One of the biggest problems preventing a woman from divorcing a man to collect alimony and child support in the past were the laws that refused a woman the right to annul a marriage for no reason. The laws used to require a proof of misconduct, like abuse or infidelity to cash out. So feminists did the logical thing and got rid of the reasons and therefore the requirements of proof. Now we can cash out whenever we want.
Same problem with rape now. If we want to have a man sent to jail for rape, we have to do this patriarchy inspired "giving proof" thing, So there is a lot of argument about "fault in rape", why don't we just do away with requiring reasons and go by women's word? If she feels like she was raped, then she was. We can have a "no fault rape", where a reason for the women thinking she was raped is not required, thus doing away with the need for proof. That way the man is convicted regardless.
Beautiful and allowing women so much more freedoms and rights, don't you think?
2007-03-11
18:45:01
·
19 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Gender Studies