What a shit Catch 22, though: if you don't fight back or there's no sign of you fighting back against a rapist, you're presumed to have consented. If you DO fight back, you're presumed to have overreacted and caused injury out of proportion to the offense. WTF criminal justice system? For serious?

 Reply

Oh, God, why? Why do men always do this? "Hey, we're not all that bad?" It's not about you. Don't make it so. Rather, from this topic, take some knowledge and use it on men. You know that guy who always says shitty things about his girlfriend? Him. The guy who speaks sexism? Him too.

And I find it hard to believe that if so many men were on the case, that this kind of thinking would be so common still.

I'm waiting for some MRA to come in here and demand that feminists start DV shelters for men because---because----because, well, they don't want to get off their asses and do it themselves.

 Reply

And I say: don't tell me. Tell the pornographers. Tell the pimps. Tell the warmakers. Tell the rape apologists and the rape celebrationists and the pro-rape ideologues. Tell the novelists who think that rape is wonderful. Tell Larry Flynt. Tell Hugh Hefner. There's no point in telling me. I'm only a woman. There's nothing I can do about it. These men presume to speak for you. They are in the public arena saying that they represent you. If they don't, then you had better let them know.

-Dworkin

 Reply

There's no reason to be defensive about yourself as a man because nobody in this thread is trash talking all men. That is the point of my and JD's comments. Yours came out of nowhere and expressed how burdensome it is to be a non-abusive man among abusive ones.

And no, Dworkin didn't say all hetero sex is rape. I don't see what that has to do with the quote I posted though.

 Reply

HE'S TRYING TO DEFEND HIS GENDER! It's true that not all men are like this, though some of them are. But why are you attacking him? I just don't see a really good reason for it. But maybe I'm just a really uneducated dingbat and since I fail to see the errors in his ways, maybe I can't call myself a feminist anymore! But in all honesty, it seems like you're attacking a man who wants a better understanding of the struggles that women go through. Is it right to deny him some education on the matter? I don't think labeling him with "all men" is really getting anywhere.

Also, I think it's kind of pointless to EXPECT men to know the right answer to this issue. These men who abuse, hold misogynistic views and exploit women are unfortunately lost causes that probably won't change their minds. And if you WANT men to start thinking about sexism, racism and feminism in a neutral or positive light, that's where you have EDUCATION. Teach the boys that it's not right to touch a girl without her permission. Teach them it's not right to judge a girl by her looks and how big her tits are. Teach them respect for women and other people. Teach them that "no" means "no". Education is power, and with enough time and patience, things may definitely change.

I'm fucking done.

 Reply

This strikes me as a rather disingenuous statement from someone who spent her life trying to change society and the ways it regards gender issues. "I'm only a woman"? Goodness.

 Reply

delightful to see that nothing has changed all that much in the past 300 years!

 Reply

And I see your point about the possibility that a woman could argue DV when she's really a cold-blooded murderer, but just remember how often Dude Nation shouts about false rape accusations and who is REALLY served by the idea that women are lying, conniving bitches. 99 times out of 100, a woman who defends the murder of her partner on DV grounds is telling the truth. It's just that that ONE woman who lied gets an episode of American Justice and a couple MSNBC specials done on her.

 Reply

*sarcasm*

 Reply

Right now I'm working on a case where the defendant successfully used EED as a defense a certain number of years ago because he killed his girlfriend when she told him she was leaving him. His counsel argued that what happened was a lover's quarrel, and anyone who learned that his girlfriend was leaving him also would have been that upset. He also stated that, "given the chance to do it again, defendant would certainly not allow his emotions to control him." Defendant got two years. Well, he got that chance again a year ago, when he got angry at another girlfriend because she allowed his brother to visit their child, even though the defendant and the brother were not on speaking terms. Funny thing is, he killed her in the exact same way as the first girlfriend, and is now claiming EED again, because he was "upset" that his girlfriend was "not being loyal." Basically this defense is just, "I got really pissed off so I killed someone." No fucking shit. Aside from bank robberies, gang violence and drug deals gone wrong, most people kill other people when they're pissed off!

I realize that my hatred of this defense means that women who are abused couldn't use it either, but it just seems to me like women aren't really using it successfully, I didn't really find any case law where women used it. That still leaves self-defense as a defense to murder for abused women, but as people have pointed out, that means you are then hoping that during an episode of abuse, a woman who is probably smaller and possibly weaker will have to prevail in a fight.

 Reply