This week (4/24-4/30) is Turn-off your TV week. I just learned about it from people who noticed that no one participates who watches TV anyway. I think I figured out why, there are no TV commercials telling us to turn-off the TV for a week. Only commercials telling us how vital this week's TV will be for my viewing pleasure (except the shows that are in rerun even though they never seem to have new episodes -- I'm looking at you Criminal Minds). Obviously, it didn't work on me because I know what the commercials this week are...
Speaking of turn-offs, we're learning about rape this week in criminal law. Well, let's just say that there is a reason why it is so drastically under reported. The process of proving rape is well, awful to the victim at best. The law is "getting better" though. Only two states still hold that a husband can never rape his wife. How modern. I don't know which states, but after I finish my finals I might remember to find out and mention it. Just because I am very irritated. (OH, and in the other 48 states, only 12 have completely abolished spousal immunity.) Trends shunning the old laws requiring resistance (physical and/or verbal) are softening. And "virtually every" state has enacted rape-shield laws that prevent inquiries into a victims past sexual history or reputation for "lack of chastity." Not that defense lawyers haven't try to say that they aren't constitutional laws, but they lose. I am angry and don't want to sit through a class discussion on it unless everyone realizes how damaging this process is to the victim and how wrong the old laws are. One final less "men are the bad guys" oriented comment, recent rape laws are gender-neutral showing that both men and women can be victims and aggressors. This is the right thing to do, especially now that incapacitation of the victim is also grounds for rape.
Ooof, I'm all in a fluster because I get so upset...
Okay, I also learned that feminists try to pass legislation in Minnesota and succeeded in passing legislation in Indiana declaring pornography illegal because it all subjugates women. Any thing that depicts sex, not just the stuff that actually shows women being subjugated, is banned. Well, the US Supreme Court said that's a violation of free speech. I agreed. I can't express why my visceral reaction to the argument about pornography just made me reject it, but it did. I just don't think that porn has that much influence that watching a movie where a woman is subservient to a man will cause all men to treat all women poorly because they're being shown a fantastic world where that happens. Like regular movies, TV shows, role expectation, and other things don't do that enough. Perhaps I am just upset at the focus and attention on porn and not the underlying societal expectations (which I admit are getting better, but in the 1970s when this legislative push was occurring was not as far along as it is).
Perhaps learning this stuff isn't good for me, but well, sometimes it's good to get the blood pumping out of irrational irritation at the "man." Especially if I'm going to be a lawyer and regularly encounter such things in the workplace. Yeah, the law profession is still a little behind the ball even though two woman have sat on the Supreme Court. Some judges may not "appreciate" a woman lawyer wearing a pantsuit in their courtroom. Bollox on them.
Some times when I have a groove going, I throw myself out of it. So long as I don't pull anything when I do it, the world's alright.
No comments:
Post a Comment