Why Is Patriarchy Seen As A Bad Thing?

[Junaids]

If it is a tie, man should be the leader due to past track record. That's how it works in real life too. History/track record is given preference.

It is like Ashes series where challenger has to win the trophy to regain it; drawing is not enough.

That is the precise opposite of how it should work, because it will perpetuate imbalances and failings. It's why patriarchal Islamic societies always underperform - it's actually a large part of why East Pakistan didn't want to be part of Pakistan any more.

Imagine that I have 8 places on the Board of my company, and currently 6 are occupied by males.

I know that my company's Board is probably functioning as an echo chamber and failing to address the needs of female workers and customers.

I need to have a merit-based recruitment process. So I will ensure that while the imbalance persists, there will either be points removed from males for their gender or added to qualified female applicants for their gender.

So if both score 60/100 on their written application, and 60/100 on their interview, the female will get the job because she scores more highly overall while males are over-represented.

I work in psychiatry, and usually it's the other way round. We have a preponderance of female applicants and a preponderance of overseas (Indian and Pakistani and Bangladeshi) applicants, so they score fewer points than white males, to ensure appropriate representation.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberals will never understand the true value of a balanced society.

Man earns the money then gives this money to his wife to managed, govern, and run her home, thus her family. This is the balanced system that has worked since the dawn of humanity, a system endorsed within religion.

Liberals cannot go beyond first base and that is what is the definition of a man/woman. Forget the rest, this is the liberal predicament. The second predicament is distinguishing between humans and animals.

Liberalism is a lost cause, and its disciples are a lesson to mankind.

 

[Junaids]

No wonder why western societies are seeing rises in martial problems, spousal cheatings, depression, anxiety etc.

Things are becoming unnatural under the guise of "progress".

Actually no.

We don't have honour killings.

We don't have women whose lives are basically the lives of hostages incinerating themselves in the kitchen (although I suspect that most of those are murders by Pakistani husbands which are just passed off as suicides.)

 

[Technics 1210]

Should add, Liberalism degrades women by measuring and quantifying them as sexual objects. You have read in the thread, Liberalism promotes the parading of women as sexual objects, and according to the doctrine of Liberalism, the more men, women sleep with, the better.

Freedom ladies and gentlemen, liberal stylee.

 

[Junaids]

In a benevolent patriarchy, a woman is not necessarily trapped.

She can still achieve success and fulfill her dreams. There are many stories of women being successful despite being in patriarchic environments.

They succeeded because they had good attitudes and good work ethics; they didn't blame everything on men like radical feminists do nowadays.

Well done.

You have used exactly the same arguments to defend Patriarchy as white South Africans used to defend Apartheid - under which you would have no vote, no equal right to do the jobs that white people want, and no equal access to education.

"But black people have a different role in society".

"Black people all get an education adapted to their needs (to be maids or nannies or gardeners)."

"A few black people still get to go to university and become doctors".

"If a black person has a good attitude they will be fine".

And where does that get you?
1. Saudi women are 6 times less likely to go to university.
2. Saudi women are 10,000 times less likely to be the boss of Saudi men.
3. Saudi women are 100 times more likely to die of sexual causes than western women.

 

[Junaids]

Should add, Liberalism degrades women by measuring and quantifying them as sexual objects. You have read in the thread, Liberalism promotes the parading of women as sexual objects, and according to the doctrine of Liberalism, the more men, women sleep with, the better.

Freedom ladies and gentlemen, liberal stylee.

How so?

I have seen lots of women's chests, but the most memorable one I saw this month belonged to Darwin Nunez. Does that make him a sexual object?

And I don't know any women who have slept with as many people as Ibn Saud.

And you have already been told - a woman is not better if she has had sex with more men. The statistic is different - countries where women have freedom lead not just to them having sex with more men but also:

1. They live longer.
2. They are less likely to die of sexually-transmitted diseases or in childbirth.
3. They are more highly educated.
4. They get better jobs.
5. They are wealthier.
6. They have more successful children.

 

[Technics 1210]

Remember folks, liberals promote women sleeping with multiple men, but would they accept their daughters doing so?

Liberals promote polygamy, but would liberal men be happy with their wives sleeping with other men?

Liberals claim women must earn more then men, but would liberals marry their daughters to a jobless man?

No, no, no, are the answers.

Reject liberalism, it is a fascist, sexist, degrading, and hypocritical ideology which is why liberalism has failed since the dawn of mankind.

 

[JaDed]

Both men and women have rights. That's right.

But, there is nothing wrong if male is the head. It is not automatically evil and toxic. That's my argument.

But it seems you are arguing against women being the head? You are ok if a woman become the head of the family or country or business right?

You are the one talking about historical track record yet not even acknowledging how women were not allowed to study, work, vote as an equal historically.

So history only matters with their track record but not if they discriminated against.
KSA didn’t even allow them to drive until few years ago and in a post you used them as an example.

 

[Junaids]

I am not sexist at all. I am a realist.

I am a straight man. I love women. I respect women.

What I do not respect is radical feminism. I believe radical feminism is bad not just for men but also for women. It doesn't allow a woman to succeed naturally. It assumes woman is weak and she needs feminism to succeed.

"Radical feminism" is a lazy trope with no meaning - just like when Trump demonises what he disagrees with by the expression "radical left" - even when discussing people like Joe Biden who are right of centre themselves.

The "radical feminism" trope is intended to demonise and belittle the idea of female equality at all, by forsaking actual argument of specific issues in favour of an insult that feeble-minded semi-educated people will recite without comprehending the actual issues.

Feminism has 4 aspects to it, which are actually so uncontroversial that there is nothing to even argue about.

1. Political equality for women.
- 1 woman's vote is equal to 1 man's vote, and leads towards equality of the number of elected representatives governing.
- currently even NZ only has 38% women in parliament, Canada has 30% and the UK has 35%.
- I would argue that below these levels, a government is not representative and should not be treated as such.

2. Economic equality for women.
Again, even western countries struggle with this.

In the UK, between 34.9% of middle and senior management positions are occupied by women. In Pakistan it is 6.3% and in Saudi Arabia it is less than 1%. Again, we know from the case of Bangladesh and the Grameen phone ladies that economic independence for women is a powerful driver for a country's development.

In 1971 people would have laughed in your face if you said that in 2022 Bangladesh would be a far more developed country than Pakistan with GDP per capita of $2362 compared with Pakistan's $1,562.

The idea of West Pakistan being 33.9% poorer per capita than East Pakistan would have seemed ludicrous. And now it's a fact.

3. Social equality for women

Again, development of women is the most powerful driver of social development.

The Grameen phone example is incredibly powerful.

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-mobile-bangladeshi-women.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4471348.stm

In Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, those women would be a burden on the economy. But in a less patriarchal society, they actually grow the economy.

4. Personal equality for women
I accept that in primitive, backward, illiterate societies in the times of the Bible and the Koran it may have been that women needed to be "protected" by making them cover up and stay at home.

It's a pretty damning indictment though on a society which brings up men to be rapists.

But why should a woman have to cover up? Why can't men just control their urges, by a mixture of obedience to the law and stigma from being a rapist?

It's a horrible recurring nightmare that the groups of gang rapists of adolescents and vulnerable young women in northern England are always Pakistani, whether it's Rotherham or Rochdale or anywhere else. And it's even worse that their families stick by them.

We saw a similar thing with the evil murder of Samia Shaheed six years ago, lured to Pakistan by her mother to be raped by her ex-husband as her father held her down before strangling her. Only for the Punjab Police to pass it off as death from an asthma attack.

And, as [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] stated, we haven't even begun to discuss marital rape in Asian societies. Here in the west earlier generations failed to recognise this too, but when my wife married me she was not implicitly consenting to sex any time, any place, anywhere.

It's extraordinary that people whom I consider to be rapists - people who say that marital rape cannot exist - complain about western women exposing their breasts on a beach or choosing who they want to sleep with.

 

[Junaids]

Questions from Technics 1210 with my responses added:

Remember folks, liberals promote women sleeping with multiple men, but would they accept their daughters doing so?

Obviously. I don't think I know any female aged between 25 and 50 who has slept with fewer than 5 males in her life. Why would my daughter end up any different? It's normal.

Liberals promote polygamy, but would liberal men be happy with their wives sleeping with other men? I don't know anybody who supports polygamy.

Then again, I don't know anybody whose wife didn't sleep with other men before they met. Your point is what? Do you think we stay up at night thinking "I wish she'd waited for me?"

Liberals claim women must earn more then men, but would liberals marry their daughters to a jobless man?
Not at all. I think women and men should earn the same for the same work. What's the connection with a jobless man?

 

[ahsan17]

"Radical feminism" is a lazy trope with no meaning - just like when Trump demonises what he disagrees with by the expression "radical left" - even when discussing people like Joe Biden who are right of centre themselves.

The "radical feminism" trope is intended to demonise and belittle the idea of female equality at all, by forsaking actual argument of specific issues in favour of an insult that feeble-minded semi-educated people will recite without comprehending the actual issues.

Feminism has 4 aspects to it, which are actually so uncontroversial that there is nothing to even argue about.

1. Political equality for women.
- 1 woman's vote is equal to 1 man's vote, and leads towards equality of the number of elected representatives governing.
- currently even NZ only has 38% women in parliament, Canada has 30% and the UK has 35%.
- I would argue that below these levels, a government is not representative and should not be treated as such.

2. Economic equality for women.
Again, even western countries struggle with this.

In the UK, between 34.9% of middle and senior management positions are occupied by women. In Pakistan it is 6.3% and in Saudi Arabia it is less than 1%. Again, we know from the case of Bangladesh and the Grameen phone ladies that economic independence for women is a powerful driver for a country's development.

In 1971 people would have laughed in your face if you said that in 2022 Bangladesh would be a far more developed country than Pakistan with GDP per capita of $2362 compared with Pakistan's $1,562.

The idea of West Pakistan being 33.9% poorer per capita than East Pakistan would have seemed ludicrous. And now it's a fact.

3. Social equality for women

Again, development of women is the most powerful driver of social development.

The Grameen phone example is incredibly powerful.

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-mobile-bangladeshi-women.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4471348.stm

In Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, those women would be a burden on the economy. But in a less patriarchal society, they actually grow the economy.

4. Personal equality for women
I accept that in primitive, backward, illiterate societies in the times of the Bible and the Koran it may have been that women needed to be "protected" by making them cover up and stay at home.

It's a pretty damning indictment though on a society which brings up men to be rapists.

But why should a woman have to cover up? Why can't men just control their urges, by a mixture of obedience to the law and stigma from being a rapist?

It's a horrible recurring nightmare that the groups of gang rapists of adolescents and vulnerable young women in northern England are always Pakistani, whether it's Rotherham or Rochdale or anywhere else. And it's even worse that their families stick by them.

We saw a similar thing with the evil murder of Samia Shaheed six years ago, lured to Pakistan by her mother to be raped by her ex-husband as her father held her down before strangling her. Only for the Punjab Police to pass it off as death from an asthma attack.

And, as [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] stated, we haven't even begun to discuss marital rape in Asian societies. Here in the west earlier generations failed to recognise this too, but when my wife married me she was not implicitly consenting to sex any time, any place, anywhere.

It's extraordinary that people whom I consider to be rapists - people who say that marital rape cannot exist - complain about western women exposing their breasts on a beach or choosing who they want to sleep with.

You keep using GDP per capita to mean wealth or lack of wealth. Do you have any idea what GDP per capita is, because it seems like you don't?

Also, your GDP per capita for Pakistan is grossly outdated.

Similar differences are common between western countries, e.g. between UK and US. Now.do you think US is far more developed than UK?

 

[sweep_shot]

"Radical feminism" is a lazy trope with no meaning - just like when Trump demonises what he disagrees with by the expression "radical left" - even when discussing people like Joe Biden who are right of centre themselves.

The "radical feminism" trope is intended to demonise and belittle the idea of female equality at all, by forsaking actual argument of specific issues in favour of an insult that feeble-minded semi-educated people will recite without comprehending the actual issues.

Feminism has 4 aspects to it, which are actually so uncontroversial that there is nothing to even argue about.

Denying radical feminism is like denying the existence of Alt-Right.

Modern day feminism has become radical. Denying it shows clear bias or ignorance. You are free to research about it; there are many resources online.

1. Political equality for women.
- 1 woman's vote is equal to 1 man's vote, and leads towards equality of the number of elected representatives governing.
- currently even NZ only has 38% women in parliament, Canada has 30% and the UK has 35%.
- I would argue that below these levels, a government is not representative and should not be treated as such.

2. Economic equality for women.
Again, even western countries struggle with this.

In the UK, between 34.9% of middle and senior management positions are occupied by women. In Pakistan it is 6.3% and in Saudi Arabia it is less than 1%. Again, we know from the case of Bangladesh and the Grameen phone ladies that economic independence for women is a powerful driver for a country's development.

Pay should be based on outputs/results. If women produce inferior results to men, they should get paid less (and vice versa).

For example, women cricketers attract less crowds and so they get paid less. However, New Zealand cricket have recently given equal pays to male and female cricketers which I think was foolish.

 

[sweep_shot]

But it seems you are arguing against women being the head? You are ok if a woman become the head of the family or country or business right?

You are the one talking about historical track record yet not even acknowledging how women were not allowed to study, work, vote as an equal historically.

So history only matters with their track record but not if they discriminated against.
KSA didn’t even allow them to drive until few years ago and in a post you used them as an example.

I am not arguing against woman being the head. That's not the topic of this thread. Topic is why patriarchy (man being the head) is seen as a bad thing by default.

Just because a man is the head shouldn't automatically mean it is bad. This is something radical liberals do not understand.

KSA didn't allow women to drive before but they allow it now. Women in KSA now can drive, study, and work. They can also go outside. I think these are more than enough rights. Nothing further than this is needed.

 

[JaDed]

I am not arguing against woman being the head. That's not the topic of this thread. Topic is why patriarchy (man being the head) is seen as a bad thing by default.

Just because a man is the head shouldn't automatically mean it is bad. This is something radical liberals do not understand.

KSA didn't allow women to drive before but they allow it now. Women in KSA now can drive, study, and work. They can also go outside. I think these are more than enough rights. Nothing further than this is needed.

These are more than enough rights ) i can only laugh at your generosity towards KSA women.

So let me ask you this if a Saudi woman wants to rule the kingdom what do you think she should do?
Wage war?

 

[sweep_shot]

1. Political equality for women.
- 1 woman's vote is equal to 1 man's vote, and leads towards equality of the number of elected representatives governing.
- currently even NZ only has 38% women in parliament, Canada has 30% and the UK has 35%.
- I would argue that below these levels, a government is not representative and should not be treated as such.

What's up with this "representation" nonsense?

You are affectively supporting a quota system which itself is discriminatory.

So, you are saying that women should be included just because they are women and not because they are qualified.

You opposed apartheid in one post (which I also oppose) but now you are supporting a discriminatory quota system under the mask of "representation". Quite hypocritical.

 

[sweep_shot]

These are more than enough rights ) i can only laugh at your generosity towards KSA women.

So let me ask you this if a Saudi woman wants to rule the kingdom what do you think she should do?
Wage war?

KSA has a monarchy.

Also, why is ruling the focus? You are overlooking their current rights which I think is sufficient. That's all they need to succeed and live a happy life.

 

[sweep_shot]

Liberals will never understand the true value of a balanced society.

Man earns the money then gives this money to his wife to managed, govern, and run her home, thus her family. This is the balanced system that has worked since the dawn of humanity, a system endorsed within religion.

Liberals cannot go beyond first base and that is what is the definition of a man/woman. Forget the rest, this is the liberal predicament. The second predicament is distinguishing between humans and animals.

Liberalism is a lost cause, and its disciples are a lesson to mankind.

Good point (bolded part).

They are so obsessed with the concept of progress that they started to be pretentious just to prove they are progressive.

They now can't even define what is a man and what is a woman. Check this out:

Modern day western world is slowing becoming like real life South Park.

 

[Junaids]

You are overlooking their current rights which I think is sufficient. That's all they need to succeed and live a happy life.

That is fine so long as you don't exercise ANY additional rights beyond that.

So you personally can be free to go outside or drive. But don't expect the right to have an education or equal job opportunities or pay or to control your own body.

 

[Junaids]

Good point (bolded part).

They are so obsessed with the concept of progress that they started to be pretentious just to prove they are progressive.

They now can't even define what is a man and what is a woman. Check this out:

Modern day western world is slowing becoming like real life South Park.

Sky News Australia is not Sky News UK - it is a far-right propaganda channel like Fox News.

This kind of story is intended to shock their conservative geriatric viewership into voting for the corrupted right-of-centre party, ironically called the Liberal Party. The Liberals have had multiple corruption scandals and this sort of propaganda is meant to make people think "if I vote Labor they will make me have a sex change".

Try looking up the Transgender heroine Georgie Stone, who starred in the legendary soap opera "Neighbours". She is one of the most admired people in the nation - including by me!

Her life story is one of being denied her true gender by mindless conservatives. We are lucky she survived.

 

[Junaids]

What's up with this "representation" nonsense?

You are affectively supporting a quota system which itself is discriminatory.

So, you are saying that women should be included just because they are women and not because they are qualified.

You opposed apartheid in one post (which I also oppose) but now you are supporting a discriminatory quota system under the mask of "representation". Quite hypocritical.

Apartheid gave 99% of resources to the 8% of the population which was white.

You advocate the Saudi patriarchal society, which gives males (who are 49% of the population)

- 95% of university places.
- 99% of senior jobs.

Quotas are something to give underrepresented people their fair share of the cake. The cake that you wish to gorge yourself on, while starving women.

 

[sweep_shot]

Sky News Australia is not Sky News UK - it is a far-right propaganda channel like Fox News.

This kind of story is intended to shock their conservative geriatric viewership into voting for the corrupted right-of-centre party, ironically called the Liberal Party. The Liberals have had multiple corruption scandals and this sort of propaganda is meant to make people think "if I vote Labor they will make me have a sex change".

Try looking up the Transgender heroine Georgie Stone, who starred in the legendary soap opera "Neighbours". She is one of the most admired people in the nation - including by me!

Her life story is one of being denied her true gender by mindless conservatives. We are lucky she survived.

Focus on the message. Not the messenger. This video clearly shows what's wrong with modern day west.

If society is struggling to define what is a woman, you know we've got a problem.

Georgie Stone is no hero.

 

[sweep_shot]

Apartheid gave 99% of resources to the 8% of the population which was white.

You advocate the Saudi patriarchal society, which gives males (who are 49% of the population)

- 95% of university places.
- 99% of senior jobs.

Quotas are something to give underrepresented people their fair share of the cake. The cake that you wish to gorge yourself on, while starving women.

Whoever is qualified should get the opportunity. Quota system is discriminatory.

Underrepresentation is a lame excuse for lazy people and social justice warriors.

 

[Junaids]

Whoever is qualified should get the opportunity. Quota system is discriminatory.

Underrepresentation is a lame excuse for lazy people and social justice warriors.

Like with Apartheid, you reserve 95% of the places at university for people of your gender, just as they did with race.

And then you say "whoever is qualified should get the opportunity".

You have a "Bangladeshi Guy" byline on your posts. My aunt's husband was one of the Dacca University student leaders who led the Bangladesh Liberation War against Pakistan when Pakistan disallowed the election result in 1970.

And he is very clear that a large part of the reason was because the (West) Pakistanis didn't recognise Bengali equality and did not accept the rights that women and Hindus were afforded in East Pakistan.

I find it a bit shocking to see what a person identifying as "Bangladeshi Guy" now posts!

 

[sweep_shot]

Like with Apartheid, you reserve 95% of the places at university for people of your gender, just as they did with race.

And then you say "whoever is qualified should get the opportunity".

You have a "Bangladeshi Guy" byline on your posts. My aunt's husband was one of the Dacca University student leaders who led the Bangladesh Liberation War against Pakistan when Pakistan disallowed the election result in 1970.

And he is very clear that a large part of the reason was because the (West) Pakistanis didn't recognise Bengali equality and did not accept the rights that women and Hindus were afforded in East Pakistan.

I find it a bit shocking to see what a person identifying as "Bangladeshi Guy" now posts!

Who was the first president of Pakistan? It was a Bengali guy (Iskander Mirza).

So, I don't buy this "Pakistanis didn't recognize Bengali equality". There were Bengali politicians in Pakistan before 1971. I believe 1971 happened due to Indian interference. Without India, it probably wouldn't have happened.

I want to thank the Pakistani army for getting rid of many leftists who could've done serious damage to our country's Muslim identity.

 

[SalimBhai]

You did not quote me correctly. Looks like you added your own statements inside my quote.

The reason why this faulty index puts Muslim countries at the bottom is because it gives weight to how many women are in parliaments. Please check this link: https://www.who.int/data/nutrition/...ty Index is,empowerment and the labour market.



This is not always wrong though. If a woman wants to be a stripper, men of the family have every right to stop her from doing so. It is called civility.

Thats link is about what?. But muslim countries also fail in the other two categories .
Sure the man or another woman can have a word with this person. But full on patriarchy?

 

[SalimBhai]

Liberals will never understand the true value of a balanced society.

Man earns the money then gives this money to his wife to managed, govern, and run her home, thus her family. This is the balanced system that has worked since the dawn of humanity, a system endorsed within religion.

Liberals cannot go beyond first base and that is what is the definition of a man/woman. Forget the rest, this is the liberal predicament. The second predicament is distinguishing between humans and animals.

Liberalism is a lost cause, and its disciples are a lesson to mankind.

Sir by all accounts you are guys are losing, Its not even a contest

 

[SalimBhai]

Well done.

You have used exactly the same arguments to defend Patriarchy as white South Africans used to defend Apartheid - under which you would have no vote, no equal right to do the jobs that white people want, and no equal access to education.

"But black people have a different role in society".

"Black people all get an education adapted to their needs (to be maids or nannies or gardeners)."

"A few black people still get to go to university and become doctors".

"If a black person has a good attitude they will be fine".

And where does that get you?
1. Saudi women are 6 times less likely to go to university.
2. Saudi women are 10,000 times less likely to be the boss of Saudi men.
3. Saudi women are 100 times more likely to die of sexual causes than western women.

Will go above their head

 

[SalimBhai]

Remember folks, liberals promote women sleeping with multiple men, but would they accept their daughters doing so?

Liberals promote polygamy, but would liberal men be happy with their wives sleeping with other men?

Liberals claim women must earn more then men, but would liberals marry their daughters to a jobless man?

No, no, no, are the answers.

Reject liberalism, it is a fascist, sexist, degrading, and hypocritical ideology which is why liberalism has failed since the dawn of mankind.

hahahhahahah

 

[SalimBhai]

"radical feminism" is a lazy trope with no meaning - just like when trump demonises what he disagrees with by the expression "radical left" - even when discussing people like joe biden who are right of centre themselves.

The "radical feminism" trope is intended to demonise and belittle the idea of female equality at all, by forsaking actual argument of specific issues in favour of an insult that feeble-minded semi-educated people will recite without comprehending the actual issues.

Feminism has 4 aspects to it, which are actually so uncontroversial that there is nothing to even argue about.

1. political equality for women.
- 1 woman's vote is equal to 1 man's vote, and leads towards equality of the number of elected representatives governing.
- currently even nz only has 38% women in parliament, canada has 30% and the uk has 35%.
- i would argue that below these levels, a government is not representative and should not be treated as such.

2. economic equality for women.
again, even western countries struggle with this.

In the uk, between 34.9% of middle and senior management positions are occupied by women. In pakistan it is 6.3% and in saudi arabia it is less than 1%. Again, we know from the case of bangladesh and the grameen phone ladies that economic independence for women is a powerful driver for a country's development.

In 1971 people would have laughed in your face if you said that in 2022 bangladesh would be a far more developed country than pakistan with gdp per capita of $2362 compared with pakistan's $1,562.

The idea of west pakistan being 33.9% poorer per capita than east pakistan would have seemed ludicrous. And now it's a fact.

3. social equality for women

again, development of women is the most powerful driver of social development.

The grameen phone example is incredibly powerful.

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-mobile-bangladeshi-women.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4471348.stm

in pakistan or saudi arabia, those women would be a burden on the economy. But in a less patriarchal society, they actually grow the economy.

4. personal equality for women
i accept that in primitive, backward, illiterate societies in the times of the bible and the koran it may have been that women needed to be "protected" by making them cover up and stay at home.

It's a pretty damning indictment though on a society which brings up men to be rapists.

But why should a woman have to cover up? Why can't men just control their urges, by a mixture of obedience to the law and stigma from being a rapist?

It's a horrible recurring nightmare that the groups of gang rapists of adolescents and vulnerable young women in northern england are always pakistani, whether it's rotherham or rochdale or anywhere else. And it's even worse that their families stick by them.

We saw a similar thing with the evil murder of samia shaheed six years ago, lured to pakistan by her mother to be raped by her ex-husband as her father held her down before strangling her. Only for the punjab police to pass it off as death from an asthma attack.

And, as [mention=7774]robert[/mention] stated, we haven't even begun to discuss marital rape in asian societies. Here in the west earlier generations failed to recognise this too, but when my wife married me she was not implicitly consenting to sex any time, any place, anywhere.

It's extraordinary that people whom i consider to be rapists - people who say that marital rape cannot exist - complain about western women exposing their breasts on a beach or choosing who they want to sleep with.

you nailed it

 

[Robert]

you nailed it

Feminism is the radical idea that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. That's all.

 

[sweep_shot]

Thats link is about what?. But muslim countries also fail in the other two categories .
Sure the man or another woman can have a word with this person. But full on patriarchy?

The link is from WHO website.

They are the ones who came up with this Gender Inequality Index.

The index is obviously filled with agendas and is definitely not a fair one. We need a new index that takes everything into context.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Feminism is the radical idea that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. That's all.

It did take a radical turn and Feminism became men hating movement.

 

[sweep_shot]

It did take a radical turn and Feminism became men hating movement.

Exactly.

Modern day feminism is so bad that even many women have started to oppose it. Check this: https://womenagainstfeminism.com/.

 

[JaDed]

It did take a radical turn and Feminism became men hating movement.

Or maybe they just hate patriarchy which was not based on merit?

 

[JaDed]

Sometimes when women talk about their struggle, I used to dismiss it mentally saying they are exaggerating thinking which man thinks like that nowadays, this thread is an eye opener.

 

[sweep_shot]

Sometimes when women talk about their struggle, I used to dismiss it mentally saying they are exaggerating thinking which man thinks like that nowadays, this thread is an eye opener.

Some of them do exaggerate and even downright lie. For example, Amber Heard.

The fact Heard is not in prison is a disgrace.

 

[HappyWarsFan]

Sometimes when women talk about their struggle, I used to dismiss it mentally saying they are exaggerating thinking which man thinks like that nowadays, this thread is an eye opener.

I do agree, but I think more men are becoming more understanding nowadays. However there js work to be done.

I politely disagree with OP though. Society should be merit based, be it man or woman.

 

[sweep_shot]

Society should be merit based, be it man or woman.

I don't disagree with this. I support merit-based system; I don't support gender quota.

I was simply pointing out how extreme liberals think patriarchy is automatically bad. They seem to believe it is evil for men to be the leaders.

 

[Robert]

It did take a radical turn and Feminism became men hating movement.

Only a few extremists do that, in response to being brutalised by men. Every woman I know is a feminist and they all like men.

 

[dildilpak]

Some of them do exaggerate and even downright lie. For example, Amber Heard.

The fact Heard is not in prison is a disgrace.

And you are generalizing the entire female population based on one example?

Man, you must really hate the women around you.

 

[sweep_shot]

And you are generalizing the entire female population based on one example?

Man, you must really hate the women around you.

I am not generalizing but Amber Heard is definitely not the only one.

I think they should give Amber 10-15 years of jail sentence. What she did was outrageous.

I have female friends. I do not hate women.

 

[ahsan17]

And you are generalizing the entire female population based on one example?

Man, you must really hate the women around you.

Well, it is true that women get 60% less prison time for similar crime as men in the US. This is statistically speaking, so not one example.

 

[sweep_shot]

Only a few extremists do that, in response to being brutalised by men. Every woman I know is a feminist and they all like men.

It is not only a few. I believe the percentage is significant.

 

[sweep_shot]

Feminism is the radical idea that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. That's all.

Men and women are different biologically, physically, and psychologically.

As a result, rights and opportunities may not be equal always. I guess it should be decided on a case by case basis.

For example, women's cricket. Female cricket currently has lower quality than men's cricket and it tends to attract less crowd. So, female cricketers shouldn't earn the same as their male counterparts.

Fairness should be preferred over fixed rights.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Men and women are different biologically, physically, and psychologically.

As a result, rights and opportunities may not be equal always. I guess it should be decided on a case by case basis.

For example, women's cricket. Female cricket currently has lower quality than men's cricket and it tends to attract less crowd. So, female cricketers shouldn't earn the same as their male counterparts.

Fairness should be preferred over fixed rights.

No sane person would say that Men and women are equal physically and biologically. But mental attributes are a different matter. There is no difference in Men and Women when it comes to making decisions based on intellectual abilities. You are conflating Physical abilities with mental abilities.

Look around you and see how smart female scientists are. They are as good as men.

 

[sweep_shot]

No sane person would say that Men and women are equal physically and biologically. But mental attributes are a different matter. There is no difference in Men and Women when it comes to making decisions based on intellectual abilities. You are conflating Physical abilities with mental abilities.

Look around you and see how smart female scientists are. They are as good as men.

Yeah. That's why I wrote it should be handled on a case by case basis.

Some radical feminists are probably insane enough to say men and women are equal in everything (including physically). They seem out of touch with reality.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Yeah. That's why I wrote it should be handled on a case by case basis.

Some radical feminists are probably insane enough to say men and women are equal in everything (including physically). They seem out of touch with reality.

In your previous posts you said that men should be the decision makers. Patriarchy naysayers argues that Men and Women are equal when it comes to decision making. Now you are arguing about physical attributes when no one denied.

 

[sweep_shot]

In your previous posts you said that men should be the decision makers. Patriarchy naysayers argues that Men and Women are equal when it comes to decision making. Now you are arguing about physical attributes when no one denied.

In my previous posts, I also wrote that there is nothing wrong if a man is the head. It is not automatically an evil thing. If the man oppresses, it is that man's fault and not patriarchy's fault.

There were many women who succeeded in the past despite being in patriarchic societies. You can have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_scientists_in_the_20th_century.

 

[Champ_Pal]

In my previous posts, I also wrote that there is nothing wrong if a man is the head. It is not automatically an evil thing. If the man oppresses, it is that man's fault and not patriarchy's fault.

There were many women who succeeded in the past despite being in patriarchic societies. You can have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_scientists_in_the_20th_century.

So hang on a minute. In Patriarchy, if a Man abuses woman, its not Patriarchy's fault? You are a confused person.

Just tell me this. Do you accept if a woman is the head of a household or a nation? If you say yes, then you and I hold the same opinion. If no, then you know who you are.

 

[Robert]

It is not only a few. I believe the percentage is significant.

Well I am pretty old and have never met one.

Tell us what your Benevolent Patriarchy looks like. The government, the courts, women’s right including reproductive rights.

 

[sweep_shot]

So hang on a minute. In Patriarchy, if a Man abuses woman, its not Patriarchy's fault? You are a confused person.

Just tell me this. Do you accept if a woman is the head of a household or a nation? If you say yes, then you and I hold the same opinion. If no, then you know who you are.

If a taxi driver cheats a customer, are you going to blame the whole taxi company?

A man is responsible for his own action. Do not blame the system.

Topic is whether a man being the head is a bad thing (i.e. patriarchy). I do not think it is a bad thing by default.

Please see this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_scientists_in_the_20th_century.

The link above proves it is possible for a woman to succeed in every environment. All she need are willpower, good work ethic, good attitude, and diplomacy.

 

[sweep_shot]

Well I am pretty old and have never met one.

Tell us what your Benevolent Patriarchy looks like. The government, the courts, women’s right including reproductive rights.

I personally want to implement what is in Quran and Sunnah. But, if people don't want that, I guess we can perhaps go with these:

=========================
Reproductive rights - I do not believe in "my body, my rights". I believe woman shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion after 120 days, unless it is a medical emergency. Also, abortion without a valid reason should be outlawed.

========================
Courts - Wife shouldn't get half of husband's wealth if divorce happens. Wife should keep his wealth and husband should keep his.

I would ban #MeToo movement. There is no need for that. It is dramatic and disrupts societal harmony.

If anyone does something like what Amber Heard did, she should face imprisonment of 20-25 years (including mandatory light labor to cover her imprisonment costs).

=======================

Government - I guess females can be elected provided they are qualified. There should be no gender quota or any other "representation" nonsense.

 

[Robert]

I personally want to implement what is in Quran and Sunnah. But, if people don't want that, I guess we can perhaps go with these:

=========================
Reproductive rights - I do not believe in "my body, my rights". I believe woman shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion after 120 days, unless it is a medical emergency. Also, abortion without a valid reason should be outlawed.

========================
Courts - Wife shouldn't get half of husband's wealth if divorce happens. Wife should keep his wealth and husband should keep his.

I would ban #MeToo movement. There is no need for that. It is dramatic and disrupts societal harmony.

If anyone does something like what Amber Heard did, she should face imprisonment of 20-25 years (including mandatory light labor to cover her imprisonment costs).

=======================

Government - I guess females can be elected provided they are qualified. There should be no gender quota or any other "representation" nonsense.

This is all what you want to ban.

What do you want to keep?

 

[Technics 1210]

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION]

Brother, I think you should stop feeding liberalism.

Let liberals define what a man is, and what a woman is, then talk about Patriarchy, because right now, liberals don't know where they stand for - they are all over the place like a scatter gun, the plight of their intellectually bankrupt ideology.

Sit back and watch them struggle juggle genderism with Patriarchy. Bring out the popcorn.

 

[sweep_shot]

This is all what you want to ban.

What do you want to keep?

Women can vote, drive, work, study, go outside, play sports, and exercise. I think that's reasonable.

 

[sweep_shot]

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION]

Brother, I think you should stop feeding liberalism.

Let liberals define what a man is, and what a woman is, then talk about Patriarchy, because right now, liberals don't know where they stand for - they are all over the place like a scatter gun, the plight of their intellectually bankrupt ideology.

Sit back and watch them struggle juggle genderism with Patriarchy. Bring out the popcorn.

LOL. Yup.

There's nothing progressive about modern day liberalism. It is filled with pseudoscience and pretentiousness. It is out of touch with reality and is highly unscientific.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So hang on a minute. In Patriarchy, if a Man abuses woman, its not Patriarchy's fault? You are a confused person.

Just tell me this. Do you accept if a woman is the head of a household or a nation? If you say yes, then you and I hold the same opinion. If no, then you know who you are.

Right now, if the choice is between a woman and Hindu with a wife who hides all her assets in India, I would vote for Truss.

 

[Robert]

Women can vote, drive, work, study, go outside, play sports, and exercise. I think that's reasonable.

Those all read as feminist ideas to me.

Do women compete on equal terms with men for the same jobs, including Head of State?

Do they get equal pay for equal work?

Do they get justice if they are raped?

 

[dildilpak]

Those all read as feminist ideas to me.

Do women compete on equal terms with men for the same jobs, including Head of State?

Do they get equal pay for equal work?

Do they get justice if they are raped?

If i can add one more to this -

Do they have marriage/ reproductive choices?

 

[sweep_shot]

If i can add one more to this -

Do they have marriage/ reproductive choices?

Those all read as feminist ideas to me.

Do women compete on equal terms with men for the same jobs, including Head of State?

Do they get equal pay for equal work?

Do they get justice if they are raped?

Do women compete on equal terms with men for the same jobs, including Head of State?

Define "equal terms". Whoever is qualified should get the job. There should be no "representation" quota.

Do they get equal pay for equal work?

Equal pay is not reasonable always. For example, women's cricket or women's sport tend to generate less revenues/crowds than men and thus they don't deserve equal pay.

I guess pay should be based on results. Equality shouldn't be in the picture.

Do they get justice if they are raped?

Of course! If there evidences that she has been raped, she should receive justice. But, if the woman turns out to be lying (i.e. Amber Heard), she should also receive significant punishment.

Do they have marriage/ reproductive choices?

See post #372.

 

[Robert]

Do women compete on equal terms with men for the same jobs, including Head of State?

Define "equal terms". Whoever is qualified should get the job. There should be no "representation" quota.

Do they get equal pay for equal work?

Equal pay is not reasonable always. For example, women's cricket or women's sport tend to generate less revenues/crowds than men and thus they don't deserve equal pay.

I guess pay should be based on results. Equality shouldn't be in the picture.

Do they get justice if they are raped?

Of course! If there evidences that she has been raped, she should receive justice. But, if the woman turns out to be lying (i.e. Amber Heard), she should also receive significant punishment.

Do they have marriage/ reproductive choices?

See post #372.

If you accept that women should get equal pay for equal work, you are not for patriarchy.

So you think rape victims should get justice, but they should be banned for campaigning for justice because that damages social cohesion. Which is it?

 

[sweep_shot]

If you accept that women should get equal pay for equal work, you are not for patriarchy.

So you think rape victims should get justice, but they should be banned for campaigning for justice because that damages social cohesion. Which is it?

I said pay should be based on results. If results are equal, pay can be equal. Otherwise, it shouldn't be equal.

I believe patriarchy (if done correctly) is not a threat to women. Women can still succeed. There were many women in the past who succeeded despite patriarchies.

I believe rape victim should get justice. However, false report should result in prosecution. Women should face prosecutions for lying and framing innocent men.

I believe there is no need for #MeToo movement. It is a pretentious scam. Woman can get justice without this movement. This movement is more about dirty politics than actual women's affair.

 

[Robert]

I believe there is no need for #MeToo movement. It is a pretentious scam. Woman can get justice without this movement. This movement is more about dirty politics than actual women's affair.

It’s because powerful men in Hollywood got away with serial rape and abuse for decades.

No, they did not get justice. It is very, very hard for women to get justice for rape. Hence the movement. They had to organise to force the patriarchy to change. It will never be benevolent to women, because the beneficiaries of it (men) don’t want it to change (like you).

 

[Champ_Pal]

If a taxi driver cheats a customer, are you going to blame the whole taxi company?

A man is responsible for his own action. Do not blame the system.

Topic is whether a man being the head is a bad thing (i.e. patriarchy). I do not think it is a bad thing by default.

Please see this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_scientists_in_the_20th_century.

The link above proves it is possible for a woman to succeed in every environment. All she need are willpower, good work ethic, good attitude, and diplomacy.

You are just going in circles. You want man to lead all the times (Patriarchy) and women being subservient to the man and obey his orders. That is a terrible injustice to women.

When I put you on spot, you seem to kind of agree with me in saying that women can succeed too as a leader. Then you say Patriarchy is a good thing.

Just say that you believe men are superior to women in every way and they should always be in control of the family and state and get it over with.

 

[sweep_shot]

You are just going in circles. You want man to lead all the times (Patriarchy) and women being subservient to the man and obey his orders. That is a terrible injustice to women.

When I put you on spot, you seem to kind of agree with me in saying that women can succeed too as a leader. Then you say Patriarchy is a good thing.

Just say that you believe men are superior to women in every way and they should always be in control of the family and state and get it over with.

We are going in circles because you keep on asking same questions.

Let me repeat myself one more time. A woman is not automatically oppressed if a man is in charge. If woman is oppressed, it is the fault of that man and not patriarchy itself.

 

[sweep_shot]

It’s because powerful men in Hollywood got away with serial rape and abuse for decades.

No, they did not get justice. It is very, very hard for women to get justice for rape. Hence the movement. They had to organise to force the patriarchy to change. It will never be benevolent to women, because the beneficiaries of it (men) don’t want it to change (like you).

Just because a few powerful men got away doesn't mean all men should have to deal with #MeToo nonsense.

It is possible for women to get justice without #MeToo movement. Bad women can use this movement to damage innocent men; so, this should be outlawed/shunned/condemned.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Just because a few powerful men got away doesn't mean all men should have to deal with #MeToo nonsense.

It is possible for women to get justice without #MeToo movement. Bad women can use this movement to damage innocent men; so, this should be outlawed/shunned/condemned.

I don't agree with Me Too movement. But the Men abusing their power should be exposed for the atrocities they committed by treating women as objects of sexual desire and nothing else. That again stems from Patriarchy.

 

[sweep_shot]

I don't agree with Me Too movement. But the Men abusing their power should be exposed for the atrocities they committed by treating women as objects of sexual desire and nothing else. That again stems from Patriarchy.

I agree that those men should be punished. But, that doesn't stem from patriarchy. Not at all.

Let's revisit definition of patriarchy one more time:

"A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line."

If a male is the head, it is not automatically a bad thing.

 

[Robert]

I agree that those men should be punished. But, that doesn't stem from patriarchy. Not at all.

That's exactly where it stems from.

You think 90% of rapes would go unpunished if women were treated the same as men under the judicial system? If God was thought to be female, if Her priesthood were female? Women would be venerated, not treated as objects.

 

[sweep_shot]

That's exactly where it stems from.

You think 90% of rapes would go unpunished if women were treated the same as men under the judicial system?

Judicial system treats women better than men in western countries. I think western women shouldn't complain about anything when it comes to judiciary system.

 

[Robert]

Judicial system treats women better than men in western countries. I think western women shouldn't complain about anything when it comes to judiciary system.

Then you should talk to women.

It is extremely difficult to prove rape in court. The accused's lawyer will beat up the women verbally, making her look like a prostitute in terms of her dress and state of intoxication. I know many women who have been raped and none of them ever saw the rapist charged, let alone convicted.

 

[sweep_shot]

Then you should talk to women.

It is extremely difficult to prove rape in court. The accused's lawyer will beat up the women verbally, making her look like a prostitute in terms of her dress and state of intoxication. I know many women who have been raped and none of them ever saw the rapist charged, let alone convicted.

Many things are difficult to prove. Not just rape. I don't know why you want women to get preferential treatment.

Also, if the lady was wearing a questionable dress and was intoxicated, it is logical for the lawyer to point it out. After all, lawyer wants to find any evidence to win the case.

 

[sweep_shot]

Then you should talk to women.

It is extremely difficult to prove rape in court. The accused's lawyer will beat up the women verbally, making her look like a prostitute in terms of her dress and state of intoxication. I know many women who have been raped and none of them ever saw the rapist charged, let alone convicted.

Do not get me wrong.

I want rapists to get caught and be punished.

But, #MeToo movement is not the solution. It can be abused by bad women.

 

[Robert]

Do not get me wrong.

I want rapists to get caught and be punished.

But, #MeToo movement is not the solution. It can be abused by bad women.

I think you just don't want this nasty stuff talked about. You're comfortable and don't like the boat rocked, like those white people who say there wouldn't be any racism if black people didn't draw attention to it.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Extremely patriarchal societies tend to be very regressive and do as much damage to young boys as they do to women.

However, we are moving towards an era when the role of the father/husband is very much diminished and this is probably not for the best imo.

 

[Junaids]

Many things are difficult to prove. Not just rape. I don't know why you want women to get preferential treatment.

Also, if the lady was wearing a questionable dress and was intoxicated, it is logical for the lawyer to point it out. After all, lawyer wants to find any evidence to win the case.

I don't see what EITHER "wearing a questionable dress" OR "being intoxicated" has to do with a rape case. If I were the prosecutor I would destroy any defence lawyer trying to argue either point.

Rape is sexual intercourse in which the perpetrator did not have the active, informed consent of the victim.

Wearing a mini-dress is not consent to sex at all, let alone with a specific person. It is the wearing of a type of clothing. It has no relevance to a rape case at all.

Neither does intoxication. There is an onus on both parties to be clear that consent exists, both to intercourse in general with the person and specifically to intercourse at that time. But it has to be informed consent.

In essence, to give consent to intercourse with a person for the first time you need to be sober. If a person has sex with you for the first time ever while you are intoxicated, they clearly did not have your informed consent and are putting themselves at risk of being accused of rape.

We actually have great difficulty with this in psychiatry. The younger generation of educated people gets this, and generally tries to work within it, and of course if both parties actively meet on Tinder it is a form of communicated consent. But I work with lots of adult women who are traumatised, often decades later, by rapes which took place when they intended to get drunk on a girl's night out and a sexual predator targeted them while they were vulnerable. These women often have symptoms of PTSD similar to western Asian women who have been pressured into forced marriages with much older or less sophisticated men from the subcontinent whom they don't want sex with.

But neither a revealing dress nor intoxication are defences against rape. Quite the opposite: if a man who has never met a woman has sex with her for the first time when he has just met her while she was intoxicated, he has almost no defence against a charge of rape. He knew she could not give informed consent to sex, yet he did it anyway. He is a rapist.

 

[Junaids]

if the woman turns out to be lying (i.e. Amber Heard)

.

I would caution you to be very careful with your defamatory posts about Amber Heard, because you appear not to have understood either the proceedings of the court case or the verdict.

Firstly, there have been TWO trials on this matter.

The British trial found that Depp assaulted Heard on multiple occasions, mainly while under the influence of illegal drugs. The Judge found that "the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard".

The American trial was not a trial as to whether those assaults took place. It found that BOTH Depp and Heard had defamed one another, with BOTH Heard and Depp to be paid damages.

There is no universe in which the American verdict wipes out the British verdict.

Basically BOTH trials found that Depp assaulted Heard on multiple occasions. But the American trial also found that Heard's op-ed in the Washington Poost was defamatory, but largely because she had no inherent legal right to litigate their abusive relationship in the media.

But if you think that Depp was somehow cleared, he wasn't. He was exposed as a drug addict who is violent at times when intoxicated in BOTH trials. It's just that Heard had to pay large damages for the damage to his reputation and career caused by her publicising his abusive behaviour in a newspaper editorial which was unecessary.

 

[Junaids]

We are going in circles because you keep on asking same questions.

Let me repeat myself one more time. A woman is not automatically oppressed if a man is in charge. If woman is oppressed, it is the fault of that man and not patriarchy itself.

And now we have finally made some progress.

You argue for a patriarchal system, but in this post you have acknowledged that if a woman is oppressed it is the fault of that man.

So you are acknowledging that some men will be benevolent patriarchs, and others will be bad patriarchs.

So you have inadvertently accepted that any patriarchal system requires the individual patriarchs to be competent and qualified.

I don't agree with the idea of patriarchy at all, but I agree with you that any patriarch would have to first demonstrate that he was a fit and proper person who was suitable for that role.

The problem is, by your posts in this thread you have demonstrated that you personally would fail that test - you clearly are neither competent nor qualified to be a patriarch exerting control over any woman.

I am not saying that as a personal insult - to be honest I don't want to be found fit to control other people's lives myself.

The problem is that in this thread you have demonstrated that you would make appalling choices if you held the role of patriarch over a woman's life.

You live in Canada, where women are protected from rape by law - no need for four witnesses, and being scantily dressed or intoxicated does not give a man a pretext to rape a woman. Yet you want to impose pointless prohibitions upon women under your erstwhile control.

So already your prohibitions relating to modesty and intoxication are redundant, unnecessary, oppressive and punitive.

Secondly, your factually incorrect comments on the outcomes of the Depp v Heard legal cases strongly suggest that you cannot accurately and correctly process information in the language of the country in which you live.

Given that you have failed to demonstrate the skills and aptitude required to demonstrate that you are competent to occupy a patriarchal role, there are two options left.

Firstly, you could simply allow the women over whom you seek to assert control make their own decisions, as the evidence suggests that they would be better at it than you would be.

Secondly, there may need to be some scrutiny as to whether you need someone - male or female - to act as your guardian, someone who can better process information in English or French and who can make decisions based on the real prevailing circumstances where you live.

 

[sweep_shot]

I would caution you to be very careful with your defamatory posts about Amber Heard, because you appear not to have understood either the proceedings of the court case or the verdict.

Firstly, there have been TWO trials on this matter.

The British trial found that Depp assaulted Heard on multiple occasions, mainly while under the influence of illegal drugs. The Judge found that "the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard".

The American trial was not a trial as to whether those assaults took place. It found that BOTH Depp and Heard had defamed one another, with BOTH Heard and Depp to be paid damages.

There is no universe in which the American verdict wipes out the British verdict.

Basically BOTH trials found that Depp assaulted Heard on multiple occasions. But the American trial also found that Heard's op-ed in the Washington Poost was defamatory, but largely because she had no inherent legal right to litigate their abusive relationship in the media.

But if you think that Depp was somehow cleared, he wasn't. He was exposed as a drug addict who is violent at times when intoxicated in BOTH trials. It's just that Heard had to pay large damages for the damage to his reputation and career caused by her publicising his abusive behaviour in a newspaper editorial which was unecessary.

Amber Heard was caught lying. This is what people online think also. Looks like you didn't watch the trial and just got your information from feminist websites.

 

[sweep_shot]

I don't see what EITHER "wearing a questionable dress" OR "being intoxicated" has to do with a rape case. If I were the prosecutor I would destroy any defence lawyer trying to argue either point.

Rape is sexual intercourse in which the perpetrator did not have the active, informed consent of the victim.

Wearing a mini-dress is not consent to sex at all, let alone with a specific person. It is the wearing of a type of clothing. It has no relevance to a rape case at all.

Neither does intoxication. There is an onus on both parties to be clear that consent exists, both to intercourse in general with the person and specifically to intercourse at that time. But it has to be informed consent.

In essence, to give consent to intercourse with a person for the first time you need to be sober. If a person has sex with you for the first time ever while you are intoxicated, they clearly did not have your informed consent and are putting themselves at risk of being accused of rape.

We actually have great difficulty with this in psychiatry. The younger generation of educated people gets this, and generally tries to work within it, and of course if both parties actively meet on Tinder it is a form of communicated consent. But I work with lots of adult women who are traumatised, often decades later, by rapes which took place when they intended to get drunk on a girl's night out and a sexual predator targeted them while they were vulnerable. These women often have symptoms of PTSD similar to western Asian women who have been pressured into forced marriages with much older or less sophisticated men from the subcontinent whom they don't want sex with.

But neither a revealing dress nor intoxication are defences against rape. Quite the opposite: if a man who has never met a woman has sex with her for the first time when he has just met her while she was intoxicated, he has almost no defence against a charge of rape. He knew she could not give informed consent to sex, yet he did it anyway. He is a rapist.

If you go inside a lion's cage full of adult lions and you try to provoke them, what do you think will happen?

Similarly, woman should use her brain and not put her in a situation where she can get harmed.

The problem is many modern day western women have lack of maturity. A lot of them do not know how to conduct themselves. Just my observation.