Letting Perps Define Crime
Let’s say you own a house. One day, a person comes to your door, you open it, the person orders you out at gun point, closes and locks the door, and sets up house. The person immediate sets about changing the locks, rearranging everything within the house, discarding things that are not to their liking, and carrying on as if the house were theirs. Any attempt you made to re-enter and re-claim the house was fended off by the person who ousted you. When you went to the authorities, they listened to you and then asked the person now residing in your home for their side of the story. The person tells the police that the house was yours, but is now theirs, that you willingly signed over the house, and can even produce papers that appear to be signed by you. The police do not dig any further, seem satisfied that you are not the rightful owner of the house, and essentially tell you that you should be ashamed of yourself for taking up their precious time, possibly you are stupid, and to shove off.
You are distraught and feel helpless. You believe a crime has been committed, but no one seems to believe you. The person who took your house was given more respect and credibility than you were. You begin to doubt your anger and wonder whether you had it coming. Perhaps you should have been more careful. Shouldn’t have answered the door. You have moments when you are angry again, and you try to build up your confidence by seeking support from friends. They don’t believe you either, and remind you of several instances reflecting your incompetence as a home-owner. They tell you to look on the bright side, be more positive, remember that there are people worse off in the world who have never owned a home. You become silent. The person living in your home prospers and actually goes on to steal other homes in the same manner.
Okay, the whole story sounds implausible. This would never happen in a civilized society, right? Thieves aren’t automatically believed over their victims, that a theft occurred isn’t questioned, and thieves absolutely don’t get to define what makes something ‘theft’ or not. Those who benefit from committing a theft are not the ones who get to make the rules. And victims of theft are not reviled.
So here’s the question or questions. Why do men get to define crimes against women? Why do men get to decide whether what happens to a woman’s body is a crime or not? Why doesn’t a woman get to say that what has happened to her is a crime? Why aren’t women solely responsible for setting up policy and law around crimes against female persons? We know best. Our bodies are ours and even among the most brainwashed, there is always a part of us that knows that what is being done to us by men is wrong. When men get to define whether what they are doing to us is right or wrong, there is no justice or objectivity. Male definitions also affect incidence (thus you can have a ‘rape free’ society if men define rape in the narrowest of terms, and you can have a society where men are raped equally frequently by women if men define rape as an equal-opportunity crime). Only men rape (sexual assault is different from rape), so only men benefit from rape. Men set up policy and laws to benefit themselves. Since only women are raped, women should be doing the defining.
We can only conclude that even in the most ‘advanced’ of countries, women are still owned by men. Men define crimes against men’s property, thus they define what is or isn’t a crime against a woman. While rape is a ‘crime’, it is very, very narrowly defined and under this definition is so very difficult to prove that the law is meaningless.
To those men who say that the West is female-dominated, no. No, it isn’t. That is your imagination and entitlement talking. A female-dominated society would mean no crime targeting women at all. We are far from that. Like light years away kind of far. This same issue that I am describing now was at the heart of first-wave Western feminists’ pursuit of suffrage. Sadly, getting the vote didn’t achieve what those women sought – power in defining and legally being able to do something about crimes against women.
Posted on December 19, 2015, in Anti-Feminism, Human Rights, Male Privilege, Violence and tagged criminals, hate crimes, law, rape, victims. Bookmark the permalink. Comments Off on Letting Perps Define Crime.