BERNARD: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits."
So the Mail has confused me this time...
I saw this headline and went "Yeah, what's your point?", so much so that I had to read the article because I really didn't understand what the paper was getting at. They've tried to appear as though they're reporting but they're coming off entirely one-sided. Here are some of the best bits:
Lord Phillips and his colleagues on the Council said the courts should deal with 'relationship rape' no differently than they should treat 'stranger rape'.
But they say that abuse of trust when a man rapes his partner can deepen the seriousness of the crime. The sentence of eight years in such cases should be the same as in other more serious rape cases.
Because, as we all know, being raped by your boyfriend is serious. Being raped by a stranger however is a walk in the park... (I don't like the way this has been put)
The new rules look certain to produce deep controversy.
Some lawyers and judges are already deeply anxious over the way husbands, boyfriends and men who have sex at the end of a date are taken to court and charged with rape after a complaint by a woman who says she was forced into the act.
One critic, criminologist Dr David Green, said yesterday: 'Most people do not believe a woman who has sex and later regrets it is the victim of a crime in the same way as a woman who was attacked by a stranger and feared death.
'In the 19th century juries would not convict somebody of stealing more than a shilling because it meant they would be hanged. If juries feel the punishment does not fit the crime they will do the same thing now - they will bring the system crashing down by refusing to convict.'
Maybe it's just because I could never do this, but how many people out there does this actually cover? There's this inherent implication that there are hundreds or thousands of spiteful women in this country just waiting to cry rape. "A woman who has sex and then regrets it" - this isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about rape. And, last time I heard, it's wrong to have sex with someone against their will.
The Mail seems to think this will bring down the criminal justice system. How exactly is punishing criminals going to do this? If juries feel the punishment does not fit the crime they won't convict... because it's okay for husbands to rape their wives. Or at least, it's not like he was a stranger. It's familiar non-consensual sex, that's not too bad. I really don't understand the logic.
See, I don't think establishing whether or not a rape has occurred is the issue. If it's a recent attack, there is usually little question - DNA samples, doctor's/police reports etc. Besides, establishing whether or not a rape has occurred, establishing whether or not consent was given - that's the point of the court case. This legislation is about sentencing. And if the Mail thinks that increasing the sentence of a man who has raped his wife to the same length of time as a man who has raped a woman he saw out one night is wrong, then I have a serious problem with the so-called newspaper of the Middle Class wives.
It'd be interesting to look back and see where the Mail stood in 1991 when they changed the law making spousal rape an offence.
I don't know what's going on with the world today. I've been trying quite hard lately to not come across as a wacky feminist - indeed I describe myself as a raging anti-feminist and I know I can be quite chauvinist at times. I think feminism got its approach all wrong and I'm quite bitter about it. But articles such as this one and the whole LJ Abuse Breastfeeding policy debacle have left me feeling rather cold.
Or should that be hot? Because after all, I am a woman and that's all that women are - hot sexual creatures full of vengeance and hatred towards men, and nothing more.
Le sigh.
*shakes head*
I saw this headline and went "Yeah, what's your point?", so much so that I had to read the article because I really didn't understand what the paper was getting at. They've tried to appear as though they're reporting but they're coming off entirely one-sided. Here are some of the best bits:
Lord Phillips and his colleagues on the Council said the courts should deal with 'relationship rape' no differently than they should treat 'stranger rape'.
But they say that abuse of trust when a man rapes his partner can deepen the seriousness of the crime. The sentence of eight years in such cases should be the same as in other more serious rape cases.
Because, as we all know, being raped by your boyfriend is serious. Being raped by a stranger however is a walk in the park... (I don't like the way this has been put)
The new rules look certain to produce deep controversy.
Some lawyers and judges are already deeply anxious over the way husbands, boyfriends and men who have sex at the end of a date are taken to court and charged with rape after a complaint by a woman who says she was forced into the act.
One critic, criminologist Dr David Green, said yesterday: 'Most people do not believe a woman who has sex and later regrets it is the victim of a crime in the same way as a woman who was attacked by a stranger and feared death.
'In the 19th century juries would not convict somebody of stealing more than a shilling because it meant they would be hanged. If juries feel the punishment does not fit the crime they will do the same thing now - they will bring the system crashing down by refusing to convict.'
Maybe it's just because I could never do this, but how many people out there does this actually cover? There's this inherent implication that there are hundreds or thousands of spiteful women in this country just waiting to cry rape. "A woman who has sex and then regrets it" - this isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about rape. And, last time I heard, it's wrong to have sex with someone against their will.
The Mail seems to think this will bring down the criminal justice system. How exactly is punishing criminals going to do this? If juries feel the punishment does not fit the crime they won't convict... because it's okay for husbands to rape their wives. Or at least, it's not like he was a stranger. It's familiar non-consensual sex, that's not too bad. I really don't understand the logic.
See, I don't think establishing whether or not a rape has occurred is the issue. If it's a recent attack, there is usually little question - DNA samples, doctor's/police reports etc. Besides, establishing whether or not a rape has occurred, establishing whether or not consent was given - that's the point of the court case. This legislation is about sentencing. And if the Mail thinks that increasing the sentence of a man who has raped his wife to the same length of time as a man who has raped a woman he saw out one night is wrong, then I have a serious problem with the so-called newspaper of the Middle Class wives.
It'd be interesting to look back and see where the Mail stood in 1991 when they changed the law making spousal rape an offence.
I don't know what's going on with the world today. I've been trying quite hard lately to not come across as a wacky feminist - indeed I describe myself as a raging anti-feminist and I know I can be quite chauvinist at times. I think feminism got its approach all wrong and I'm quite bitter about it. But articles such as this one and the whole LJ Abuse Breastfeeding policy debacle have left me feeling rather cold.
Or should that be hot? Because after all, I am a woman and that's all that women are - hot sexual creatures full of vengeance and hatred towards men, and nothing more.
Le sigh.
*shakes head*