Of course there'd need to be more than just the say so of the woman. The thing is, even just voicing it would get a woman nowhere where they had no voice whether they could back up their accusations or not. Okay, scientific procedures and testing are far more advanced now but to deny that rape and abuse were apparent when women had no recourse but to endure it is absurd...
There's also the fact that rape is something that can only be reduced to a certain extent, and it's not much.
Rape has been around since the Neanderthals. The whole knocking a woman out and dragging her into a cave?
That's probably not too far from the truth.
One can't really blame men based on that, however- they lacked the capacity for the type of morals we have.
The point is that in the beginning of relevant mankind, we were coming out of that and it took time for us to come to terms with our moral compass we've gained.
I can pretty much guarantee that rape wasn't seen as severe by either man or women in olden times. They were really hard times where women had stones about them; very different then this new age.
So insofar as rape couldn't be proven, it wasn't necessarily seen as next to near murder like it is today.
Muslims from what I understand, in their Shariah Law, kill anyone proven to have raped a women. Of course, it only applies to women who are betrothed to another; they of course have the right to rape their spouse.
It seems brutal, but this has been the case for much of society since the beginning, and there was never one martyr to have ever come forward with a relevant cause.
FYI, I happen to believe that anyone crying rape and found to be lying should receive a tough sentence as it not only does a disservice to the actual victims of such but it can also be devastating to the falsely accused. Is that a liberal idea?
I believe that to. Unfortunately, it will never happen because according to society, women are victims and we shan't be concerned for any justice of men!
Where are you getting this notion that 'most females' believe what you're suggesting? What I will say is that there's plenty of characteristics that both sexes share as oppose to the 'macho' idea of a man and the 'feminine' as woman as if they're polar opposite cliches.
'Macho' doesn't have anything to do with it. In reality, that sort of distracts from the real points.
Men and women think very differently, act differently, are raised differently, have different responsibilities at the core of their families, and that is where the rudiments lie-
the workplace is a not a fundamental thing; the roles before should determine the roles thereafter.
Yes, and pointing out that women having the vote and a voice is not the cause of injustice in court still stands.
The typical woman votes for whoever their husband votes for. That means that the main purpose, whether intended or not, serves best for independent women.
And what causes women to be independent rather then betrothed? There's a lot to take in- a big picture that all correlates together.
