Rape Culture - A Zero-Sum Game
Well, it's finally happened.
The day that rape-culture-centric feminists have been waiting for.
The day when men are forced to prove that rape didn't happen.
I said this before, and I'll say it again: I am unabashedly, unequivocally opposed to rape and rapists, and to be honest I believe that those who are convicted of the crime of rape wherein the evidence is such that there is no mistake that the crime occurred AND that the person convicted of the crime is found to indeed be the perpetrator of the crime should be taken out behind the court house the day after their conviction, and shot until they are dead. And then shot twice more for good measure.
Having said that, let me now say this: as a man, I now fear for my life.
Is this what you wanted, feminists? Those of you who have been stating for weeks, months, years, that you want the burden of proof with regards to a rape, removed from women, and put on men? Did you really want to instill fear in men? No, not rapists, but men? You want someone else to feel the fear you used to feel now? Is that what this was meant to accomplish?
Well congratulations.
You've accomplished your goal.
I hope you fully understand what you may have unleashed.
While on the one hand, I understand—and agree with the fact—that it should not be a matter of the victim of a rape or sexual assault to prove that their suffering did indeed happen. There are entirely too few cases of rape that are reported, that do find a perpetrator, that do go to court, and yet the accused is found not guilty on a technicality or for the fact that the victim cannot provide enough proof that the crime has happened. In that regard, I agree with feminism, agree with those who are so hell bent on the idea that one should not blame the victim for being assaulted, for being raped, for the suffering that they endure.
But this:
The Telegraph – Thursday 29 January 2015 - Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules should not happen. But it seems that it has.
This unfortunate mess – the current one, the one wherein now I am fearful for my life – started with an inexperienced, spoiled, self-entitled little boy by the name of Elliot Rodger, when in May of 2014, he took out his impotent rage against his own failings on six other people, and then took his own life. He blamed what he would do on the fact that 'I'm 22 years old and I'm still a virgin. I've never even kissed a girl,' he says in his video that he made prior to the shootings.
(Articles regarding the event can be found here and here.)
Women worldwide, but especially in the United States, responded with #YesAllWomen, and the issue of so-called "rape culture" has been a hotbed of idiocy and controversy since then.
I'm not trying to imply that none of this existed prior to Elliot Rodger. I'm only talking about the events that lead from him, to the point now where a person of the male gender is now in fear for his life.
I'm sure that there are plenty of people, plenty of people who are rape-culture-centric feminists.
People with names like Jessica Valenti—who feel that the plight of a victim of rape- a female victim of rape- is worth more than that of any male who is accused of rape, stating that there should not be a debate, nor any sort of discussion, about the weight of the story of a victim of rape and sexual assault and the weight of the story of the accused, with quotes like "…on the one side, there are the 20% of college women who can expect to be victimized by rapists and would-be rapists; on the other side is a bunch of adult men (and a few women) worrying themselves to death that a few college-aged men might have to find a new college to attend" and touts out the tired and very false statement "false accusations only account for an estimated 2 - 6% of rape cases" as if that makes the fact of being falsely accused something minor, not to be worried about, something to get over, like a stubbed toe.
People with names like Zerlina Maxwell—who believes like Jessica Valenti—and says, "We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist" and "the accused would have a rough period. He might be suspended from his job; friends might defriend him on Facebook….but false accusations are exceedingly rare, and errors can be undone by an investigation that clears the accused, especially if it is done quickly."
People with names like Wagatwe Wanjuki, who feels that the victim of rape and sexual assault should be shielded from the consequences of her actions, and doesn't make any pretense at consideration for the possibilities of what might happen beyond her story; she states, "it's outright dangerous to demand that survivors must tell media who their attackers are to make their stories worth hearing" and "surviving sexual assault on campus also has very real financial costs. The danger of potentially exposing oneself to a defamation suit is yet another burden that a survivor shouldn't have to bear simply for coming forward", by which she seems to be saying that the victim is a victim, and nothing else matters beyond that.
People with names like Emma Sulkowicz and Elisabeth Dee, who are reported to be of the mindset that the Alternate Review Process (specifically at Stanford, but presumably at other college campuses) should actively reduce the burden of proof required to find someone guilty of sexual assault. "The Alternate Review Process puts so much emphasis on the burden of proof, but it [should not focus on] defending the perpetrator, because essentially burden of proof is a defense of the perpetrator" it is reported to have been said, as well as "expulsion [should be] a default sanction for students found responsible of sexual assault" on college campuses."
People with names like Ezra Klein, who says "The Yes Means Yes law is a necessarily extreme solution to an extreme problem. Its overreach is precisely its value" and "If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent…To work, "Yes Means Yes" needs to create a world where men are afraid."
Where men are afraid.
So, success, those of you who firmly believe in the ideology of "rape culture", who believe that there is a culture in which rape is allowed to happen, to flourish and grow and where a blind eye, a blind ear, a blind heart is turned to those who proclaim to be victims of rape and sexual assault. Your desire to be heard, your desire that your voice be made louder than all others, your desire that the victims of rape and sexual assault be made martyrs, your desire to instill a legacy of fear in all men that at any time some woman could point the finger at him and claim that yes, he raped/sexually assaulted her, and that he has to prove that it did not happen, has come true.
And this is why I fear for my life.
People like Jessica Valenti and Zerlina Maxwell would automatically believe a woman, if she were to claim that I had raped and/or sexually assaulted her. No, they don't want to or need to hear my side of the story; they don't need to know if I actually did anything. The accusation is sufficient for them.
People like Emma Sulkowicz and Elisabeth Dee would proclaim that I'm automatically guilty, and should be removed from the presence of the accuser- expelled from school, fired from work, displaced from my place of living- all based on the words of the victim, without consideration for my story, or even of evidence to prove or disprove that the tragic event occurred. The 'preponderance'—the likelihood—that it happened is sufficient for them.
And what of the masses? For the rest of those who I would identify as 'rape-culture-centric feminists'- well, those people believe that the victim wouldn't say it happened unless it really happened—even if she can't fully recall the details of what happened—and that the victim wouldn't say that it was me who did the deed unless I really was the one who did the deed—no matter if I really did it or not. So victim—who must be telling the truth—blames me—and it must be true, because the victim wouldn't lie—so that means I'm guilty. Even if I'm innocent.
That is the direction that this mess is headed in; today's article is the push over the edge that the rape-culture-centric feminists have been waiting to happen. Now, because it is possible for a man to be afraid. Now, the tide has turned. Now, women have the power to end a man's life, in their hands.
All at the low, low cost of the legal tenet, "innocent until proven guilty", otherwise known as 'presumption of innocence'. While the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments—but here, today, we abandon this highly crucial underpinning of the legal system, and declare that all men accused and charged with the crime of rape and sexual assault are now guilty until proven innocent.
I'd thought that the goal of feminism—with regards to rape and sexual assault—was to see that rape and rapists were properly found and convicted, not that men were to replace them as being victims of oppression, as victims of fear. But it seems that feminist—or, at least those folks who are rape-culture-centric feminists—aren't interested in merely championing to make the world a better place for women, but to make the world a darker place for men. They aren't working towards the idea of egalitarianism, or even the idea of breaking apart the ideology of the so-called 'patriarchy'—they don't just want to bring about the end to the suffering of women.
They want men to suffer, instead.
Share This Article
