Why does the system condone rape?
Why is the patriarchal system so anxious to defend some women from rape while the same system also condones and exonerates some rapists? The key issue is whether the rape victim is under the control of the patriarchy.
Jamie Leigh Jones, who was raped by other Americans while serving in Iraq, writes: A sexist male (or female), views of rape frequently resurface with vengeance. We still live in a male dominated society in which organizations and men control most power. Rape is a crime of dominance, so in this perspective the domineering individual would be vengeful towards the victim. These views can be overwhelming and cooped with groups of members of society which can devastate the victim.
Old sexist stereotypes of rape begin to surface. Ideas about what is proper behavior for a female are restricting in that people can always find a way to blame the victim. Some excuses could be; she was out too late, acting too sexy, too innocent, too assertive, drank too much, too stupid, too aloof, or not assertive enough. It doesn't matter what the victim was doing at the time she was raped. These old constrictions on female behavior provides ample cover for those who want a way out of having to stand up against a rapist.
Sometimes authorities don't take rape seriously. When the authorities aren't taking rape seriously then often society doesn't take rape seriously either. Once authorities show they aren't taking the allegations seriously, then support groups of the victims often erode rapidly.
When the patriarchy does demonstrate outrage against rape, it isn't because it accords a given rape victim the human rights to be safe from this violence-- it's because she is seen as the property of a man, and the outrage is actually for the benefit of the man whose property is being damaged and thereafter of less worth to him. Rather than protection of women, it amounts to objectification of them.
When patriarchal authorities don't take rape seriously, as Jamie Leigh Jones discusses, this lack of concern is for an independent woman who is not the property of men. In such case, the system's neglect implies that she had it coming (any pretext will do), and that rape is actually useful to the system as a way to keep down women's independence.
None of this is meant to impugn individual men who sincerely support women's rights to be independent and safe from violence as a basic human right. I am against the patriarchal system which privileges all men with institutional power over women whether a given man consciously wants this privilege or not. Men whose hearts are in the right place are nice to have around--but they are insufficient to end the oppression. As radical feminism says, the only solution is to demolish the patriarchal system completely and replace it with gender equality in which no gender is privileged over another. Some believe that gender itself is inherently a tool of privilege and oppression, but that would be a separate discussion. Anyway it's the privilege of one gender over another that is the root of the problem and has to go.
Jamie Leigh Jones, who was raped by other Americans while serving in Iraq, writes: A sexist male (or female), views of rape frequently resurface with vengeance. We still live in a male dominated society in which organizations and men control most power. Rape is a crime of dominance, so in this perspective the domineering individual would be vengeful towards the victim. These views can be overwhelming and cooped with groups of members of society which can devastate the victim.
Old sexist stereotypes of rape begin to surface. Ideas about what is proper behavior for a female are restricting in that people can always find a way to blame the victim. Some excuses could be; she was out too late, acting too sexy, too innocent, too assertive, drank too much, too stupid, too aloof, or not assertive enough. It doesn't matter what the victim was doing at the time she was raped. These old constrictions on female behavior provides ample cover for those who want a way out of having to stand up against a rapist.
Sometimes authorities don't take rape seriously. When the authorities aren't taking rape seriously then often society doesn't take rape seriously either. Once authorities show they aren't taking the allegations seriously, then support groups of the victims often erode rapidly.
When the patriarchy does demonstrate outrage against rape, it isn't because it accords a given rape victim the human rights to be safe from this violence-- it's because she is seen as the property of a man, and the outrage is actually for the benefit of the man whose property is being damaged and thereafter of less worth to him. Rather than protection of women, it amounts to objectification of them.
When patriarchal authorities don't take rape seriously, as Jamie Leigh Jones discusses, this lack of concern is for an independent woman who is not the property of men. In such case, the system's neglect implies that she had it coming (any pretext will do), and that rape is actually useful to the system as a way to keep down women's independence.
None of this is meant to impugn individual men who sincerely support women's rights to be independent and safe from violence as a basic human right. I am against the patriarchal system which privileges all men with institutional power over women whether a given man consciously wants this privilege or not. Men whose hearts are in the right place are nice to have around--but they are insufficient to end the oppression. As radical feminism says, the only solution is to demolish the patriarchal system completely and replace it with gender equality in which no gender is privileged over another. Some believe that gender itself is inherently a tool of privilege and oppression, but that would be a separate discussion. Anyway it's the privilege of one gender over another that is the root of the problem and has to go.