Victimology

Victimhood

Victimology– or the study of crime from the unique perspective of the victim. It’s an interesting thing, really. It would seem to fit under the broader scope of sociology, but being as how it relates to criminal justice, it actually falls under the broader category of study known as criminology.

The one thing one learns when studying victimology is the impact that crime actually has on the victim, which leads to the idea that the law should put focus onto the victim, as opposed to solely on the prosecution and punishment of the perpetrator, as if the law and society owes something special to the victim or has a duty or obligation to the victims of crime.

On the flipside, the study of victimology also showcases why some people become victims. Without a doubt, it’s not right to put the blame solely on the victim when the blame should rest on the one who has actually done the wrong. Just because somebody is at the wrong place at the wrong time or is acting without caution doesn’t give anybody the right to commit a wrong-doing against them. However, the reality of life is that most people who become victims of crime become victims because they put themselves in a situation that exposes them to criminal acts, or they associate with others who themselves are criminals. This is borne out by the evidence. While there are some things that are out of our control, we all have the power to control our own destiny.

It could be said that the rise in victimology as an actual scientific field of study gave rise to the idea that some people, or groups of people, are “victims” of society and deserving of some special status or compensation or recognition by the government as such. This could certainly be said to be the case of the women’s movement that brought us new legislation to change the definitions of what constitutes violence and rape. One wonders how the female half of the human race (or the human race at all) has survived for millennia when before feminist domestic violence and rape legislation we were at the mercy of these misogynist beasts society likes to call men. Does it make sense that the stronger half of the species (males) would be programmed to want to harm the weaker half of the species (women)- the half of the species that is infinitely more valuable to the very survival of humanity?

If you look at the mission statements and goals of these organizations that offer help and services or run shelters for abused women, you’ll notice that it’s not really about protecting women from violence or rape, but rather about challenging the idea that men have any right to control or power over women. Go to any of their websites, and this idea is clearly stated quite boldly. Even all the way up to the United Nations, the goal is actually “gender equality” and “the empowerment of women.” In other words, at the heart of it all is stripping men of their power to govern society and family life and have any say in the well-being or sexuality of their women. The real goal isn’t even about protecting women, but furthering political aims. It’s about disempowering men and dismantling patriarchy.

But men don’t really like to be knocked out of their place of power. Yes, feminists, this is true. Their roles are changing and they don’t like it. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Men need to feel that they can protect and provide. Without that role, then what role do they really have? Men need to feel strong and powerful, it’s how they’re made. The stronger women get and the more “empowered” women become, the more hostile men and men’s organizations become against women. Men then start to wage war against and fight back against their own women- whom they should be protecting. Emotional/psychological abuse, utilizing of the family court systems, and even outright acts of violence and aggression are all methods utilized to maintain power and control and keep women “in their place.” This creates the cycle of hate and victimology, strengthening the feminist cause. Feminists and women’s rights organizations and their political allies can then use men’s groups as examples of why extra legislation is needed to protect women from male violence. The more powerful women are, the less men like it. Just look at places such as India, which is purported to have the strongest men’s rights movement in the entire world. Yet I’ve noticed feminism is pushing hard over there. I can’t research anything without getting constant sources from India. Am I the only one?

The Realities of Life

Consider this scenario. A woman walks into a place alone. Let’s say she’s walking into a place where a party is going on and people are drinking. Alone she’s fair game for any male that has evil intentions on his mind. He has nothing stopping him from using any trick on her or just outright grabbing her. She’s pretty much fair game, no matter how much she believes in women’s empowerment.

Now consider the opposite scenario: A woman walks into the same place, but this time with a man who’s arm she’s securely holding on to. The other men might still have evil thoughts running through their heads, but this time there’s a significant barricade in their way- the presence of the other man. In order to get to the woman, the man that the woman is with must first be disempowered. He must be removed from his position of power and influence over the woman.

Of course, this has happened countless times throughout history. A woman is with a man (her husband, boyfriend, male relative), yet perhaps the man is overtaken by a group of guys who incapacitate him, leaving the men free rape and harm the woman. Whether on a personal level or for a society as a whole, to do harm to the nation or its women you must first disempower their men.

Of course, the feminist will point out that men do indeed sometimes harm the women they are supposed to be protecting, and this is true. But it is still the best protection that can be offered up to women- that of a husband, father, brother or male relative to protect her. Looking at the design of nature, there’s no real question that men were designed to be able to protect and provide. So why, then, does it make logical sense to disempower men?

A woman is least likely to be harmed by her husband, but it isn’t really about that, is it? Laws have been changed to re-invent the very definition of violence. Violence is now defined as anything a man might do in order to control a woman. The reality is that there have always been laws against a man beating his wife and rape used to be punished much more severely whenever women were expected to guard their sexuality.

Not Every Man

You guard the things that are most valuable to you, and when the most valuable of items is stolen or damaged, the punishment for the harm/theft of those items is expected to come quickly and severely. The feminist position on rape is that sex happens when the woman says it does- that she and she alone has the right to have sex when she pleases, become a mother when she pleases and express herself sexually in the way that she and she alone sees fit. Society and men have no say in it. This renders the value of female sexuality valueless, as it is up to the individual to set the price for it, meaning female sexuality in general is not seen as something of upmost value to be protected by the fullest extent of the law and guarded. A man taking a woman’s sexuality or having sex with her is only in the wrong if the woman does not consent to it at the moment, not because he is in a special position and relationship with the woman where he- and he alone- is allowed access to her sexuality.

Coming back full circle to the idea of victimology, no, blaming the victim is never “right” or “just” but in the area of rape and domestic violence there has to be some level of double standards. In order for rape to be taken seriously, girls must be taught from a young age to guard their sexuality as if it was truly valuable and of great worth. There must be some responsibility placed upon a woman and that of the men who are supposed to be acting as her guardians (who’s responsibility, power and authority was the aim of feminism to destroy) to guard her sexuality. If rape is to be taken seriously, it cannot be left solely to the discretion of the individual woman to set her own price on what the value of her sexuality is, but rather there must be some societal-wide standard that says that female sexuality does have intrinsic worth and value and that the allowing of any man to access her sexuality who does not have the right to be accessing it (ie., her husband) is either a crime (rape) to be punished by the fullest extent of the law or something to be frowned upon by society (promiscuous sex or a woman willingly allowing a man below the status of husband to have access to her sexuality) with stigma attached to it. Because if it’s valuable, it must carry a heavy price tag. If it’s not valuable, then who even cares about it? Don’t we all have better things to do than worry about meaningless things?

Subsequently, the same must be true for acts of violence against women. As should be the case with a woman’s sexuality, there needs to be a distinction made between the men who have a right to control a woman- and the men that don’t. Specifically, if the man is not her husband (or close male relative who is responsible for her), the man has no right to control her- excepting in the cases that the man is an officer of the law carrying out his legitimate duties to uphold the law. If a man is not a woman’s husband (or father), then there should be punishment for him trying to impose his will in any way on her.

In some cases in our world today men have been accused of “domestic violence” just for grabbing their wives by the arm too hard (because it’s a sign he’s trying to control her). I read a case a couple of weeks ago where the wife herself couldn’t even get the law to back down on the issue. (I can’t verify the source, however, because I don’t remember where I read it. I considered it unimportant at the time and was busy with something else). If a man is truly harming his wife and causing her severe mental distress or harming her physically, then the larger society needs to step in to stop or punish the man. In some cases, separation might be necessary, but feminist crafted domestic violence legislation should not be.

If it is simply a man attempting to control his wife, unless he crosses the line, then the issue should be left alone. Each case of claims of domestic violence (if the man and woman are married) should be decided on a case by case basis by of judge of whether or not a criminal act of violence has been committed, plain and simple. And greater consideration should be given to the husband’s testimony while still ensuring that a woman (or child) is not truly in any physical danger.

But You’re Not Special, Sweetie

 

“Patriarchal institutions are a two-way street, and if men ever supposed they had the power to control the lives of their womenfolk, they were, in so thinking, obliged to support and protect them.” [1]

 

On the flipside of this argument are MRAs who do not see women, nor their sexuality, as valuable. Instead, MRAs see women as expendable sex objects and are only concerned with their own supposed “rights” without any regard for the welfare of the weaker sex or the true safeguarding of the nation’s family. Even when they supposedly give consideration to the children, they are really only concerned with their own “rights,” with no regard to true inalienable duties they have to women, children and society. They see no reason why they should protect women or be responsible to provide for them. They fuel the hatred that feminists feel towards men and keep the cycle going.

But if men ever suppose they should be in charge of anything, or that they should control women and have the right to a “virtuous” woman or the stability of an intact family where their paternity is assured and their position as father is secured, then they should also assume that they have duties associated with such a position of power. After all, a leader’s duty is not to himself, but to his people. A ruler in charge of a nation has the responsibility to see that his people’s needs are met and that they are safe and cared for. The position of a man within the family should be no different. You can’t have it both ways.

Men cannot expect easy availability to “sluts” and yet have a nation without widespread illegitimacy or “false rape charges.” Men cannot expect to be “in charge” without having the responsibility to support women. Nor can men take on female duties (childcare, staying home while the wife works) without expecting that they will be made fun of in the media and their status degraded in the eyes of society.

The laws of Rome gave fathers power because fathers had the responsibility to provide the support, as was the way in generations past in America and the rest of the Western world. As with Rome, a man could even have to answer for his wife’s misdeeds, so he had certain discretion in controlling her and setting punishment.

A Better Way?

Men have a duty. Women have a duty, even if the concept of duty to anyone but oneself is an alien idea in the modern society. Society shouldn’t seek to disempower men, but rather disempower women. The greatest power of a woman is the influence she has over her family. The responsibility should largely rest with men to protect their wives and daughters and for women to submit to such control.

Is there really any better way? If so, society has yet to find it.