Girls, Have some internet "feminists" lost their minds?

[Anonymous]

Triggering headline, but please hear me out.

I fully support women's plight against sexual harassment and rape. I fully endorse that it is an epidemic and I am glad there is much wider awareness of this issue.

For what its worth, I have been a champion of this fight against violent sexual crimes against women from an early age because I grew up in South Asia and these crimes were easy to witness in a 3rd world country. Let alone the cultural repression and other regressive tactics.

HOWEVER, in the growing advocacy for women's rights and the movement to punish violent crimes against women... I still think it is important to follow law and order to properly investigate crimes. I am not dismissing the fact that investigations can be jeopardized, or insufficient evidence leads to cases being thrown out. Those are problems that do exist. However, MY TAKE is we still must follow the INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY standard when punishing criminals.

I think we can all agree that it is important to punish ONLY the guilty?
WHY? because we do not want an order-less society punishing innocent people.

CAN WE AGREE?

Issue:

Comment by author: "It's responsibility of men, not women, to prove its not all men"

My comment: "100% agreed. But I hope when it comes to a legal case, its assumed innocent until proven guilty and there is no lynch mobbing."

Random girl Ashleigh DMs me asking for examples of lynching (as it turns out to challenge me on my position):

I provided the following examples of false allegations:
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasleen_Kaur_harassment_controversy

2) https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38796457
3) Generally Black men in America in the past: https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race%20Report%20Preview.pdf

Feminists, can you please help correct such internet "feminists". Please help me understand... why is it a crime to ask for a fair trial? What is the problem here?

Updates

1 y

To be clear;

1) the point here is to NOT undermine issues faced by women.

2) It is to NOT overshadow or challenge crimes faced by women.

3) IT IS SIMPLY TO THAT THERE IS A VALID REASON FOR STATE LAW & ORDER, AND DUE PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED, and this is not just a hypothetical, there are actual cases today and in the past where false allegations were used to go after innocent men.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

You may not realize it, but saying “but the courts!” Is you advocating on behalf of the abuser and not the victim in the case of male abusers and female victims.
I agree that court systems should operate that way, but a majority of cases never go to court, and the “progress” of a patriarchal society relies in the allowances from patriarchal authority. Women don’t have rights because they fought for it, it’s because men allowed it. Slavery didn’t end because the slaves fought for it, but because the white men allowed it. By saying we have to defer to the authorities in the dispensing of justice, you are not only undermining a woman’s courage in calling out her abuser for what he is, but you are saying men have the power and use it better than the women who organize their own forms of justice.

Is this morally and ethically correct? That depends on who you ask.
Is it legal? Definitely not, but that’s why it leans towards that patriarchal mindset - men will not let vague morality take away their power from other men even if those men are abusive. The gray areas are where the authority holds the most power over others.

[Asker]

I understand that aspect as well. However, I don't think the solution is to say lets abandon the legal process and let go of law and order. I understand how that can be a reaction, however it is not the solution or the end goal we can desire.

The answer to the conundrum of courts is to pressure and reform the court system and law & order such that technicalities and corrupt judges cannot undermine the legal system.

Its not about men, law & order still runs the country. It is the foundation of how a society operates. Yes, women have gotten the short stick when it especially comes to sexual crimes/rape, but we need to work on improving that side of the courts instead of abandoning it.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Law and order is very much about men in a society founded and run by men. I don’t think you’re hearing me at all and I think you’re leaning into that same mindset that says the only “good” kind of protest is a peaceful one, not recognizing that any form of protest is inherently “bad” as it directly fights agains the status quo set by the authorities in power.

[Asker]

Define looting and rioting then.

Is that a form of protest?

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

It is, yes

[Asker]

Well, on the chain of thought you are on... then, even rape can be called a 'form of protest'.

Which, in my opinion, is vile...

and which is why I support law and order, and reformation of law order to maintain a civil and equitable society.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Rape is a violation of a singular person, and therefore not a form of protest. Looting and rioting is the violation of a corporate or political entity made up of multiple, interchangeable individuals, thus a form of protest against an overwhelming authority.

[Asker]

I don't agree they are different in principle. In both cases sovereignty is violated. Morally, of course rape is horrendous... while robbery is not.

However, you should watch this: https://youtu.be/lgIgytWyo_A?si=1kX4xrPhRYkSNVZk

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

No thanks, I’m not doing this for another week

[Asker]

that sounds in-genuine, but sure.

[SweetJoyGirl]

No one said they can’t get a fair trial.

[Asker]

Thank you

[SweetJoyGirl]

Thank you for the MHO. 💜

[Agape93]

I agree save for ones of sexual violence. Most apists and molesters will never see a prison cell, the few that do tend to get less than 5 years. Most victims never get justice, so for sex offenders I say we butcher them with absolute prejudice, male or female.

[Asker]

How do you know who is a rapist or a molester? If I blame you tomorrow, or some girl accuses your sibling, does that equate to them being guilty?

[Agape93]

I don't have a sibling, and im. no exception. If someone thinks I violated em, then come kill me. If I thought someone raped my friend, I'd fucking kill em. I'm no exception. Nobody is. All I need is to believe they are or be told they are.

[Asker]

I am not sure if that can be seen as a sane statement.

[Agape93]

Would it help if I said they should be flayed alive and left to die, tied to a pole?

[Agape93]

You're not the first to think that's too much.