This Web site has a policy of not linking to hate Web sites. But a post on one such site merits quotation. The post was dated June 11 and titled "How to end rape." It includes the following vile inanity (emphasis supplied):
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 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 (by my calculation.
. . . .
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.
COMMENTARY:
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 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 (by my calculation.
. . . .
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.
COMMENTARY:
So, according to this misandrist, "a few" falsely accused men will need to be convicted -- and castrated -- as necessary collateral damage to solve the purported rape epidemic. Juries are comprised of women haters in this poor soul's twisted world.
The inanity and misandry at work here are utterly breathtaking. Her logic is the same as that employed by any number of demented dictators throughout history to justify punishing innocent members of a group that poses a perceived threat to the dictator.
The rape "epidemic" she references is, of course, non-existent. To claim there is a rape epidemic, one must posit "under-reporting" of rape claims of Biblical proportions. The logic goes like this: how do we know there is a rape epidemic? We know it because of under-reporting. How do we know there is under-reporting? We know it because of all these rapes that must be occurring that no one is reporting. Which proves, of course, that there is a rape epidemic. Get it?
And we need not mention the dishonesty in her assertion that false claims are rare.
Aside from the castration aspect of the post (and would any rational person suggest mutilating a female body part, regardless of the crime, with the ease that this woman suggests lopping off the balls of innocent men?), my favorite part of the whole thing is the way she converts rape into a sort of free-floating crime that is defined not by any objectively verifiable definition but by whatever subjective whim a woman deigns to conjure up depending on her false and belated, ex post facto feelings. Forget her objective manifestations of assent that reasonably led the man to believe she assented to sex -- her subjective, after-the-fact hissy fit of regret trumps any semblance of rationality. This, of course, leaves men of good will who would never dream of raping a woman (which is the vast majority of men) utterly clueless as to whether their conduct will be transmogrified into a felony merely because a woman later deigns to cry rape. And we haven't even touched on the Constitutional infirmities inherent in this frankly stupid suggestion.
The inanity and misandry at work here are utterly breathtaking. Her logic is the same as that employed by any number of demented dictators throughout history to justify punishing innocent members of a group that poses a perceived threat to the dictator.
The rape "epidemic" she references is, of course, non-existent. To claim there is a rape epidemic, one must posit "under-reporting" of rape claims of Biblical proportions. The logic goes like this: how do we know there is a rape epidemic? We know it because of under-reporting. How do we know there is under-reporting? We know it because of all these rapes that must be occurring that no one is reporting. Which proves, of course, that there is a rape epidemic. Get it?
And we need not mention the dishonesty in her assertion that false claims are rare.
Aside from the castration aspect of the post (and would any rational person suggest mutilating a female body part, regardless of the crime, with the ease that this woman suggests lopping off the balls of innocent men?), my favorite part of the whole thing is the way she converts rape into a sort of free-floating crime that is defined not by any objectively verifiable definition but by whatever subjective whim a woman deigns to conjure up depending on her false and belated, ex post facto feelings. Forget her objective manifestations of assent that reasonably led the man to believe she assented to sex -- her subjective, after-the-fact hissy fit of regret trumps any semblance of rationality. This, of course, leaves men of good will who would never dream of raping a woman (which is the vast majority of men) utterly clueless as to whether their conduct will be transmogrified into a felony merely because a woman later deigns to cry rape. And we haven't even touched on the Constitutional infirmities inherent in this frankly stupid suggestion.
It is posts such as this woman's that engender disrepute of the entire feminist movement, let's be candid. The author of that hate site should not be permitted within 2,000 feet of our sons or, for that matter, any male.
Posts
7 comments:
What the f-? Does this woman know what this would do? No man would want to have sex with a woman if this law were passed.
While I once identified myself as a sort of feminist, the more I see crap like this, the more I realize that to them, men - all men - are the enemy. How can any man support this sort of hate? How can any woman who wants to be in a committed relationship and have children support it?
She wants rapists castrated. If a woman shoplifts, should her hand be cut off? What about prostitutes - vaginas mutilated? Oh, I forgot, men cause prostitution, so for every act of whoring we should cut off one dick - any dick will do, just grab a kid off the street and exact vengeance. That'll get men to start policing other men, wouldn't it?
What a wonderful group of people are the feminists.
Sex is a presumed crime? I agree with anonymous: if this were the law, you'd see the population shrivel up because men would keep clear of anything female.
yep got my blood boiling. i can now say i hate the feminists
This sort of thing sounds like a de facto ban on sex. The least we can do is make it fair, saying that anyone who engages in sexual intercourse (and is caught) will have his/her sex organs removed. Does that sound like a reasonable law AT ALL?
The author of the quotation uses the following stereotypes to make her recommendation:
1: Women are so trustworthy that society can just take for granted that they're always accurate and honest even about a hugely emotional personal issue that is sex.
2. Women are not capable of inflicting enough damage on their own consciences that they can successfully lie to themselves about the nature of the sex they had.
3. Juries are misogynist. Don't defendants attorneys usually exercise veto power over the selection of individual jurors?
Bookstopper, I agree with you. The "crime" has to work both ways, since the feminist movement went to such great lengths to make our crimes gender neutral. And I agree with your other points, too. Since women make up at least half the jury, I suppose they hate women, too?
Jason, you're on to something -- this sort of thing will only discourage any sort of sexual relations whatsoever. What male would run the risk of being castrated? Very, very few.
Jean Claude, I think a lot of men with feminist sensibilities have been turned off by radicals like this woman. They have hurt the feminist cause more than they will ever know.
Post a Comment