Lukshana Gopaul : I’m a woman and having been exposed to the nascent movement of feminism in my formative years, I grew to despise its meaning, or rather how it was touted by those who claimed it was the noblest stance of all. As someone who’s read her fair share of real crime books, I’d say that women can be as maniacal as men, as murderous as men and their crimes can speak to as appalling a perversity as men’s crimes do.
And yet, I was being sold a vision where women can do no harm, while evolving in an environment as corrosive as an all girl school where the atmosphere-even though bereft of male influence-was the apotheosis of pettiness, female hormones gone berserk and all those things that have come to be known as ”incessant bickering” throughout the years.
So when I saw this 4chan post that my friend dutifully sent me, I was baffled as to why it was controversial in the first place. Because a woman is involved? Have we been sanctified as a gender? Is this why Bruce Jenner wanted to be one of us? I didn’t get it.
For all the undeserved attention topics like ”rape culture” or ”mansplaining” get, I think we need to level the field and insert some sanity into the conversation. The mere attempt to bifurcate humanity into ”male issues” and ”female issues” is unnerving. When you boil down complex events into a gender related issue, you’re not only oversimplifying an event that’s made of several other layers, you’re alluding to a set of virtues that you think make you an expert in judging that event, which is a deleterious way to view the world.
People who go around castigating the entire male species for being rapists, domestic abusers and control freaks, but in the same breath condone the sheer stupidity and inanity of the females who put themselves in that very situation, baffle me. It’s one thing to clamor for increased female presence in the STEM fields, to support a female revolution in the Middle East and another to constantly guard female issues, because in truth, you think they’re actually inferior. Which in my view, goes counter to that whole ”equality” narrative.
So what should the boyfriend have done? When you’re in a relationship, it’s primordial that you listen to your partner’s concerns, otherwise what’s the point of being in a relationship with them? Respect for the wishes and the opinions of your partner is the cornerstone of every relationship. The woman in this story chose to eschew her boyfriend’s warnings and ended up getting raped. How would you feel, if you told your partner not to go to a seedy nightclub and they ended up going, barring any aggression? You’d feel betrayed, as you would want your concerns to be heard and acted upon.
In this scenario, she callously ignored his concerns and went anyway, knowing well that he warned her he would end the relationship should she do so. Not only did she disrespect her partner, she came back crying to him when his very concerns were proven right. She broke his trust and then using her victimhood, sought his sympathy as though she had done nothing wrong.
There’s a word that defines those kinds of people, we simply call them jerks, or in this case a female jerk to be more precise. A relationship is only valid insofar as both parties try their hardest to be respectful of their mutual wishes; there’s no basis for a relationship when someone consciously disregards their partner’s concerns and does so knowing well it would mean the end of the relationship.
She broke his trust, that’s it. That she got raped, is on her. Victimhood is nothing to be shared, contrary to popular belief. It ought to make us stronger and cogitate on our own pitfalls so we can avoid them in the future. It’s not a wild card to be shoved at a person’s face for sympathy.
Debopam Roy : A day will come when my opinion will be without meaning. A day when I will be persona non grata for my untoward thoughts, want of compassion and recklessness of words. But today is not the day, my peers. Today I stand correct on a mountain of insincerity, utopian entitlement and barefaced indoctrination – the opulent filth that has pervaded our generation.
The education of rights and never of responsibilities, the madness of only expecting the best in human nature and the disregard for one’s own competence in dissuading antagonistic circumstances to avoid likelihood which in most cases, borders on inevitability.
It is perhaps natural that a person accused of bigotry is unlikely to share the viewpoint that his ideas are bigoted as this is a designation that is usually only arrived at through a majority consent – most present forms of bigotry being once deemed perfectly acceptable and thus ‘common wisdom’.
The transition in a belief from that of ‘common wisdom’ to a general consensus of their being bigotry marks a victory for those reformers who don’t wish to see, for example, homosexuals ostracised, lepers abandoned to the elements or the human race erasing those of its members deemed ‘inferior’. The majority of us today see these particular changes in attitude as positive advances whereas we regard the residual pockets wherein such beliefs persist as nurseries of woefully misinformed atavism.
I feel a similar sense of disgruntlement when it comes to poaching the topic of sexual assault and rape from what the feminists consider their exclusive domain. As theorized above, there are two ‘common wisdoms’ at conflict which upon collision, fan the flames of insipid sensitivity. On the one hand is a recognition of a woman’s right to choose to withhold her body from unwanted sexual advances, and on the other, is the woman’s responsibility to do everything in her power to protect her life, liberty and person from the same. Nowhere else will you find a more appropriate microcosm of the ageless conflict between rights and responsibilities.
If it is the state’s fundamental function to protect its citizen’s rights, it is also the citizen’s responsibility, nay, imperative, to cooperate with it for the same ultimate goal. If the state fails, the citizen spares no words for the irresponsibility of the ruling government and yet, if the citizen fails to partake dutifully in his/her responsibilities, it is considered impolite to bring that up; because only this once, emotion very conveniently trumps logic.
It is impolite because in a crime, there cannot be a question of who is at fault. It is not a tort where the plaintiff may be held responsible for not coming with clean hands and thus may partake in the blame. In a crime, where the standards of judgement are considerably higher, the victim can never be at fault as regards to the crime committed, and anyone else who says otherwise is tacitly participating in what I am to understand as ‘Victim Shaming’.
While the argument may be not entirely without its merits, one must be cautious of using that line of argumentation to debase every man willing to participate to help curb the crimes which I would say, neither gender wants to proliferate. So, if Lukshana and I say, the victim is at fault, we do not mean that the victim is at fault of being raped and the perpetrator is faultless.
The victim in my opinion, is only ever at fault for disregarding her safety provided she had knowledge of certain factors which could have definitely threatened her life, person and dignity and in no other case. The responsibility her mute body had entrusted her functional head with was to take good care of it. The situation in the article originally referenced as the starting point of this piece is a very clear elucidation.
It was not unbeknownst to the woman that the particular nightclub was a place of decrepit morality. Venturing into its confines after consciously disregarding her well-wisher’s repeated warnings was only what may be described as her choice. It also speaks in volumes about her self-entitlement when despite being warned of incidents that regularly occurred there, her summation was that they would not befall her as it did to others. This confidence stems from only one thing – the compulsion to protect one’s freedom in life.
Freedom in its truest sense, when a person, unrestricted by societal considerations is allowed to do whatever they want. It is unfortunate then, that even by this era society has failed to catch up to this ideology, giving rise to the horrid number of incidents of crime against women.
That this is only the truth is also common knowledge to women; and therefore, it is simply obstinate of them to try and force through this system by offering their bodies as collateral, a fact to which they have never and can never consciously agree to. But the staggering number of casualties in this fight for women’s freedom by not ensuring one’s own safety first is indicative of a bad gambit which rarely, if ever, pays off.
In the peculiar case of a thrill-seeker, a paraglider who consents to paragliding with the full knowledge he may die, and in the event that he does, it is a case of deciding who is to blame – the company that strapped him on the faulty equipment (unintentionally, I’m sure), or the paraglider who was mistaken to hostage his life in the hands of a contraption that although prided itself in being secure and sturdy, always carried with itself the element of risk by virtue of its very nature.
No one can, with any amount of rationality blame the victim who now lies dead in the bottom of the ocean for exercising his freedom to enjoy the thrills of life, but one may insensitively point out that he knew the risks of what he was participating in. Likewise, if you walk into a room full of drunk degenerates whose sole purpose in life was to satiate the pleasures of the flesh, having full knowledge of the fact that you might be a target, and even then, if you so choose to exercise the well-bestowed rights you were granted to walk into any establishment in the country open to the public, you have no one but yourself to blame, and serve as warning for others who might feel adventurous enough to try the same.
There is no joy in figuring out how to divide the blame in heart-rending moments such as these, except in preventing other people from committing the same mistakes their predecessors did. As long as your society still has its share of deviants, one must take notice of them and accommodate for their presence. Throwing bodies at rapists as a form of protest with the general goal of sensitising people to rape crimes is no plan, it is mass idiocy that gathers more followers each day.
What we have today in the name of feminism is as my co-author rightly put, a thorough attempt to drive wedges between the two genders. It simply isn’t a question of how the females of this planet aren’t empowered anymore. It has devolved into something admittedly beyond my comprehension. The woman effortlessly presumed that the man in her life was controlling her by refusing to send her to the jackal’s den. If even in a relationship, this brand of radical feminism is to prevail, we have on our hands a disbalanced equation where the boy is stripped of every power to influence his partner’s actions.
That is also a form of relationship all right, just not a healthy one. If, for one second the woman listened to his words, not that of him as a man, but the well-intentioned words of her partner, we’d have one less victim to mourn and one less article to read today.