Feminist raving... or...?

I think the deeper root here is that a lot of extremists are disturbingly willing to forgo logic completely and play double standards, make up blatant lies, and cheat in order to make their side look better. This is one example of this occuring in an extremist group (extreme feminism). You can also see it in extreme liberals and conservatives, extreme vegans, anything. If you try to confront these people with a logical defeat of their illogical arguement, they generally retreat further into illogic, in my experience.

 

That's what I'm having trouble digesting. I'll ignore the absurdity of the dumb judge situation (in which they both win - I'm assuming it would make some kind of sense from a purely legal perspective, but for an outsider the outcome is downright bizzarre) but the "real life" outcome seems in and of itself sexist since it would show that, if the man and the woman are on an equal footing as far as facts and the "guilt" (as you outlined it earlier) are concerned, then the woman wins just by being a woman. As for both being sentenced, I find this as absurd as the first case (both winning). If it turns out that they were both equally drunk and equally consenting within their drunkenness (if you see what I mean) then shoudn't there be no guilt involved anyway? It seems as if it should be a "no one wins and no one loses" situation in which they should both realise they've been equally stupid and just live with it (and be a bit more careful about getting outrageously drunk next time)

(Just to make it clear my example above, as well as my previous posts, relies entirely on the assumption that there was no force, physical or otherwise, involved. I am not trying to find excuses for rape, and I don't want to be perceived as such.)

I agree, and "bad day" is exactly what she meant by "lame excuses". Clinical depression is quite obviously another case entirely. I suppose it would be a bit trickier for situations that fall in-between, but if the law was specific enough about it that would make it easier to judge the blurred line cases.

I picked a shallow example on purpose to highlight the point that cheating someone into sex is not the same thing is rape. I can't think off the top of my head about a more relationship-related factor that would be bad enough to consider as rape.

I've no problem with this being implemented in law on a broad level, except that...

... if we're going to have this kind of legality, then we must have it at all levels. This is the kind of hypocrisy that I find very irritating (and very dangerous). I'm all for feminism as a means for women to have equal rights to men. This is how things should have been all along, and definitely how they should be from now on. And while I'm no great fan of the "women are superior to men" brand of feminism, it doesn't strike me as bad as giving women more rights than men in the name of equal rights.

I also agree with the point NOG has made.

 

I dont think feminists like her do much good for their cause.

I think women are still oppressed, and there is still work to be done, and rape is a disgusting and unforgiveable crime.

But I dont think castration is ever going to be the answer, I think that shows its about punishment, revenge and control for her. She wants men to feel dominated and intimidated by taking away their sexuality, destroying them in the process. I agree that rape is incredibly destructive to women, but I just dont think that merits castration.

I dont see her campaigning for laws to protect women in the middle east? Surely there is far more rampant abuse of women and children there?

Some of her points are valid, but I think the castration point goes too far. It stops being about justice and protection for women and becomes tit for tat.

A question I thought of a while ago, a difficult thing to answer I think.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario. You have a young son, 20 years old. He is about to commit a crime. Nothing on earth can prevent him from committing this crime. The only thing you can do, is decide which crime. Either, he murders an innocent person in cold blood, no provocation. Or, he rapes a young lady.

Which of the two crimes would you find easier to forgive?

 

That's a rather bizarre hypothetical, proteus, so bizarre that I'm gonna leave it for others to deal with, or perhaps I'll come back to it later.

I have no problem with castration in and of itself -- I believe that some sex offenders willingly undergo a chemical form of the process wherein they report on a regular basis for shots that eliminate their ability to get an erection.

The problem I have with this feminist's raving is that what it boils down to is a "the woman is always right and the man is always wrong, and if you don't agree with that, the logical conclusion is that you are a rapist who hates women." What kind of frigging logic is that? Her version of rape is similar to my perception of how some feminists view abuse, which seems to be "anytime a woman is unhappy, it is a man's fault and he is abusive, and should be treated as if he had violently raped her, because we all know that's what he wants to do anyway."

It's logic like that that makes me have no respect for modern feminists in general.

 

It's "feminists" like her that give a bad name to feminism.

They live with ideologies as harsh as you can get. A faschist is a faschist and a fanatic a fanatic no matter how they tyr and justify their ideologies. Hers is an ideology of oppression and is questionable as any other such ideology. To call it feminism and her a feminist is incorrect...what would be more describing for such a person who apparently lacks empathy? Ah, yes...a psycopath. Or a sociopath. Hers is a justice and a law of a sociopath...No different from that of a person who follows honor codes of organized crime...

 

That's a breach in the normal vision of criminal law, yeah. In Polish doctrine, a crime takes:

- a prohibited act,
- guilt
- harm

#1 is one of the criminalised acts
#2 is accountability - meaning the person knew the meaning of his actions and could direct them
#3 is at least a minimal degree of "social harmfulness" (this blocks absurdly formalistic charges)

Easily, an honest mistake, if it is justifiable, removes #2.

I think the criminal trial should stay within the confines of an honest attempt to find out (not decide, but find out) how things happened and then decide what to do about it. Facts are not a matter of consent, as the past is not subject to agreement. Parties can agree what sort of retribution will be fitting, but they cannot agree on facts in any sense which would affect the facts themselves.

That is absurd as well, although less absurd than the previous case. While it is altogether unfathomable that the court should share the (putative) victim's view without examining the merits of it, it is actually not so absurd to put a great weight on the (supposed) offender's perception. The offender's perception - at the moment of the crime, tempore criminis, shapes to an extent the circumstances of his consent. This must affect the level of his guilt.

Well, double standards are present in many socially charged areas of the law or types of situations. What ticks me off the most, however, is subjecting facts to parties' will as if it could shape them. Obviously, facts have happened and cannot be changed at a later point.

Let me know so I can cite you.

 

I read the article and tbh I find many of the ideas wrong. Sure, it's troubling that few rapists are convicted. It's even more troubling few rapes are reported - it's probably one of the few crimes where it's considered immoral to be a victim. Yet is the cure better than the disease?

As the author herself says, the best idea would be to change people's perceptions. Sure, it is, and it is unrealistic. But what are we given as the best workable solution?

- The presumption of innocense is not attached to sex crimes. It works for murder, hate crimes (other than hate crimes with a sexual element), assault, etc - but not for anything vaguely classified as rape. So, for example, I would be innocent until proven guilty if I kidnapped my girlfriend, put her in a cellar and beat her to death over the next few days - but not if, the day after a date, she has second thoughts. Right. And just how, by Kopyrka's everflowing fins, do I prove my innocense? Because apparently "She seemed to consent at the time, and I simply didn't know she was having thought of her previous break-up which she didn't actually say" doesn't seem to work. Plus, there is also the trickier matter: is rape more devious and more vile than murder or any other crime, that we need such extreme measures as gutting a fundament of all civilized law? Somehow, the "yeah, there may be some innocent victims but less than the criminals unpunished now" doesn't sound all that reassuring.

- Section two - "broadly defined" is right. "intentionally taking advantage of a person’s physical or emotional vulnerabilities for sexual purposes" is fine, but emotional vulnerabilities are quite vague - and when you mix this vagueness with harsher punishment, such as these later in the article, you can get too far. In itself, however, this paragraph is okay-ish - if only there was a more stringent definition of "high-pressure tactics, emotional ... manipulation."

- section three: In general, I can live with castration as part of the punishment for rape, especially in severe cases (as in, not the "morning after OMG" rape). However, building special prison facilities for that, AND having the victim's perception of danger count as an immense aggravating measure seems to go way overboard. For LOLs, note the gender issue - while a rape could be committed against a male ("if the victim at any time during the crime feels that her/his life was in danger"), the labor done at detention centers for rape isn't. Ok, so I'm nitpicking - but if we cover all variations, we may as well go all the way, no? I didn't know the victim being male was a mitigating circumstance for rape.

Section four: ok propositions - although I'd say there should be a limit on appeals anyway, especially if new evidence turns up. However, I disagree with the latter part. "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..." Actually, there is one very good reason women have an incentive to use sex as a weapon (or, rather, a tool) - they have less other weapons to turn to, and the same author imo mentions this in another article. Though they may be less likely to violate men's rights through rape accusations (which, under the previous sections, become that much more powerful) than to be raped, that may be for different reasons altogether and is not an axiom, imo.

Overall, I think the author is way, way above what I consider sensible. While I am most likely biased - just as most everyone is, since gender issues by definition involve all who have a gender - I think this goes beyond feminism and into obsession.

 

@The Shaman

Very well written post, I agree with all of it.

The only thing that I would add is that she seems to have "The ends justify the means" burned into her skull.

She seems to think its okay to punish men, guilty and innocent alike, so that a few women can live safer, and indeed can abuse the very laws that protect them. Theres that old saying, "First do no harm" and I think it applies here.