Kirbmarc wrote:A clarification: I'm obviously not defending any kind of colonial rule. They were all brutal (whether they were European or not) and all created and promoted human right abuses (the "civilizing mission" excuse of the Europeans was a pathetic excuse for exploitation, just like the "community of believers" excuse of the Ottoman Empire).
Also I'm not claiming that Christianity was better than Islam at dealing with the issue of rape. Both in Christianity and in Islam rape wasn't a crime against the victim, it was a crime against the victim's honor, namely their "respectability" as a woman who didn't engage in extramarital sex.
Claiming to have been rape was a way to excuse a woman from losing her honor by saying that she didn't consent to the extramarital sex, so her morality was still impeccable. Marriage after rape was considered a way to restore honor.
Female victims of rape were glorified if they took their lives after the act, to "cleanse" themselves of the "fate worse than death". If they survived they were actually vilified, and the shadow of a doubt could easily ruin their reputation (nobody wanted to buy "damaged goods").
The idea that rape isn't an offense against honor or against the institute of marriage but a crime against a person, which is heinous because of the physical and psychological pain it inflicts on the victims, not because it infringes their social honor, is a very recent one, which doesn't come from either Christianity or Islam but from the Enlightenment concept of human right, of representation through a legal system in which the accused and the accuser both have legal rights, plus decades of studies of psychotherapy.
The SocJus ideas about a "rape culture" are actually a regression from individual rights and responsibilities, they're an attempt to create a new kind of "shame culture" where it's men who have to defend their "honor" from accusations of sexually improper behavior done outside of the justice system by Internet vigilantes.
The SocJus is just as obsessed with "modesty" and "honor" as Islam or Christianity, as it is shown from the SocJus calls for informal censorship of "sexist" video games or advertising.
You might find this interesting: The Evolution of Pattern of Criminalizing the Unknown Crime of Rape in Global Scale
at the Penn State Law eLibrary
A Dissertation in Law By Sahar Jalili Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Juridical Science
With Supervision Professor Kit Kinports
(formatting issue is mine as centering does not appear to be a thing unless I use code tags?)
The very first citation is ....
1 Catherine Mackinnon, Feminism unmodified: discourses on life and law, 81, 83 (1987)
As may be suspected by now, all the usual suspects are assembled, example the 1 in 5 of all women are raped business. Despite the mackish acknowledgement at the start, overall the prose is pretty good for a feminist. I say this because many/most feminist papers, the ones I have read at rate, are usually muddled messes.
Many ancient laws were established to protect the male interest in female virginity and
fidelity.44 These laws did not protect all women; rather, their intent was to protect only those
women who were considered to be beneficial to the society, which was patriarchal and
prioritized male interests above all others.
Feminists are idiots. What man wants to raise children who are not his own? Oh wait, some guy like this I guess?
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/ ... jpg&w=1484
If you want to read more about this cuck (grade A, first class) see here: My wife and I are white evangelicals. Here’s why we chose to give birth to black triplets.
OK so it is a solid pair. The two of them are in this together. Or not. No way to tell if he has sex with his wife at all. Whatever.
Back to the paper:
Hammurabi’s Code is
evidence of the patriarchal belief that the criminal justice system must work only to preserve the
“purity” of women within society.
What is wrong with these people? It is very simple. A woman always knows it is her child. A man is not always so certain. These laws came about because men generally want to be assured that there is a good chance that the child they are providing for is actually their own.
The execution of the attacker was considered an appropriate
response because the rapist threatened a husband’s, or future husband’s, control and access over
his wife. By making the punishment so extreme, the Code supported the exclusive control of
women by their husbands.46 The Code, however, had a double standard for rape. If a married
woman were raped, she faced the same punishment (death) as her attacker, unless her husband
intervened to save her life.47
Ayup. The attacker was committing theft. So kill him. Possibly the wife was complicit and consensual and it became rape when they were caught. Who can tell? OK so we kill the wife too as a precaution. Oh the husband is such a cuck he wants to keep her anyway? OK. But you stuck with her now boy. And you going to provide for that child even if you change your mind because it is the spitting image of the rapist.
Some women are like that. How many? Dunno. The manosphere contends that it is all women. Or so many women that the ones who are not makes little to no difference at all.
In Italy there was a murder investigation that turned up multiple cases of children with misidentified 'fathers". A summry may be found here
Too bad I do not have a link to a really good article on the case because it went more deeply into the hidden 'relationships' including one man as I recall (perhaps imperfectly) where none of the four children were his.
On the other hand Razib Khan has been saying for years that undocumented paternity is not that common like this article The paternity myth: the rarity of cuckoldry
What are the real numbers? Zuck asserts that they’re more in the 1-5% range, with 3.7% being a high-bound figure for one study. This varies by culture and socioeconomic group, and the segment of the population being surveyed. Studies which rely on a data set consisting of men who have requested paternity tests are strongly sample biased toward those who have a reason to have suspicions.
So the Manosphere is wrong, and that theory is shot down in flames. But here I manage a comeback while effectively distracting from the fact that I was like wrong to note:
Thas because men did such a good job of killing women predisposed to infidelity that not too many were able to pass on that trait.
See? It makes sense. Man successfully domesticated women. That is why women give men no problems today. It is
science we have to thank for this.
Anyway, back to the paper. I have not finished reading it.
But I will.
Because even though this emerging feminist is filled to the brim with the usual verbiage about
man being the root of all evil
and colonialism and patriarchy and so on, it does appear to have some useful information amidst the usual blather.
(Ever notice that this business about man being the root of all evil, is just an inversion of the cross cultural idea that women are evil?)