wolfhnd wrote:The feminist argument that patriarchal social structure encourages rape while partially true misses the point that historically the punishment for rape has been very severe.
This is true. Sort of. Like so many sort of true things, it is nigh-meaningless without further clarification.
Rape of a properly dressed virgin known to be virtuous and behaving virtuously at the time of the offence was generally regarded as a heinous crime, and punished severely.
On the other hand, it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife until fairly recently - the marital rapes went entirely unpunished until very recently.
Even today (not to mention the good old days) a woman who goes out wearing a miniskirt and no underwear would not have claims of rape taken very seriously - even though there is no reason why this would should deserve less protection from rape as the aforementioned virtuous virgin.
Need I mention recent statements by some Islamic clerics to the effect that a cat is not to blame if it eats the meat that was left out?
Regardless of the motivation of the patriarchal society the claim that men are indifferent to the protection of woman against sexual predication is a bit of an overstatement.
Correct. But they can be very selective when it comes to who deserves such protection.
A prostitute deserves as much protection against rape as a hijab-wearing virgin. Many men who would call for testicles of the rapist of a virgin would also say 'meh' when it comes to rape of a prostitute.