They all have the same agenda and that is female supremacy, belittling of males and the relentless hate mongering they so religiously follow as most of these society haters are lesbians, who consider males to be vermin and to be eradicated. They will plot, scheme and plan continuously while government subsidies keep rolling in and support their malfeasance, unabated. They will also ensure to change any laws applicable to men will be as harse and unrelenting as possible as we have already witnessed their meddling at Parliament House in Australia and also at Congress in America where that feminist assaulted a men's rights activist while he was filming..
Now we can add another country to the list and that is Singapore..
The Slutwalks are part of their agenda as the increase imaginary and fictional wrongdoings just to malign men and other members of society as well..
SlutWalk: Manufacturing Myths about ‘Myths’
SlutWalk is the latest, most visible offshoot of radical feminism. The cornerstones of SlutWalk’s ideology – victim blaming, rape culture, slut shaming – is extremely similar to that of radical feminism on sexual violence. SlutWalk Singapore is no exception. Currently, radical feminism so completely dominates discussions in the fields of women’s self-defence and sexual violence against women that it is extremely difficult to find objective, peer-reviewed case studies and academic papers. These are studies that seek to understand the subject matter, not ‘studies’ that push an agenda by perpetuating dogma.
Radical feminists claim that they are exposing myths about sexual violence. What they do not say is that they are conjuring myths about myths.
The myth of victim blaming
SlutWalk claims it stands against victim blaming. ‘Victim blaming’ is defined by claiming that a rape victim is entirely to blame for being raped, and/or that she deserved to be raped. This is abhorrent. This is also fiction.
Victim blaming, according to American self defence expert Marc MacYoung, originated in the United States in the 1960s and 70s. In that time period, American criminal defence lawyers successfully won acquittals or minimal sentences for clients accused of rape by attacking the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. Popular defence tactics included claiming that the victim deserved to be raped, and that she was to blame. Due to the work of advocates, such tactics are now effectively banned.
So what is victim blaming? It is a series of tactics employed by unscrupulous lawyers which are considered so abhorrent it has been banned. That problem has been solved. According to radical feminists, however, this is only the beginning. SlutWalk argues that victim blaming is not just limited to the courtroom, but that ‘we’ as a society blame the victim.
As proof, SlutWalk offers none.
By ‘proof’, I do not mean anecdotes or hypothetical examples or isolated incidents. I mean objective, peer-reviewed case studies published in reputable academic journals. I mean scholarly papers whose arguments and methods have been examined and found to be unbiased. Radical feminists offer plenty of the first, but nothing else.
Today, ‘victim blaming’ is used as a blanket condemnation of society, and to paint the radical feminists as having the moral high ground. There may be some people who will say a woman was asking to be raped or similar nonsense, but such attitudes are not held by the majority of society, and are condemned by society. SlutWalk is exaggerating the situation to push its political agenda.
SlutWalk Singapore claims that Section 157(d) of the Evidence Act is proof that victim blaming exists in Singapore. That law says that a man accused of rape may discredit a witness if he can prove that she is of ‘generally immoral behaviour’.
But this is not proof of victim blaming in Singapore. Section 157(d) was a law inherited from Victorian England – a culture that does not represent modern-day Singapore. SlutWalk provides no case studies showing how Section 157(d) was used, if at all, to acquit or to pass unfairly light sentences. In addition, as explained earlier, victim blaming was originally defined as a set of lawyer tactics, but the radical feminists insist it is a cultural phenomenon. The radical feminists are using evidence that satisfies the standards of proof for the courtroom-based definition of victim blaming to insist that it is sufficient to meet the standards of proof for a societal-based definition of victim blaming, even though the standards of proof to damn an entire culture is necessarily much higher than that needed for the judiciary within it.
So why do radical feminists continue to perpetuate the myth of victim blaming?
The answer lies in the courts.
The American justice system (and Singapore’s) is based on the adversarial model. In criminal cases, convictions are made and broken on evidence, which include testimonials drawn from a witness that describe her pre-assault behaviour. Testimonials can provide mitigating factors or clear the accused of guilt. The defence attorney’s goal during cross-examination is to draw out damaging testimonials from the prosecution’s witnesses to weaken the prosecution’s case.
Today, radical feminists perpetuate the myth of victim blaming so they can influence the courts even more than they already have. The radical feminists cry victim blaming to shut down examination of the prosecution’s witnesses – including the victims of sexual violence. This would make it easier to convict the defendant and hand down harsher sentences.
This tactic perverts the justice system. Criminal trials are not always black and white. The defendant is not always guilty, and the plaintiff not always a hapless victim. The point of examining the behaviour and histories of the defendant and the plaintiff is to establish what really happened.
Consider the following scenario. A college-age woman decides to have a one-night stand. She goes to a party and gets herself drunk. She latches on to the nearest guy and has sex with him. In the morning, she wakes up and regrets her actions, and promptly cries rape. This is not fiction.
Cross-examination will reveal that this is a false rape allegation. By screaming victim blaming and shutting down attempts to reveal the woman’s behaviour, a young man might be unjustly convicted of rape.
This runs contrary to the purpose of the courts. If a man must be sent to jail, and his reputation ruined forever with the label of ‘rapist’, there must be a rock-solid case against him. Anything less results in innocent men being locked away. In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reports a false rape allegation rate of 8% – the numbers differ from state to state. While this may seem insignificant, every wrongful conviction is a shattered life that could have been prevented. There is no reason to make it any easier to convict the innocent – but that is consequence of radical feminist ideology.
In addition to perverting justice, crying victim blaming shuts down examination of sexual assaults. This prevents people from drawing lessons from them and understanding how not to get attacked.
Consider this scenario. A group of young men decide to have fun. One of them calls a girl near midnight to meet him for supper. Instead of going himself, he sends one of his buddies to meet her. The girl meets the buddy, and follows him to the first man’s flat. The group engages in drinking games, even though the girl is underage. Much later, after everybody is drunk, the girl is sexually assaulted. Once more, this is not fiction: it occurred on 26 December 2010, and analysed here and here.
The girl set herself up to be attacked. She went out late at night to meet a group of men, only one of whom she knows. When she learns that he lied to her, she followed the friend anyway. Inside the flat, she chose to get drunk even though she was underage (17 years old at that time). At these three points, she could have walked away and gone home, and she would have been safe.
Lessons learned: Do not meet strangers late at night. Do not trust people who lie to you. Do not go to a private area late at night with strangers. Do not get drunk around strangers. While the girl did not deserve to be attacked, and she is not at fault for being attacked, had she observed these safety precautions she may not have been attacked. Incidents like this are the genesis of traditional self-defence advice: people examined what happened, and drew lessons from these incidents.
But radical feminists refuse to study pre-assault behaviours to understand sexual violence. Radical feminists argue that the female victim is entirely free of responsibility, the male accused are completely guilty of their deeds. SlutWalk is no exception.
Such thinking is an outright denial of responsibility for one’s deeds. By screaming victim blaming and not examining the victim’s behaviour, radical feminists are effectively refusing to analyse sexual violence. This means no lessons are learned.
Which means women are no safer.
