committed that go unpunished that we never hear of?
To all - Because of the presumption of innocence, women are presumed to exist in a constant state of consent and they have to prove otherwise, which means rape is allowed. How is that more fair than making men prove that they did not commit a rape?
June 14, 2008 at 12:33 am
Nine Deuce, you are silly! You are being silly, Nine Deuce!
June 14, 2008 at 12:35 am
How can someone prove they didn’t rape a person? Wouldn’t they need recorded evidence? Or some kind of contract that both parties would sign?
June 14, 2008 at 12:38 am
The low conviction rate is more due to lack of evidence. For whatever reason women may wait a while to report the attack(s) until it becomes too much for them to handle or someone finds out. At this point physical evidence like semen and hair are washed down the drain. Maybe the solution would be to have CSI required viewing in middle school? Seriously though, young women should be educated and we should work to create a society (not through legislation) where women can feel comfortable reporting crimes after they happen and not hold it in and let it fester. Also, for GOD’S sake can we admit that women need to learn about risk prevention? Sure rape is wrong and we shouldn’t blame the victim, but the choices you make affect what will happen down the line. Drinking so much you black out at a party isn’t the safest thing in the world, for women OR men.
June 14, 2008 at 12:39 am
deeznuts - Are you reading a Wikipedia article entitled “types of logical fallacies in argument” right now or something? Anyway, you are out of your element.
No, Okinawa, it doesn’t work, because our conviction rate for rape is below 10%. Are you claiming that 90 of 100 rapes reported are false accusations? Also, I did not refer to castration as revenge, I said it was akin to removing a weapon from a violent criminal’s possession. It’s the same as not allowing felons to buy guns. It wouldn’t be painful, all it would do is create a situation in which the offender would no longer be able to use his sexuality as a weapon.
Jiminy - I am not being silly, I am asking people to consider that the accepted state of things might not be the best way.
June 14, 2008 at 12:42 am
Derp - I KNOW that the low conviction rate is due to lack of evidence. That’s the problem, the victim is required to provide evidence that she did not consent. Why would we live in a default state of consent? Isn’t that just as bad (I say worse) than saying men are guilty until proven innocent? A default state of consent means rape is allowed!
As to risk prevention, how about we ask men TO STOP HAVING SEX WITH PEOPLE WHO DON’T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM? Why do I have to curb my behavior because a dude can’t keep himself from raping me? That’s fucking ridiculous.
June 14, 2008 at 12:43 am
Just because men commit more rapes and violent crimes does not mean that men in general are more likely to break people’s human rights.
This law would allow any woman to claim a man had raped her, and he would have virtually no defence against it.
Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that everyone should have equality before the law. Therefore, everyone should be considered innocent until they have been proven guilty. Someone being treated as guilty without proof being given is a breach of this. It also goes against Articles 9 and 10 , as well as directly against Article 11.1
I do agree with article 2 of your proposal, however.
June 14, 2008 at 12:47 am
Yes, it does. Violent crime is a violation of human rights.
You have to remember that as it stands now, the law asks women to trust men not to rape them. Under this version, it would ask men to trust women not to castrate them. Men, being more prone to violence than women, are more likely to rape than women are to castrate, even if it was just a matter of making the accusation. You have such a huge problem with the idea of innocent men being castrated, but what about innocent women being raped?
Article 7 says everyone should have equality before the law, and I agree. If a woman were to commit a sex crime, I’d vote for her to receive life in the same kind of prison I outlined for the male rapists. But equality before the law has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. There are plenty of legal systems in which that is not the way things work.
June 14, 2008 at 12:51 am
I still do not see how being more prone to violence makes someone more prone to lie.
June 14, 2008 at 12:52 am
Uh, how many people do you know who would admit to a crime? Men accused of rape would lie.
June 14, 2008 at 12:54 am
To the idiot who asked me what about the “slut” who accused her boyfriend of rape to blackmail him:
1) What the fuck are you talking about?
2) Learn how to present an argument if you want to discuss something like an adult.
3) Fuck off.
To all the people who have called me a cunt in comments:
1) Read my comment policy.
2) Good job on the well-reasoned arguments.
3) Fuck off.
June 14, 2008 at 12:55 am
Yes, and women who wanted revenge on someone can lie.
Under your system it would mean life in jail and castration, with effectively no appeal.
Also, if someone is getting life in jail, is there any point in the castration?
June 14, 2008 at 12:57 am
“You have such a huge problem with the idea of innocent men being castrated, but what about innocent women being raped?”
THAT DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE!
You are being silly, Nine Deuce. Stop being so silly.
Castration would be the punishment for a man that raped someone. Rape is not a punishment for anyone. Rape is just a bad thing that happens to people.
June 14, 2008 at 12:58 am
I already asked you, do you really think people would pursue false charges if they were to mean someone would be castrated? There are VERY few people who would do so, much fewer than there are rapists.
You get castration no jail unless you threatened someone’s life, in which case you go to jail. If you weren’t imprisoned but commit a second offense, you go to jail. There is a point to castration for men in jail. Castration would mean they could not use their sexuality as a weapon to dominate and victimize other people in jail.
June 14, 2008 at 1:05 am
Nine Deuce–from **where** are you pulling this level of patience?
June 14, 2008 at 1:05 am
Jiminy - Rape is a punishment for being a woman. Men take out their anger on women through rape, which is a form of punishment.
June 14, 2008 at 1:06 am
pisaquari - I’m gonna be a teacher. I have to practice somewhere. I’m about to let all these dunces go in a minute, though.
June 14, 2008 at 1:06 am
NINE DEUCE RAPED ME! IT WAS HORRIBLE! PLEASE CASTRATE HIM/HER/S/HE/IT AND SEND THEM TO PRISON FOREVER!
There, you have been accused, and as such under your law are automatically guilty. Prove me wrong etc.
June 14, 2008 at 1:07 am
Here’s the problem, Herp: You’re a dude. You’re more likely to use violence or the threat of it to get your way than I am. I wouldn’t accuse you of rape if I knew it meant you’d go to prison or get castrated, even though you keep changing your screen name.
June 14, 2008 at 1:08 am
“Rape is a punishment for being a woman.”
Oh my God…
You…you’re horrible!
June 14, 2008 at 1:09 am
First of all, how do you know I’m a guy.
Secondly, I keep posting under the same name.
So what you are saying is that you honestly think men are more likely to be ‘evil’ than woman are? That is sexist bullshit.
June 14, 2008 at 1:10 am
So… hypothetically, a man could accuse his ex-girlfriend of rape and she would be forced to prove that he consented. If she could not produce evidence that proved the man gave consent for the particular act in question, she would be convicted.
:roll:
June 14, 2008 at 1:12 am
No relation to Herp or Derp :D, and there is no provisions in your law against me wildly accusing you. What’s to stop those horrible horrible men from running to the police station before the women we all raping even as we type this and accusing them first? Those women have to prove they didn’t rape the men before they can do anything. And if they can’t, which is the whole point of your law, that the accused wouldn’t be able to wiggle free, then they get mutilated and sent to jail for the rest of their lives for getting raped. Sounds perfect! No abuse possible. Ever.
June 14, 2008 at 1:23 am
Listen to me, motherfuckers: I am not claiming that my law would be a perfect replacement for the current ones, just that the current ones DON’T WORK and that it is unjust to operate under the assumption that women are in a constant state of consent. I know this might come as a surprise to all of you self-appointed legal scholars, but I have studied the law of the United States as well as several other countries extensively. I anticipated all of your objections, and they were all answered in the original post, which I think you’ll find if you look at it. My law was intended to highlight the injustice of our current system for dealing with sex crimes.
Accuse me of sexism, accuse me of double standards, accuse me of injustice, but all of those accusations can be made against the current state of things.
At least you gave it some thought, which is what I hoped.
Good DAY to the lot of you.
June 14, 2008 at 1:36 am
Konservo - Yes.
June 14, 2008 at 1:40 am
Well, what CAN be said about the current system is that it’s been designed to avoid making the situation worse any way possible, while still trying to help.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
June 14, 2008 at 1:48 am
“The presumption of innocence, as it is not specifically iterated anywhere in the Constitution”
Sometimes I wonder if countries without a constitution are better off but then I remember it’s just that America is retarded.
June 14, 2008 at 1:48 am
Darling - What effort is being made to help? The laws have existed in this fucked up state for centuries.
June 14, 2008 at 1:49 am
The Constitution is definitely a problem. People seem to think it’s a divine revelation rather than the work of mortals, and so it has proven very inflexible and ill-suited to modern problems.
June 14, 2008 at 2:02 am
Nine Deuce: That it’s forbidden, and heck, that false convictions actually happen. That shows that significant leniency is shown to those who cannot procure adeaquate evidence.
Also, The Constitution being inflexible and ill-suited? It’s, still, one of the best crafted documents ever made. It skillfully still shows insights into human nature a vast majority of the people today cannot even comprehend - even if it is frequently misread by Americans.
But, overall, as a continental male European (everyone not understanding that reference read http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/03/25/youre-never-too-young-for-implants/ ), I say, keep on. I want to see you somehow making yourself less worthy of respect intellectually.
I think we should praise whatever deity we believe in (or the state of existence for atheists) that you don’t represent anything except an extreme fringe woman viewpoint. If all women were like you, I, for one, would be violently opposed to the right of women to vote.
June 14, 2008 at 2:14 am
Your deeming me unworthy of intellectual respect amounts to nothing (especially since you can’t even detect a joke when you see one) unless you can explain why, which you can’t. You can say that you think my positions are crazy and not intellectually respectable, but that’s because they don’t jibe with your conception of how the world ought to work, not because they’re actually illogical. I’m willing to bet that I am much more educated than you are, and I’ve thought long and hard about all of these issues. That you don’t like my conclusions matters nil.
The reason your reaction is so strident is that you can detect the threat of the loss of your own privilege in the kinds of things I’m talking about. That’s why men don’t like radical feminists for the most part.
Leniency is offered to those who can’t provide evidence? As opposed to what? Punishing rape victims who can’t PROVE that they weren’t in a constant state of consent? Unbelievable.
I have a thorough understanding of the Constitution, as well as the problems America faces that it can’t cope with. Guns, anyone? As a continental European, you should understand that.
June 14, 2008 at 2:18 am
This next comment is for Derp, in response to this statement:
“Seriously though, young women should be educated and we should work to create a society (not through legislation) where women can feel comfortable reporting crimes after they happen and not hold it in and let it fester. Also, for GOD’S sake can we admit that women need to learn about risk prevention? Sure rape is wrong and we shouldn’t blame the victim, but the choices you make affect what will happen down the line. Drinking so much you black out at a party isn’t the safest thing in the world, for women OR men.”
Do you know what’s wrong with this statement? Most simply, it states that women need to take extraneous measures, more measures than any man would need to take or even think about, in order to be granted the basic human need for safety and security. What you are saying and doing is placing the burden of rape prevention and penalization on women. The entire point of anti-rape laws is to equal the playing field so that women will not *need* to be held in this invisible fear and/or build their nightlives around sexual safety issues. By forcing more social responsibility and obligations on women in response to the imbalance in the sex of rape victims, it’s not solving the basic need that anti-rape arguments are targeting — the basic need being, simply, the right to exist without fear. There’s no doubt that the judicial system is heavily patriarchal insofar as rape offenses are often taken relatively lightly. Child predators and rapists are most often convicted, sentenced, then released before they commit the same crimes again.
Anyway, you’re a fucking dimwit for suggesting an idea like the one you just did. Good luck in life to you.
June 14, 2008 at 2:31 am
Plenty of women would use the reversal in burden of proof to get back at their boyfriends, or to have it hang over their boyfriend’s head as a threat. This cannot work unmodified, because all it would take is for a male to have sex with his female partner and the female partner would be able to, if she wished, get the male imprisoned for rape. Not all rape leaves physical damage, and there are plenty of good actors out there who could fudge the emotional trauma.
Want to end rape? Change our education system, not our laws, and work to clean out the ignorance and bigotry that exists in the minds of some of our males. We don’t need a, frankly, unfair legal system to deal with rape (guilty until proven innocent is NOT a fair system, except perhaps in the US’ current administration), we need to deal with the problem at it’s source.
I don’t understand how a rapeless society would lead to utopia either.
If you want to crusade against the big picture, try taking on human trafficking. There are MILLIONS of women who are sold into permanent sexual slavery for the duration of their natural lives (or in some cases until they “pay a substantial debt” incurred by their captives). The international community does little to try and stop that.
But to summarize, I’d contend that rape is caused by ignorance and bigotry, not “lax laws.”
June 14, 2008 at 2:38 am
I admire your idealism. But it is perhaps more useful to think of ways you can be of help within the world that exists. Fantasizing about a better world is a necessary beginning. But unless you follow it up with real action it’s all just escapism.
June 14, 2008 at 2:44 am
Eye - I agree. Like I said, in an ideal situation rape would be eradicated through a revolution in values. This was meant to illustrate the failings of the current system more than anything.
Entropy - Every post on this blog is about finding ways to work within the situation we live in. That I take time out to discuss alternatives (feasible or not) is not escapism, but rather an attempt to make people think about things that they take for granted.
June 14, 2008 at 2:45 am
Oh, and also, to “Darling” (trashy username, btw) –
Why are you here? European men are shit, every smart American woman knows that. I find them to be lecherous creepers with very odd facial features and a deeply ingrained sense of male entitlement that is manifested through a rich cultural and genetic history of misogyny as well as certain languages that are brimming with linguistic sexism. They’re prone to premature aging, and dress like either queers or ragdolls. Please, stick to your own continental feminist blogs. Historical American gender roles are slightly different from European ones, so save your misplaced smugness for someplace else — I definitely don’t come here to have to read shit like your last comment.
June 14, 2008 at 2:53 am
I love chlorophyll.
And I just thought of something that I’d like to address to all commenters aside from pisaquari and chlorophyll: Would you ever dream of being so patronizing toward someone in person? Would you go on a man’s blog and tell him how he ought to present his ideas? Do you really all think you are smarter than I am, that you understand these issues better than I do, and that you are justified in talking to me like you’re my fucking dad? Don’t kid yourself. Seriously, fuck the lot of you.
June 14, 2008 at 3:11 am
I completely agree with entropy, in that inaction on behalf of women is contributing to the problem as much as the bad choices men in policy and at home are making.
But I want to challenge you, 9-2, to reconsider for a moment what seems to be your view of the world today and how it got there.
Now before anything else I drop the disclaimer that I haven’t spent more than a collective 20 minutes reading through your about/how to get banned, and so I make these statements out of partial ignorance and somewhat unfairly.
And maybe that’s when I should take the common sense path and stop right now.
But it just seems to me that you have this world view wherein you ascribe all of today’s societal problems to men, because we live in a patriarchal society, and because our past societies have been patriarchal. Without an example of a modern society governed largely by women to compare to, how can you make the distinction between problems caused by tradition-based ignorance, problems caused by patterns of thinking that have been maintained in leadership for a very long time, and problems caused by the leader’s male gender.
Or put another way, if the world had been ruled primarily by women for the last few thousand years, would you honestly expect gender equality?
I think where some men feel threatened by feminism is that they have the perception, founded in reality or not, that feminists by and large blame the gender and not the traditions (in perspective, knowledge/ignorance and in attitudes) that were established long ago.
So I may be entirely wrong about the way you see things, which I probably am. But in return for my foolishness I promise the reward (or maybe in time you’ll find it to be just more punishment :P) of me spending some more time here, hearing what you have to say, and commenting.
Maybe a little about myself.
I’m a *gasp* male college student enrolled in an undergraduate program at a community college with plans of becoming an engineer and working in the budding field of nanoscience/molecular nanotechnology. I grew up in a liberal Christian household, and by the time I reached college I became essentially agnostic and have remained such since. I’ve been in a relationship with a wonderful woman for just over two years now, and we both have had plenty of talks/debates about feminism. I had the great fortune of growing up alongside a male friend of mine who himself has become involved with a girl who has opened all of our minds to more progressive ideas about gender identity, feminism, and the differing psychologies between men and women (she was president of a local Gay Straight Alliance chapter when he met her, and we’ve all learned a lot together).
Myself, I am a nihilist, futurist, altruist, agnostic who wants to participate in planting the seeds for a better future society. I feel the internet has opened up new avenues for the individual’s quest for knowledge and wisdom, and recently I’ve decided to use that opportunity to lurk around forums and blogs to gain insight on world problems and the human experience that frankly no academia is capable of teaching.
I hope to learn a lot here, and I hope you will too ;)
June 14, 2008 at 3:17 am
Eye - I’ve stated in several places that I don’t believe all men are unregenerate assholes, and that most of them are tools of, rather than architects of, the patriarchal system in which we live. If you do read through things, you’ll see that in most posts I take a much more charitable attitude toward men than I do in this one. Still, I don’t back away from my central argument in this post that our legal system is heavily influenced by the patriarchy and that it doesn’t serve women’s needs.
June 14, 2008 at 3:24 am
Duece, I wouldn’t necessarily blame people’s disagreement or even outright hostility on unconscious (or even bias) gender bias. Having been involved in heated discussions about women’s rights for so long, do you think perhaps maybe you’re just a little “jumpy” or “trigger happy” when it comes to assuming a gender bias in others? “Well if I was a man…” is not a fair assessment of someone else’s disagreement/hostility. Just a thought.
Consider also that you’ve proposed her a legal amendment that reverses the “innocent until proven guilty” pretext that defines modern judicial thought, and that you’ve also proposed mutilation as a desirable punishment for first time offenders. I agree that there needs to be a change in approach to rape punishment, but it needs to come in the form of education, not more imprisonment or even human rights violations against men. Otherwise, why do we even bother imprisoning/attempt to instate capital punishment for murderers? We should just lobotomize them. A law like this would only serve to further cause hostilities between women’s rights groups and mainstream males, and would, I’d predict, actually hurt the women’s rights movement, which as you know isn’t just about rape, but about fair pay, fair treatment, societal attitudes and perceptions, media perceptions etc. And so on those grounds I think it would hurt a lot more and many more things than it would help, at least in its current state.
I would suggest a program where rapists have to spend at least a year regularly attending classes where they are educated about women’s rights, are given presentations by rape victims, and are counseled in a psychiatric way. In order to properly design such a program, you’d need to take into account studies of the demographics behind rape, studies behind the “common attitudes” and beliefs among men who commit the crime as well as studies of women who face spousal abuse (which obviously in this context would include rape) and how their beliefs/common attitudes appear statistically; all data which in the course of your studies I’m sure you’ve come across. I think ideally this would do a lot to reverse the repeat offense trend, and I think once these ideas are proven tested and true in the prison system we could then take the information and lobby for inclusion in public education programs.
Just my bantering.
June 14, 2008 at 3:31 am
I’m considering you an expert here, so maybe you can help me out.
I’m not sure how legit the information here is:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ncvrw/1996/m-rape.htm
But according to that site, only 16% of rapes are ever reported to the police. How is it that we know this if the other 84% are never reported? Is it based on hospital rape-kit statistics, or is it inferred from polls?
June 14, 2008 at 3:40 am
“Another note: credit is due to Davetavius for being one of the few dudes reasonable enough to think this is a good idea”
That could be one reason why people are a bit hostile about this post; you present the context as “this is the way things should be to be fair, and any man who disagrees is not reasonable.” From your comments however I get the perception that what you are really trying to express is an example of a law that would be equally as unjust as our current system, just on the opposite side of the coin. In the main post you don’t seem to make this notion clear, and instead at least to me the tone seems to suggest “you either agree with this law or you have male bias.”
I could be wrong.
June 14, 2008 at 4:31 am
I don’t actually think I’m trigger happy. I think that there are a lot of people who have come onto my blog and behaved in a patronizing manner because that’s how a lot of men interact with a lot of women. Honestly, you’re doing a little of it, but I don’t think you’re doing it intentionally, so I don’t really care.
I’ve already stated that I’d like to see rape eradicated through a change in attitudes, but that doesn’t change the fact that I would like to express my disdain for a legal system in which women are considered, legally, to be in a default state of consent unless they can prove otherwise. That, in my book, is absurd. It means that anyone can do whatever they want to me, and that I have to prove I didn’t want them to lest they get away with it. Castration might seem like a human rights violation under the system (national and international) that we live in right now, but I don’t think of it that way. Sentiments aside, it is a logical solution to an epidemic in human rights violations in the form of rape. Let’s say, as a joke, that I was OK with the presumption of innocence. What would you think about castration of rapists then?
My job as a feminist isn’t to make feminism palatable to men. I realize that we need men’s help to succeed, but it’s men’s job to change their attitudes toward women. That my desire for equality makes men uncomfortable is not my problem.
As for the stats on reported rapes, they collect information from polls, from stats at rape crisis centers, etc. It depends on the study, but that number of 16% is pretty close to what most studies come up with, although I still think there are more rapes that go unreported, especially the kinds of rape that are hard to identify as rape for the victim (when the victim is unconscious, for example, see my War on Terr’r 6 post).
That bit about Davetavius was a joke. This site has a lot of facetiousness on it, I think you’ll find, and I often get people who don’t pick it up getting all worked up. But, I must say, all of the people who have argued with the post have exhibited at least mild (and usually strong) senses of male entitlement to the free exercise of male sexuality even to the detriment of women.
June 14, 2008 at 5:13 am
I apologize if I’ve seemed patronizing anywhere, and I want to ask, where?
However, what if I had made all these statements to you with you perceiving them with the pretext that I’m female? Would that change your opinion of my tone or intent?
The only thing that I’ve really said here is that the law you suggested has flaws that render it unfair and unjust, legally and morally, and that if your intention was to demonstrate an equally unfair law that sits on the opposite side of the coin, you didn’t make that very clear in the original post. My disagreement with you is not rooted in my perception of our gender relationship.
“My job as a feminist isn’t to make feminism palatable to men. I realize that we need men’s help to succeed, but it’s men’s job to change their attitudes toward women. That my desire for equality makes men uncomfortable is not my problem.”
You can’t succeed without men. Period. And men can’t succeed without you. Period. You may have idealistic views about progressive feminism (sounds much better than radical feminism to me at least, consider that spin, since “progressive” is more colloquially positive and agreeable to all than “radical.” Otherwise, the conservatives will stop reading and start sputtering), but you wont be able to see them implemented without getting the men to participate in their implementation, and all changes require some compromise, so on those grounds I would say while it’s not your job to make feminism palatable to men, what good will it do to not? And palatable doesn’t mean you compromise the most important and irrevocable tenants of your belief, it simply means guide the horse to water rather than tell the horse to go drink or fuck off. If you want to make change in the world, and if you want males to be that change, you have to diplomatically get them to see your point, because as you very well know, many men won’t agree with what you have to say off the bat because of their own perceptions of you and their own biases, even though many many of the things you have to say here ring true.
But what I was getting at with the statistic, is how can we be sure that 16% is accurate? What data is that 16% based off of, and using that data, what kind of statistical margin of error might we have? That 16% statistic is actually the most important one on that page, because it alone defines how many women are “thought to be raped every year.” The amount of reported rapes becomes irrelevant if our statistical model for “how many rapes go unreported” is more significant than the amount of reported rapes themselves. So in the interest of having accurate data to work with, I want to know how exactly we get this 16%. I see these kind of estimates all the time, and it’s never been explained to me how we arrive at them, even though they are the most important statistics of all.
Consider the UFO phenomenon, of all things. Few actual studies have been done on the prevalence of UFO sightings/alien abductions in society, even though the UFO community by and large wholeheartedly believes that millions, literally millions have had these experiences. Of the few studies, the famous Roper poll was analyzed and the estimate of total people who’ve seen a UFO was based on the assumption that “only 5% of UFO witnesses actually report seeing a UFO, fearing social repercussions, threat to career, harassment, ridicule, and not wanting to go through the process of reporting, which itself is perceived negatively.” (note this is paraphrased). That’s quite a statistic right there! But if we had “real” data, say in the form of a huge study to try and determine how many people would actually hide something like this, and let’s say it deflated the numbers of UFO sightings quite dramatically, how many people would still believe in UFOs?
Now I am NOT saying at all that rape statistics may be deflated in this way, or that deflated rape statistics should at all change our attitudes about rape prevention, but I do think it’s a relevant issue that we have more accurate statistics to work with. It could be that this 16% was based on a nationwide anonymous poll “have you ever been raped,” and if so, it would then pretty accurately give us an idea of how many total rapes occur in the US annually. However if that 16% is based on speculation on behalf of the researchers as to “how many women probably wouldn’t say anything” then our data is pretty skewed. If quite seriously 1/300 women become rape victims annually (assuming about a 50/50 divide between men and women, though of course there will be slightly more women, with 500,000 raped), then we have a huge issue on our hands, clearly. And that number doesn’t sound very exaggerated to me either. Imagine a university undergrad class filled predominantly with women that’s told at the beginning of the semester “oh, by the way, at least one of you girls WILL be raped this year, period,” that might raise some brows. But that 16% is the foundation of the whole statistic, and so I can’t help to ponder its origins.
I don’t see why a date rape would cause a woman not to report. She may not have a perp to implicate, but she would know she was taken advantage of, and would probably have signs of having participated in intercourse on her body. I could be wrong though, it just seems strange to me.
And the right to have your penis isn’t about “free exercise of male sexuality,” it’s a cruel and unusual punishment issue. The penis in some contexts has become objectified as the embodiment of male oppression, and so I would play devil’s advocate here and prodingly jest with you that perhaps there was more to this inclusion than meets the eye ;)
June 14, 2008 at 5:28 am
Something else I just realized too, there’s many ways of looking at an issue, and I just thought of another.
In your original post you claim that the current standard is that of the “default state of consent.” I would suggest however that the “default” here has to do with the person on trial, and not with the testifying witnesses/prosecuting party. So from that perspective, it is “default state of innocence.”
The problem with rape is the unique difficulties it presents in the judicial environment, and I think reducing the problems to a presumption that a woman statistically won’t lie about being raped, and therefore we should assume the defendant is lying from the get-go, is an oversimplification of the real issue that proof is sometimes hard to validate in these cases, and that many times there won’t be anything to use as evidence other than testimony and evidence in the form of emotional distress. Otherwise, if we just assume women won’t lie most of the time, we might as well start using lie detector tests in criminal cases as damning evidence; after all, most of the time lie detector tests are accurate.
Future advances in technology may offer new solutions to this problem. If changing societal viewpoints and largely purging the ignorance that causes this phenomenon doesn’t happen first, consider this zany idea I just made up:
- A device a woman can insert deep inside herself, like an IUD, that acts as a “rape detector.” Basically, it would simultaneously keep track of penetration as well as fear/anger/anxiety hormones released by the female. If the female is under duress while being penetrated, it records this data and could then be used in a court case. Women could have it installed upon puberty, and it could actually function as a real IUD, serving as a simultaneous birth control and rape detector. As I understand it, you don’t really “feel” an IUD given how deep it’s placed inside. If this is not the case, then obviously this technology is flawed. Another flaw would be the consideration that not all rapes are restricted to/involve intercourse.
June 14, 2008 at 5:49 am
The idea that people exist in a state of non-consent to sex does not necessarily countervene presumption of an accused’s innocence in criminal court.(1)
For example, if someone punches me in the face, it is assumed that I did not consent (2); yet if the state were to press assault charges against my assailant, that person would still be presumed innocent.
Also, ninedeuce says: “Leniency is offered to those who can’t provide evidence? As opposed to what? Punishing rape victims who can’t PROVE that they weren’t in a constant state of consent? Unbelievable.”
It IS unbelievable, and of course, our government does it. Remember the cases of women punished by the military after being gang-raped?
Lastly, I think that silly Jiminy is sitting there, being silly, going through some (not so silly) list of the obnoxious things misogynist say when speaking to women, and seeing how many he can check off. Silly, huh?
(1) It does, however, contravene the idea that womens’ bodies, and therefore women, are owned by their fathers, their husbands, or whoever can take them first; it’s not likely to pass into law.
(2) There are some crimes in which consent is not a defense — murder, in most cases — but I specifically chose that one both because there are plenty of legal ways to punch people in the face (become a pro or an amateur fighter) and also because many friends do roughhouse, with consent, and without getting the law involved at all.
June 14, 2008 at 7:28 am
Look, Eye, I’ve got to sleep, but you really ought to realize how patronizing you sound. Are you actually telling me how to be a feminist? And what to call myself? The cheek! But I’ll address all that tomorrow or Sunday.
June 14, 2008 at 7:52 am
I did think about it. And then I looked up the definition of Patronize. In every case I find, to Patronize means to Condescend. In turn, to Condescend means to:
- Treat with an air of haughtiness
- To descend to a less formal or dignified level
- To assume an air of superiority
In all cases, the implication is that I would be treating you as an inferior, treating your reasoning skills as inferior, or otherwise using weasel words to place you in a lower social context or suggest your ideas have less priority/weight/value than mine.
So if you want, and I would like, please show me where I have been Patronizing.
From my perception, I have merely criticized a few of your ideas and challenged a few of the stereotypes you seem to carry with you. I agree with most of what you have to say elsewhere so far (just not necessarily this legislature idea), but I feel like you are interpreting any disagreement/debate as an male opposition rather than the logical discourse I perceive it as.
As far as “telling you how to be a feminist” or “telling you what to call yourself” I was merely pointing out that if you want males to change you’re going to have to engage them rather than write your opinions and expect them to agree or otherwise brand them as stupid failures for not agreeing. And I was pointing out that “progressive feminism” seems more along the lines of what you want, colloquially, because people perceive “radical feminism” as, and pardon the expression, feminazis, who want gender inequality and who believe males are inferior. I’m not telling you that’s how it is, that’s just my opinion. I’m sorry if I didn’t properly frame it that way.
Despite what you may have seen written between the lines of my earlier comments, I’m telling you right now that I don’t think any less of your opinions, or you, than of myself or my opinions, and I don’t believe I have any more “authority” on any such manners than you do (to the contrary I ‘believe’ I’m younger than you, and you seem to have spent a substantial amount of time doing research in this area, so I would say you are more qualified than I am, and have more authority on the subject than I do).
I hope that clears things up.
June 14, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Eye - I’m glad you are here thinking about these things, and I am glad you’re reading my posts. My only issue would be with your telling me how to make my platform palatable to men. I do know that reaching equality will require men to get on board with feminism, but I’m on the fence about whether that’s what I really want. Debs has written a post on the subject that you can find in the carnival I just hosted.
Even if equality does turn out to be my goal, I don’t know that watering down my message is going to do any good. I realize that men think of combat boots when they think of radical feminism, but radical feminism actually means something. It’s a much different thing than progressive feminism or any other kind of feminism. It means that I think our entire social structure is patriarchal, and that fundamental change will be required to liberate women. That might even mean the complete restructuring of our socio-economic system.
Radical feminism does not, however, hold that men are inferior. That men take it to mean so means they don’t understand it. I do attempt to break feminist thought down to easily digestible bits on this blog, but that’s as much as I’m going to do. It truly isn’t my job to make men comfortable. What I’m talking about should make them uncomfortable, because it entails a drastic reduction in their privilege and social superiority over women.
Anyway, keep commenting. I am glad you’re thinking about these things.
threemildchild - No one is assumed to have consented to an assault. When a victim goes to court for a robbery, they don’t have to prove they didn’t want to be robbed.
June 14, 2008 at 6:14 pm
im just curious, how would you punish men who got raped by fags?
June 14, 2008 at 6:18 pm
pitorp - With the death penalty, definitely. Nice.
June 14, 2008 at 6:30 pm
you are going to be a teacher? good luck with that.
no really, obvious trolling here people, move along.
June 14, 2008 at 6:36 pm
No, a professor, of legal history (surprise!).
June 14, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Formerly I didn’t realize that “radical feminism” was actually the name of a subset of feminist “channels” and so I apologize as I was running under the assumption that you had created the title of “radical feminist” for yourself.
I read Debs’ post, and I must say again here is an example of associating two ideas that may actually be mutually exclusive to each other. On one hand you have an oppressive social and cultural system that does tend to keep women out of executive positions, it does tend to make women feel their self worth is based on her “beauty hierarchy” in society, and it does work to give women a whole additional bag of insecurities about themselves that works firmly against self empowerment. On the other hand you have problems in the world, conflict, that are being perpetrated by our leaders in part, by our media in part, and by the inaction/submission of the individual dissident, in part. However, to claim that war, management structure, hatred, conflict and any form of aggression at all is “inherent to men” or “is a man thing” I think is a greatly flawed perspective. While men may be more instinctually (and culturally) aggressive on the average, there is no reason to believe that matriarchal societies by and large would “be smarter than that” and make logical, rational, cooperative decisions all the time.
Now I recognize that maybe the spirit of the message is “we want equality, but we want better than what the status quo is anyway because it’s destructive, inefficient, inhuman and counterproductive in many cases.” But Debs really makes it sound like “men” are the cause of all the worlds problems, and that “women” wouldn’t cause these problems, which is not fair.
I agree the world needs a lot of change though. As much as women need to reinvent the world, it should not be in their own image, because frankly, it’s not “their turn” to fuck up all the ways we did. It’s time to recreate the world in the image of a human, have values and rights and a sense of justice that is global, isn’t tied to metaphysics, and is immutable, and have a global unity that would enable us to solve global problems. But it seems like the presumption here is that all world problems could be solved by empowering women and then destroying the current social structure. Maybe it could work that way, but if you want everything to change suddenly and for the best, you have to be able to make it possible, and so I ask, where is the action plan?
June 14, 2008 at 10:24 pm
That’s my problem with almost any label being attached to feminism (at least to my feminism), as I’ve stated on my about page. I don’t know what the alternative is to our current situation because we’ve yet to try anything else.
I don’t believe that men inherently tend toward war and violence, because those phenomena are products of warrior cultures, of our own culture’s brand of masculinity. China, up until the 20th century, serves as a fairly good counterexample in which military valor was not prized and in which violence and war were frowned upon (of course, that’s a very general statement and can be complicated, but the general trajectory in China has been much different than in the west on this count).
I don’t think the answer to patriarchy is matriarchy, but I do know that men currently run the world to the detriment of women, so that needs to change. I don’t agree 100% with Debs, or with any other feminist/women’s liberationist, which is why I have my own blog. I’ve said a few times that I think the best bet is to work from within the system we have, because revolutions beget violence and rarely yield any real change, and because it’s the only realistic option.
That does not mean, however, that I am going to temper my viewpoints to appease men. I know full well that an opinionated and harsh feminist critique of the status quo will threaten men, and thus make them angry. I don’t care. My position is an ethical and a moral one, and not only that, but a reasonable and logical one. Thoughtful people who are willing to examine the things we hold to be self-evident will pick up what I’m laying down, and the kinds of people who will never admit that women might have cause for complaint won’t. I’m not here for those people, because they’re not rational. I’m here for people like most of my commenters (though not the ones on this post) and people such as yourself who are willing and able to discuss things without resorting to stupid, misogynistic insults. I am here for young feminists and feminist sympathizers. I think there’s a real lack on the internet of feminist thought in the vernacular, so that’s what I am trying to provide.
June 14, 2008 at 11:23 pm
OH SO I SEE THAT IF A MAN COMMITS A CRIME HE SHOULD BE STERILIZED. THAT IS LIKE SAYING IF A WOMAN HAS UGLY BABIES SHE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN. YOU LIBERALS LOVE TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. IF A MAN IS ACCUSED OF A CRIME THERE IS NO WAY HE CAN BE PROVED TO HAVE COMMITTED THAN HE SHOULD BE CASTRATED? YEAH RIGHT. REAL GOOD IDEA. I AM GLAD THAT HELLARY DROPPED OUT OF THE RACE BECAUSE SHE PRETENDED TO NOT BE LIBERAL BUT WAS ANYTHING BUT. SO NOW YOU HAVE A FRIEND NAMED CHLOROPHYLL WHO LIKES TO PRETEND TO BE SMART LIKE A MAN ALSO. IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR ARMY OF LESBIANS IS GROWING BUT ITS JUST ANOTHER SIGN OF OUR NATION COLLAPSING UNDER THE WEIGHT OF ITS OWN FREEDOM. SO YOU ARE MAKING FUN OF EUROPEANS NOW I SEE. THATS GREAT. NOW YOU CAN’T EVEN SEE EYE TO EYE WITH THE COMMUNIST PROPAGANDISTS THAT INSPIRED YOUR MOVEMENT TO BEGIN WITH. YOU LIBERALS TRULY DO KNOW HOW TO BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU. BUT SERIOUSLY THIS WHOLE ISSUE COMES DOWN TO ONE THING. IF WOMEN DO NOT WANT TO GET RAPED THAN THEY SHOULD NOT DRINK. I AM SORRY THAT MEN ARE STRONGER THAN WOMEN AND CAN RAPE WOMEN BUT IT IS A GENETIC FACT OF OUR MAKER. I KNOW THAT WILL NOT BE POPULAR HERE BUT LOOK AT THE OLYMPICS. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY HAVE DIFFERENT EVENTS FOR MEN AND WOMEN? SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO KNOW THE LIMITS OF ARGUMENT AND LOGIC. I DO NOT SUPPORT RAPE BUT I MUST SAY THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE RAPE HAS HAPPENED EXCEPT IN THE MOST RARE OF SITUATIONS. IT SEEMS LIKE YOU FEMINAZIS HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON WITH MUSLIMS NOW AND WISH TO PHYSICALLY REMOVE FREEDOM FROM AMERICANS WHEN YOU SUSPECT A CRIME HAS BEEN PERPETRATED. FUNNY HOW YOU LIBERALS PREACH FREEDOM ON ONE END OF THE SPECTRUM BUT WISH TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOMS WHEN THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR IDEA OF FREEDOM. I SURE AM GLAD SUCH IDEAS ARE THE EMPIRE OF HALF-BAKED LUNATICS AND AMERICANS WITH AN UNLIMITED DESIRE FOR ENTITLEMENT. AS ALWAYS SIMPLE TRUTHS WILL TRIUMPH THOUGH ITS ENTERTAINING TO WATCH YA’LLS FANTASY WORLD THAT WILL NEVER SCARE ME BECAUSE IT IS JUST THAT. FANTASY.
June 15, 2008 at 12:02 am
Good points Deuce
A question though, must I necessarily be labeled as a “feminist sympathizer” rather than a “feminist” solely on the grounds that I happen to be male? I mean, can’t I be part of the feminist cause, rather than just “sympathizing” with it?
Maybe I should just let semantics be semantics :P
June 15, 2008 at 12:50 am
I read like, three asshole comments and that’s enough. Your plan is more than a little unconstitutional, but boy oh boy, I wish it weren’t. It seems that in a court of law (and life in general, sometime) women are automatically assumed to give consent to anyone at any time. I mean, plaintiffs in assault cases aren’t assumed to be in fight club, plaintiffs in robbery cases aren’t assumed to have leant their high end stereo equipment to the defendent, so why should it be different in rape cases?
June 15, 2008 at 1:34 am
I’m still not sure if buttkicker is a joke. It’s so outrageous (as in just inane and weird). Is this supposed to be ironic or facetious or are the doctors not watching him close enough and allowing him to slip away to the computer?
It’s so poorly written that I’ve ruled out Deuce writing this to make us all laugh.
Well, that’s all for now. I have to go report to my communist handler.
June 15, 2008 at 2:37 am
crankosaur - Good one. I might use the “assault victims aren’t assumed to be in fight club” bit next time someone brings that shit up about people supposedly having to prove they’ve been assaulted.
June 15, 2008 at 2:55 am
YEAH THATS RIGHT. I’VE JUST ESCAPED FROM THE ASYLUM YET I SOMEHOW MANAGE TO SHOOT ALL OF YOUR LIBERAL THEORIES DOWN AT THE DROP OF A HAT BUT I SUPPOSE I’M RIDICULOUS BECAUSE YOU LIBERALS CAN’T FATHOM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A TRUE CONSERVATIVE POINT OF VIEW. NIETZSCHE SAID THAT A PERSON THAT HAS NO ARGUMENT ATTACKS CHARACTER INSTEAD OF ATTACKING THE ARGUMENT. IF YOU LIBERALS KNEW ANYTHING YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THAT IS CALLED A STRAW MAN. TRY CONFRONTING MY INTELLECT BEFORE YOU START DISMISSING ME AS A JOKE. OH THAT’S RIGHT MY POSITION IS AIRTIGHT AND YOU HAVE NO ROOM TO DEFEND YOURSELF. I THINK THAT NINE DEUCE IS A GOOD WRITER AND I THINK THAT SHE CONFRONTS ISSUES AND IS AS CLOSE AS A WOMAN CAN GET TO BEING A WARRIOR PHILOSOPHER BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SHE DOES NOT GET THE LIMITS OF BEING A WOMAN. BEING A WOMAN IS A BEAUTIFUL THING BUT IT IS GENETICALLY A DIFFERENT THING THAN BEING A MAN. IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD YOU KNOW THAT BUT EVEN IF YOU ARE ONE WHO QUESTIONS EVERYTHING LIKE I DO YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THAT UNLESS YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO LIVE A LIBERAL LIE. OH THAT’S RIGHT YOU ARE ALL MORE INTERESTED IN WHAT IS “POLITICALLY CORRECT” THAN THE TRUTH. I AM NOT LIKE ONE OF THOSE THAT BELIEVES MICHAEL SAVAGE IS THE SECOND COMING OR ANYTHING BUT YOU ALL COULD TRULY LEARN FROM A DOSE OF HIS HONESTY. SO IF ANY OF YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY HAVE A DEBATE THAT IS ACTUALLY ACADEMIC LET ME KNOW. UNTIL THEN I’LL JUST POP IN TO PUT LITTLE BB GUN HOLES IN YA’LLS GIANT LIBERAL BALLOON OF ARGUMENT. AND WATCH IT SINK.
June 15, 2008 at 3:48 am
Buttkicker-
I’m going to assume you’re being serious, if not, jokes on me I guess. First of all, if you want to talk about ad hominims, I suggest you stop starting every sentence with “you liberals.” I’m sorry you’ve become the butt of polarized politics, but this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, and if you want to make it about stupid party politics, that’s your right, but we’re not going to humor you. That kind of crap belongs to the older generations.
If not, then good job, whoever, at representing a closed minded hick.
Crankosaur-
As I’ve said before, rape represents unique problems in the court of law, because it doesn’t always leave verifiable proof, and because women don’t always file a report. If someone punches you in the face, then you call the police and the police can see for themselves your injury. With a rape, there may not be verifiable injuries, and if there are you must report the rape in order to have them verified, and so many times the court won’t have verifiable evidence of a rape. Even then, sometimes during rough sex injury can happen, so evidence of some physical damage isn’t always indicative of forced sex.
If a woman is raped and doesn’t file a report/get herself checked out/doesn’t get her injuries on record, she would be relying solely on her “word” that he really raped her. Imagine if someone accuses you of punching them in the face, but they have no pictures to prove they’ve been punched, no witnesses, etc. Would it be right for the court to assume they are telling the truth?
Frankly, giving the woman the “benefit of the doubt” if she can’t offer substantial evidence is sexist. It assumes