Why do feminists think equality means undermining a fundamental concept of justice and human rights for men?

Question

Feminists have basically overturned the right of presumption of innocence in courts, but only for men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

In the US, this follows from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments.

As a basic human right it is included in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

Feminists have long lobbied for men to have to PROVE what steps they took to ensure consent prior to intercourse with a woman.

In other words, he has to prove he is innocent. She has to prove nothing under any circumstances.

Seeing as how the studies by the Airforce and a peer reviewed public journal showing 40-60% of rape accusations are false couldn't be refuted logically by feminists here, this becomes all the more relevant.

*sigh*

Sources/Cluebat:

http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2006/03/15/a_little_still_she_strove_and_much_repen/

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/special-training-for-sex-assault-judges/2006/10/07/1159641572632.html

The reforms are contained in a report listing 70 recommendations submitted to the NSW Government last year by a sexual assault taskforce in a bid to boost conviction rates and reduce victim trauma.

new consent laws and "objective fault" laws, which will require the accused to detail the steps taken to ensure consent was given.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=420937&in_page_id=1770


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4780992.stm

With all these asking for sources, one must really ask if any of the feminists on here actually know what they are talking about. So far I'm unimpressed. It seems like all you have is your "ideology" unbacked by facts, logic or knowledge of the issues of any kind.

Answer 1

is one reason why i could never call myself a Feminist .. a humanist YES ... equal rights for all and not obtained by stamping over the rights of others

Answer 2

I would say yes but then if that's the case I'd say defining yourself as an egalitarian would be a more prudent choice since egalitarians believe in equality for all people. Feminism, while in my opinion is mostly noble, is usually a group of women who seek to better the lives of women. That doesn't necessarily mean men's rights aren't important but the rights of women concern them first and foremost because they are women. But then again there are MANY different feminist ideologies so you can't really point down what specific things a feminist believes unless you speak with them.

Answer 3

An accused rapist does have the presumption of innocence. The trial is conducted to take testimony from the victim (and any witnesses) to determine if a crime took place.

Granted, in a "he said/she said" scenario, the credibility of the accuser is key. This is why Western jurisprudence recognizes the right of the accused to face his or her accuser and ask questions in a court of law.

I'm wondering what your "peer reviewed public journal" was that said 40%. (I'm guessing it's E.J. Kanin.) I can cite you studies that say 2-6% are false.

In the Air Force study, they included "withdrawal of charges" in the "false" category, which would definitely skew the percentages, wouldn't you say?

And a former criminal investigator for the AFOSI puts the percentage at closer to 20%. (you could email him at [e-mail])

And no matter what "steps" a man may have taken to "ensure consent," if at any time that consent is removed, it's rape.

Answer 4

Once again: Feminism simple means equal rights...so that would include things like equal pay for equal work, educational advantages, etc etc.......Unfortunately there are people that think it has something to do with putting down men..it does not. And Betty Friedan, the founder of the modern feminist movement was very adamant about that. It truly is helpful to men as well since when women are able to receive their fair due, they will be and are much happier.
Now there may be women calling themselves feminists that also hate men....but that is not a part of the legitimate movement. And also some men may think it has to do with demeaning them but it never does. There are extremists in every movement. Just because one extremist says something, don't think it defines the whole movement. That would be like saying because Hitler was a christian, all his believes define Christianity...wrong!

Answer 5

"Couldn't be refuted logically"? You couldn't PROVE it logically (or otherwise). You made the statement, the burden of proof lies with you. "We" don't have to "prove" anything when your lack of verifiable, scientifically rigorous data does it neatly for "us." And, yet again, one must ask that you support your statement about feminists "lobbying" for men to prove prior consent...I've never heard of this. And, of course, during the trial, the accuser must prove guilt, what makes you think otherwise?

EDIT--Very good. Your source is biased, but it does provide an excerpt of the actual law. That's better. However, did you READ the law? The accused must provide evidence that consent was given only in the presence of "certain" circumstances during the alleged act, to demonstrate he "reasonably" believed consent was give. Did you read those "circumstances?" The lack of ability to GIVE consent on the part of the complainant is substantial PROOF that consent was NOT given. Thus, evidence has been given to show guilt, (the complainant was incapacitated, coerced with threats of violence/harm, etc.) and the defendant must provide evidence of reasonable doubt. That is no different than the defense establishing an alibi, etc. to "show" reasonable doubt. The law does not state that, ipso facto, defendants must prove consent, only in cases where it has ALREADY been proved in the proceedings that consent COULD NOT have been given because of incapacitation, disability, coercion, etc. Your website turns logic on it's head to push it's ideological agenda, but any reasonably intelligent person who has some decent critical reading skills, and no ax to grind, would read this law for what it is...an attempt to do away with the "he said/she said" defense, when it has been PROVED that the complainant could not have GIVEN consent. The burden of proof still lies with complainant. Stop being led by others "opinions" and read the actual law for what it is. It is NOT what you are suggesting.
And "ideology" unbacked by logic, facts or knowledge of any kind?(LOL) Well, isn't THAT the pot calling the kettle black!

Answer 6

I assume you are American. You should consider that in that regard the old anglo saxong hundreds of years old court system might be at fault. Seriously a judge can rulle almost anything he wants to with all the contradictory laws. Its nice to skim some fast food chain for millions of dollars because you burned yourself with their coffee, its not so nice to be on the recieving end huh ?

Answer 7

i see you've never been raped yourself & couldn't prove it.
happens all the time, you think guys have to prove their innocence?!? try coming forward to accuse someone of rape, they make the victim prove their innocence before they even consider pressing charges.

Answer 8

Quote all the horsesh!t you want. I'm a feminist and I don't tread on anyone else's rights. Just because I can do something that doesn't mean you cannot. Life is not black and white. Time to use your brain, little boy.

Answer 9

They hate men obviously. Nobody who loved men would try to work against them in such a way.

Answer 10

Any situation at all where the burden of proof is placed on the accused is unacceptable. Feminists SHOULD be ashamed of themselves.