![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kadrin(Trigger warning for sexual assault, but mostly, for people being massive shitheads about sexual assault.)
Typing an all-lowercase subject line that starts with "I" is very hard on an iPad.
Okay, so have we all heard about the judge in Arizona who responded to a woman who was groped by a cop by saying "well, you have to accept that sort of thing when you're going to a bar"? Have we all fumed? Have we all signed the petition saying that any judge who makes a statement like that from the bench has to accept that she won't be a judge any more? For those of us who haven't, I'll update my post to link said petition tomorrow.
I've already spoken about how the incredible ubiquity of blaming the victim of sexual assault is ridiculous and abhorrent, but it doesn't seem to have changed the world yet, so on I go again; if you'd give me a beat, Mr. Swift, I think I can improvise my modest proposal from here.
So, with all the wisdom and good judgement of several thousand years of law behind her, Judge Hatch has pointed out that if women are in bars, they will be sexually assaulted. Very well! But that sentence sounds passive, doesn't it? I mean, someone has to do the assaulting, right? And it can't be women; they're the ones being assaulted. So, if we write off those who don't fit the traditional gender binary - not because they don't matter, but simply because of the numbers necessary to make sure a woman has to take likely sexual assault into consideration if she wants to go relax and have a drink with friends - then we can look at it as "if women go to a bar, they have to expect sexual assault, because of men". That seems like a logical extension of the judge's statement to me.
Well, then, why punish the passive party? Assuming that women who go to bars have to expect sexual assault, because of men, I think the only sensible solution is to immediately and permanently ban all men from any premises with a liquor licence.
It seems a harsh step, I know. But it's like how chemotherapy is a harsh treatment, rendered necessary by horrible illness. If the only alternative is for women to surrender their rights if they walk through a door - if there is seriously no other way to prevent sexual assault in these premises, and it's inconceivable to properly punish the men involved, because they can't help it - well, what choice is that at all? No one fair minded and with an interest in justice would say that it's too cruel to cage the tiger, and that the tiger must be free to roam the streets and maul, because a tiger cannot help itself, and what were you thinking going near a tiger in the first place?
Particularly, a judge would surely never say that.
(Out of satire for a moment to clarify: if you go into a tiger cage you should expect to be mauled, yes. But the important point of my satire, the thrust, is this: men are not tigers. As a man who has never once sexually assaulted anyone, I find it offensive and condescending when people assume men simply can't help sexually assaulting anything in a short skirt. I, for one, have higher reasoning powers, and I demand to be given the responsibilities thereof.
On a different note, this is one of the many, many things I hate about patriarchy, and one of the things that impacts me. I would like to be able to freely and happily chat to women in the street. But I'm a six foot tall man who is hairy. As such, women are told by society every damn day that I will rape them if given half a chance, and they mustn't expect sympathy if I do, because it's obviously their own fault somehow. So I find it hard to justify saying "hey, nice shirt, I also like that hobby/web comic/tv show", because patriarchy demands that exchange be laden with fear and tension, and it's just not worth it, for me or her.)
Typing an all-lowercase subject line that starts with "I" is very hard on an iPad.
Okay, so have we all heard about the judge in Arizona who responded to a woman who was groped by a cop by saying "well, you have to accept that sort of thing when you're going to a bar"? Have we all fumed? Have we all signed the petition saying that any judge who makes a statement like that from the bench has to accept that she won't be a judge any more? For those of us who haven't, I'll update my post to link said petition tomorrow.
I've already spoken about how the incredible ubiquity of blaming the victim of sexual assault is ridiculous and abhorrent, but it doesn't seem to have changed the world yet, so on I go again; if you'd give me a beat, Mr. Swift, I think I can improvise my modest proposal from here.
So, with all the wisdom and good judgement of several thousand years of law behind her, Judge Hatch has pointed out that if women are in bars, they will be sexually assaulted. Very well! But that sentence sounds passive, doesn't it? I mean, someone has to do the assaulting, right? And it can't be women; they're the ones being assaulted. So, if we write off those who don't fit the traditional gender binary - not because they don't matter, but simply because of the numbers necessary to make sure a woman has to take likely sexual assault into consideration if she wants to go relax and have a drink with friends - then we can look at it as "if women go to a bar, they have to expect sexual assault, because of men". That seems like a logical extension of the judge's statement to me.
Well, then, why punish the passive party? Assuming that women who go to bars have to expect sexual assault, because of men, I think the only sensible solution is to immediately and permanently ban all men from any premises with a liquor licence.
It seems a harsh step, I know. But it's like how chemotherapy is a harsh treatment, rendered necessary by horrible illness. If the only alternative is for women to surrender their rights if they walk through a door - if there is seriously no other way to prevent sexual assault in these premises, and it's inconceivable to properly punish the men involved, because they can't help it - well, what choice is that at all? No one fair minded and with an interest in justice would say that it's too cruel to cage the tiger, and that the tiger must be free to roam the streets and maul, because a tiger cannot help itself, and what were you thinking going near a tiger in the first place?
Particularly, a judge would surely never say that.
(Out of satire for a moment to clarify: if you go into a tiger cage you should expect to be mauled, yes. But the important point of my satire, the thrust, is this: men are not tigers. As a man who has never once sexually assaulted anyone, I find it offensive and condescending when people assume men simply can't help sexually assaulting anything in a short skirt. I, for one, have higher reasoning powers, and I demand to be given the responsibilities thereof.
On a different note, this is one of the many, many things I hate about patriarchy, and one of the things that impacts me. I would like to be able to freely and happily chat to women in the street. But I'm a six foot tall man who is hairy. As such, women are told by society every damn day that I will rape them if given half a chance, and they mustn't expect sympathy if I do, because it's obviously their own fault somehow. So I find it hard to justify saying "hey, nice shirt, I also like that hobby/web comic/tv show", because patriarchy demands that exchange be laden with fear and tension, and it's just not worth it, for me or her.)
