I suggest you all read THIS.
I know I keep telling you to go read things or watch things. It's good for you - keeps your brain active. I'll be patient while you read. Go on! I'll just go walk Stitch and be right back!
Now, okay... If someone hurt one of my animals... Once I got through killing them, resurrecting them, and killing them again, everyone would be calling for their heads on pikes. And this is as it should be. We live in an age that people recognize that animal cruelty is not okay. There are movements to make animal cruelty a felony in many states. Whether it's organizations or individual pieces like the little angel who rescued Jackson the cat, people work to save animals. Never once do they ask what the animal did to "deserve" what happened. Nor do they ask how it could possibly, in any way, shape, or form, be the animal's fault.
You know, I'd really like that same consideration if something happened to me. Not sure if I've made this clear enough, but I happen to be female. And I'm totally okay with that - to tell you the plain truth, I like it! I've got long hair to play with and, let's face it, fashion is always kinder to ladies than it is to gentlemen, aesthetically speaking. Case in point, and in light of my recent participation in a theater appreciation group project, I give you American fashion in the 1960s. MUCH kinder to the ladies - most of that stuff looks tolerable even today. What I don't like about being female is that, no matter what happens to me, it is on ME to prove how it wasn't my fault.
I am all for the bit in the Constitution of the United States that gives people the right to a fair trial and all that - we really need that. But I was unaware that "innocent until proven guilty" somehow translated to "guilty until proven innocent" when the situation involves violence against women... In theory, if something happens to me, not only do I have to prove that I was the victim of violence, but I have to prove I didn't deserve it! To me, that sounds... well, fucked up. If a man is threatened with violence and he gives up his wallet, he did what he was supposed to do. No one would say to him "Well, didn't you know better than to have that much cash on your person?" or "Well, why would you dress to suggest that you had money?"
Go and read a little bit of that article again.
Are you scared yet? If you are female, are you getting it through your head that your pet is more likely to get a conviction if it is a victim of violence than you are? I'm not even going to do the whole "This could be your mother/sister/girlfriend/what-have-you" thing. No, because men need to get it through their heads that women are more than "their" anybody! Guys, look around. There's fully half the population who probably couldn't get their attacker convicted because of their gender. Now look at your pet. I'm not saying people who abuse animals should be given any leeway at all - far from it. I'm just saying it's a little twisted that they're more likely to convict the same man of beating his dog than they are of beating his wife or girlfriend.
I don't normally do the whole "This - be outraged about this!" thing. However, looking at Stitch on the couch next to me got me to thinking. If someone hurt him, I would see them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If that wasn't good enough, I'd be assembling a posse. The only "justified" cause for hurting an animal is if it's harming someone, and most people get that. However, people seem awfully confused on when it's "justified" to act violently against a woman. You know what? I'm going with the same thing as before. It is only "justified" to use violence against another person if they are doing you bodily harm. Not their clothes, their state of intoxication, their refusal to date you, their refusal to consent to sex within a relationship or out of it... ONLY if someone is doing you bodily harm may you act with violence.
Can we just go with that?
Marigold, retreating to her couch fort, bidding everyone a decent Tuesday!
No comments:
Post a Comment