Rant to blow off steam
Because, as it stands, there is no way in hell I am going to be able to study the Rape section of Crim Law without setting my textbook on fire.
Some men are sick, sick bastards. Really, they are. It's disgusting. And these judges, who are also men, educated as they might be, are also sick or just stupid, more likely.
Can we get past this stupid societal belief that "manly" men are all macho and brawny and going around in torn wife-beaters (if ever there's a suggestive and wrong name for any article of clothing it has to be that) like Marlon Brando in 'Streetcar Named Desire' and that's somehow a good thing? We are not living in some cave-man society where a man needs to be strong enough to protect his family from all the wild animals that might come by. Call me crazy but I don't find violence at all sexy; a man being well-built and not a pile of flab is one thing but there's a difference between being well-built and being a macho bastard. We shouldn't be saying it's okay for men to use their physical strength in order to intimidate/hurt people who are weaker than them and writing it off as 'guys being guys' and all that. And we shouldn't be writing it off by saying it's an okay thing to do. It's NOT okay to intimidate or threaten anyone who is in a weaker position, whether that's physically or mentally or emotionally or whatever. It's no more okay for some macho guy to threaten to strangle a girl in order to get her to have sex with him than it would be for any adult to deliberately set out to frighten the daylights out of little kids or for grown adults to go around kicking puppies, as the case may be. I may be insane but frankly, I'm a believer in gentleness being sexy. I think the real "manly" men are those who protect those who are weaker than them, not intimidate them.
And maybe I'm crazy again but frankly, I don't think using coercion of any kind is okay when it comes to sex and I'm not talking about the obvious coercive threats of holding a gun to someone's head or using a knife. In one case, a high school principal got off on a charge of sexual assault for forcing a student to have sex with him by threatening to prevent her from graduating high school-- is that not 'force'? HOw is that not 'force' even if there was no actual physical violence, especially where, in this case, one person was in a position of authority over a kid? The court opinion mentioned a hypothetical of a man who takes a destitute widow into his home and supports her and her family and then tells the widow that he will withdraw his support and kick her and her family out into the cold if she doesn't have sex with him-- and talks about how that's not force. It isn't? So this destitute widow who agrees to this sexual extortion in order to keep her kids from being kicked out onto the streets is consenting, is that it? That can't possibly be consent by any definition of the term. Or another case where a guy who basically dragged a girl into the woods to make her have sex because (and I quote) "[his] girlfriend didn't meet [his] needs" got off because the girl didn't put up a physical struggle, keeping in mind that the girl was 5'2" and the guy was 6'3" and weighed almost 100 pounds more than she did. For God's sake!! Girls aren't all Buffy the Vampire Slayer and, in all honesty, girls aren't taught to be violent in the same way guys are; we're not taught to fight back, even in today's supposedly enlightened society. Besides which there's something to be said for fear.
The Court's argument that it would make the definition of rape too uncertain and leave to the jury to decide all the gray area cases-- excuse me but that's what juries are supposed to do. if it was so easy and black and white, it would never go to a jury but get dismissed in a summary judgment anyway. Besides which- are we supposed to say that a man is incapable of knowing that the above situations are wrong and that a woman isn't giving her willing consent? In other words, the Court is willing to let these bastards off scot-free because they don't believe that men have the brains or the morals to know that coercing sex is wrong and we can't punish men for being too stupid to know what coercion is. That's a nice argument right there! "It's not rape because these men are too stupid to know that extorting sex from a woman is wrong." WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?!!! If anything, we should be using these men as examples, then, to show other men that extorting sex is wrong- the deterrence rationale behind punishment and all that.
We shouldn't be enabling men in their violence and their use of threats and coercion to get sex; it's demeaning to women and to men, for that matter, to make it seem as if men don't know any better and aren't capable of knowing any better. I expect more of men than that. But maybe that's where I'm wrong and I shouldn't expect any more of men than that. Men just being animalistic creatures who are incapable of knowing right from wrong and don't know that coercion is wrong. /sarcasm.
I am reminded- in a much lighter context- of Mr. Collins' proposal to Elizabeth in 'Pride and Prejudice' and how she asks only to be treated like a fellow rational creature and not some coy female who means 'yes' when she says 'no'. At least Mr. Collins, the greasy git, had honorable intentions but today, it's the same thing, isn't it, guys assuming girls are being coy and meaning 'yes' when they say 'no', playing hard to get and all that. It's the fine line, as one judge put it, between persuading an unwilling woman and forcing an unwilling woman. That might be true and I don't say all 'persuasion' amounts to coercion but I am minded to ask-- why "persuade" an unwilling woman in the first place? If a woman is unwilling, can't a man just accept that as that and not set out to "persuade" her otherwise? Give women the credit of knowing their own minds and the dignity of being able to make their own decisions, especially when it comes to their own bodies.
Yeah, briefing this stuff isn't going to happen and tomorrow (and the rest of the week) in class, I will just endeavor to sit quietly and type my notes with my head (hopefully) not exploding from having to hold in my anger.
Some men are sick, sick bastards. Really, they are. It's disgusting. And these judges, who are also men, educated as they might be, are also sick or just stupid, more likely.
Can we get past this stupid societal belief that "manly" men are all macho and brawny and going around in torn wife-beaters (if ever there's a suggestive and wrong name for any article of clothing it has to be that) like Marlon Brando in 'Streetcar Named Desire' and that's somehow a good thing? We are not living in some cave-man society where a man needs to be strong enough to protect his family from all the wild animals that might come by. Call me crazy but I don't find violence at all sexy; a man being well-built and not a pile of flab is one thing but there's a difference between being well-built and being a macho bastard. We shouldn't be saying it's okay for men to use their physical strength in order to intimidate/hurt people who are weaker than them and writing it off as 'guys being guys' and all that. And we shouldn't be writing it off by saying it's an okay thing to do. It's NOT okay to intimidate or threaten anyone who is in a weaker position, whether that's physically or mentally or emotionally or whatever. It's no more okay for some macho guy to threaten to strangle a girl in order to get her to have sex with him than it would be for any adult to deliberately set out to frighten the daylights out of little kids or for grown adults to go around kicking puppies, as the case may be. I may be insane but frankly, I'm a believer in gentleness being sexy. I think the real "manly" men are those who protect those who are weaker than them, not intimidate them.
And maybe I'm crazy again but frankly, I don't think using coercion of any kind is okay when it comes to sex and I'm not talking about the obvious coercive threats of holding a gun to someone's head or using a knife. In one case, a high school principal got off on a charge of sexual assault for forcing a student to have sex with him by threatening to prevent her from graduating high school-- is that not 'force'? HOw is that not 'force' even if there was no actual physical violence, especially where, in this case, one person was in a position of authority over a kid? The court opinion mentioned a hypothetical of a man who takes a destitute widow into his home and supports her and her family and then tells the widow that he will withdraw his support and kick her and her family out into the cold if she doesn't have sex with him-- and talks about how that's not force. It isn't? So this destitute widow who agrees to this sexual extortion in order to keep her kids from being kicked out onto the streets is consenting, is that it? That can't possibly be consent by any definition of the term. Or another case where a guy who basically dragged a girl into the woods to make her have sex because (and I quote) "[his] girlfriend didn't meet [his] needs" got off because the girl didn't put up a physical struggle, keeping in mind that the girl was 5'2" and the guy was 6'3" and weighed almost 100 pounds more than she did. For God's sake!! Girls aren't all Buffy the Vampire Slayer and, in all honesty, girls aren't taught to be violent in the same way guys are; we're not taught to fight back, even in today's supposedly enlightened society. Besides which there's something to be said for fear.
The Court's argument that it would make the definition of rape too uncertain and leave to the jury to decide all the gray area cases-- excuse me but that's what juries are supposed to do. if it was so easy and black and white, it would never go to a jury but get dismissed in a summary judgment anyway. Besides which- are we supposed to say that a man is incapable of knowing that the above situations are wrong and that a woman isn't giving her willing consent? In other words, the Court is willing to let these bastards off scot-free because they don't believe that men have the brains or the morals to know that coercing sex is wrong and we can't punish men for being too stupid to know what coercion is. That's a nice argument right there! "It's not rape because these men are too stupid to know that extorting sex from a woman is wrong." WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?!!! If anything, we should be using these men as examples, then, to show other men that extorting sex is wrong- the deterrence rationale behind punishment and all that.
We shouldn't be enabling men in their violence and their use of threats and coercion to get sex; it's demeaning to women and to men, for that matter, to make it seem as if men don't know any better and aren't capable of knowing any better. I expect more of men than that. But maybe that's where I'm wrong and I shouldn't expect any more of men than that. Men just being animalistic creatures who are incapable of knowing right from wrong and don't know that coercion is wrong. /sarcasm.
I am reminded- in a much lighter context- of Mr. Collins' proposal to Elizabeth in 'Pride and Prejudice' and how she asks only to be treated like a fellow rational creature and not some coy female who means 'yes' when she says 'no'. At least Mr. Collins, the greasy git, had honorable intentions but today, it's the same thing, isn't it, guys assuming girls are being coy and meaning 'yes' when they say 'no', playing hard to get and all that. It's the fine line, as one judge put it, between persuading an unwilling woman and forcing an unwilling woman. That might be true and I don't say all 'persuasion' amounts to coercion but I am minded to ask-- why "persuade" an unwilling woman in the first place? If a woman is unwilling, can't a man just accept that as that and not set out to "persuade" her otherwise? Give women the credit of knowing their own minds and the dignity of being able to make their own decisions, especially when it comes to their own bodies.
Yeah, briefing this stuff isn't going to happen and tomorrow (and the rest of the week) in class, I will just endeavor to sit quietly and type my notes with my head (hopefully) not exploding from having to hold in my anger.