The End
Banned
-
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2018
- Posts
- 4,444
Here's another bit of hypocrisy by modern feminism/society.
Women are supposed to be just as smart, just as capable, and just as independent as men. That's fine... except that's suddenly not the case in sexual harassment and abuse cases.
If a woman is told by her boss, "suck my dick or you're fired," she is not responsible if she consents. She only did it because a man in power told her to do it. This has been in the news lately with Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK, etc... My question is: Why is it so taboo, or unreasonable, to ask why these women didn't simply say, "No."? I'm not blaming these women for not fighting off a man who violently raped them, but couldn't they have at least tried to resist, even just by using words?
And there are many examples similar to this. If a woman is raped, but instead of resisting she simply freezes up and does nothing, it's not her fault for not fighting back. But is it really so out of line to ask why couldn't she have yelled, ran, fought - anything!?
Here's possibly the worst: a woman and her children are being beaten by her abusive husband. Obviously the man is the one doing the beating, but can't we say, "this woman should have found the strength to walk out the door to prevent her kids from being beaten."
But, but... she was scared!
Oh yeah? She's scared, so she is completely helpless to a man's whims? This only seems to be the case when it benefits her.
Why do men just blanketly accept that women are faultless when it comes to personal-responsibility - is it just because sex-crimes and domestic abuse is icky, and they don't want to talk about it all?
Women are supposed to be just as smart, just as capable, and just as independent as men. That's fine... except that's suddenly not the case in sexual harassment and abuse cases.
If a woman is told by her boss, "suck my dick or you're fired," she is not responsible if she consents. She only did it because a man in power told her to do it. This has been in the news lately with Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK, etc... My question is: Why is it so taboo, or unreasonable, to ask why these women didn't simply say, "No."? I'm not blaming these women for not fighting off a man who violently raped them, but couldn't they have at least tried to resist, even just by using words?
And there are many examples similar to this. If a woman is raped, but instead of resisting she simply freezes up and does nothing, it's not her fault for not fighting back. But is it really so out of line to ask why couldn't she have yelled, ran, fought - anything!?
Here's possibly the worst: a woman and her children are being beaten by her abusive husband. Obviously the man is the one doing the beating, but can't we say, "this woman should have found the strength to walk out the door to prevent her kids from being beaten."
But, but... she was scared!
Oh yeah? She's scared, so she is completely helpless to a man's whims? This only seems to be the case when it benefits her.
Why do men just blanketly accept that women are faultless when it comes to personal-responsibility - is it just because sex-crimes and domestic abuse is icky, and they don't want to talk about it all?