An Australian reads a story about new laws in India and is reminded of home.
I was reading the paper on the train the other day, when an article on the “rape crisis” in India caught my eye. Naturally, as we have been conditioned to obsess on protecting women, the mere mention of the word “rape” is eye-catching.
So I read the short piece, which detailed the new rape laws that had been passed in India (a country known for its blind eye to the public abuse of men by female police officers) that set new penalties for rapists, including a mandatory 20 year sentence, and the death penalty if the victim is killed or left catatonic.
The article mentioned also that the Women’s Rights Advocates in India were criticizing the law for not putting marital rape under the definition of rape.
That may very well be a legitimate concern, as there is now very little to protect women who are in fact raped by husbands. However, this was not the part that caught my eye.
The part that got my attention was the sentence “[the new laws] define rape as a crime committed only by a man against a woman.”
I went onto the internet to confirm this, and lo and behold:
Bowing to pressure from women (sic) activists, the government has decided to restore the term rape in criminal law that states only men can be booked for committing the offence against women. 1
Let’s just think about this for a second.
In India, a man or woman can force his/herself on a non-consenting male, and not be guilty of rape. This revolutionary new “definition” of rape, clearly advocated for by ideologues filled with hate and resentment for all people who have the Y chromosome, means that we will see a sharp increase in the cries of victimization from women, who will now claim that rape is an exclusively male crime.
I have spoken to feminists about this issue; among them a particularly headstrong male feminist. The thing that struck me the most about this conversation was his valuing ideology over reason and fact with missionary zeal. He insulted me personally, raised up an army of straw men from the pits of fallacy and kept repeating different variations of the same claims over and over again – that feminists oppose misandry and that MRAs, who see feminists as ugly, fat, friendzoning, dyke sluts, are arguing with strawmen. That was his redundant response to me refuting his “fact” that women are the only ones who are raped.
When I told him that I personally know a man who was held down and raped by an abusive woman, he told me that such events are rare, and by extension claimed that such laws are unnecessary.
That’s right, gents. Protecting us is unnecessary. So unnecessary that we need to actually make distinctions in the wording of laws so as to deliberately exclude male victims (read: tin soldiers/sperm banks on legs).
The ideologues in the Indian government deemed it necessary to deliberately and actively deny men equal protection under the law. We’ve already seen men in that country forced to the back of buses like African-Americans in 1950s America. We’ve seen them beaten up by members of the public and female police officers alike for accidentally boarding the “female only” carriage of a train. And now we’re seeing the government actively denying them equal protection under the law in sexual assaults.
It is things like this that make me marvel at how people can still believe in the patriarchy that feminists have always claimed existed. The government of a nation bowing to the unreasonable and unjust whims of feminists should not be possible in that patriarchy. Introducing blatantly anti-male laws that deny men protection from the same crimes as women is not the imagined feminist patriarchy, not by any stretch of the word.
We are past the point where apologists can twist the meaning of words to suit their argument effectively. In no way would the feminist’s patriarchy lie down for misandric legislation. Whatever the feminists are selling, it can’t be called patriarchy anymore. Well, unless patriarchy, a system of female privilege at the expense of men, is what it is and always was.
I don’t even think it could be called a matriarchy, due to the fact that the majority of women aren’t man-hating cretins. I’d prefer to call it — feminarchy.
There is little point in my MHRA friends and me attempting reasoned discourse in our home country of Australia. My conversation with the dogmatic white-knight devolved into a mud-slinging match where everything from my intelligence to my ethics and morals was insulted on a personal level.
And that is a good case scenario.
My best friend, a fellow activist, had a feminist threaten to stab him when he brought up men’s issues. That’s right, she threatened to stab him. Imagine the outcry if he had threatened to so much as slap her?
These vehement knee-jerk reactions from feminists across the globe are an instinctive, animalistic response. When an animal is cornered, it lashes out, and similarly the feminist movement is consolidating its forces and lashing out at any detractors who threaten to topple their ivory tower. Have you ever seen a legitimate human rights advocate threaten to stab someone for exercising free speech? Human rights movements have their roots in humanitarianism, not in the barn of Animal Farm.
The Indian law was designed by feminists, deliberately excluding all male victims in order perpetuate the myth that women are the only victims in this world.
Men, i.e. human beings, are now having their protection under the law undermined even in countries such as mine. I am privy to the suffering of many of men at the hands of professional victims.
A good friend of mine received death threats due to a false claim of sexual harassment brought upon him by a psychotic attention-seeker whose advances he turned down. The same man was the victim of beatings at the hands of his then-girlfriend when she got angry with him for disagreeing with her very strong opinions.
Another friend of mine was taken to court over false accusations that were then dropped with no apology or compensation. The same man has been the victim of a botched circumcision.
Another friend of mine was savagely bashed by his girlfriend and raped by another woman whilst semi-conscious, and was ashamed to even talk about it.
These men have been told by feminists that it was their fault that they didn’t seek help for it. Yet no help exists for men. There is only one men’s rights charity in Australia, and they receive no support from the blue-pill government and Julia “Tu Quoque” Gillard. And when MHRAs try to start charities for the support of men, feminists – the very same feminists who victim-blame males for not seeking help – condemn these charities as misogynistic.
None of these men received any protection under the law, and now those horrible creatures in India that have the nerve to call themselves human beings are making it official: Men Don’t Matter.
Did you hear that, men? Yeah, especially you over there in India:
YOU DON’T MATTER
(But you didn’t hear it from the feminists; it’s all the fault of patriarchy)