Men in Spain automatically go to prison if accused of domestic abuse. They are denied of demonstrating evidence, witnesses or testimonyWhen a female activist states that in one year the , you can see how feminism really works for equality.
The law was enacted in 2004. It is supposed to defend women from domestic violence by the means of stripping the man from the presumption of innocence. This means that the man is put directly in prison for 48 hours. After two days he has a court hearing, where if he’s lucky he can testify and present evidence and witnesses. But only if the judge is in the mood to listen to him or his lawyer.
The Ministry of Equality has strangely the name of Institute for Women
I think this whole law demonstrates that handing over of power to extremist individuals will result in tyranny.
Full video here
I don’t speak Spanish so please especially if you are a Spaniard, share your comments with us!
A good look at what affirmative consent could lead to. Supporters of it argue that false convictions aren’t a big problem and that constitutional protections of due process don’t apply, because the convictions aren’t criminal and the convicted doesn’t go to jail. At the same time, some of the legislators who drafted the two existing laws have said that they would ultimately like to see this implemented in criminal cases. So the real motivation becomes pretty transparent: supporters of affirmative consent feel it is fair for men to be put in a double-bind, wherein women can convict them merely by accusing them, and they really just don’t give a shit about innocent men being falsely convicted.
They often try to shut down these sorts of objections by denying that the situation under them could never get so extreme, because false accusations are incredibly rare. This situation in Spain is proof positive that neither of those assertions are true.
Affirmative consent is cleverly veiled misandry, nothing more.
Men in Spain automatically go to prison if accused of domestic abuse.
If so, I accuse everyone who voted for this law of domestic abuse.
Their goal is make men suffer and to estrange women from men thus pushing back heterosexuality.
I actually think that’s a rather crude interpretation. The truth is far more subtle. To be sure, radical feminists (the «official» radfems, the branch of feminism that adopted/reappropriated the label) do see sexual orientation as a societal construct, and therefore heterosexuality as a bully-like, domineering sexual convention, but even they get flak for that among other feminists. It’s not just the radfems who are for affirmative consent—most feminists are.
That means to me that it’s not really about sexual orientation at all. No, I buy their professed reasons: I think they are sincere when they say they are just trying to address the problem of women doing things they don’t actually want to sexually do to social and situational pressures. I just don’t think they are taking the time to consider the consequences their proposed solution will have for men, and I think the reason they aren’t is because they don’t really care. Yeah, they say they care, and that they aren’t trying to oppress men, and I think they sincerely believe that; it’s a problem of ignorance, both natural and willful. The feminists backing these laws are only considering women’s situations and concerns, and are operating on the assumption that men don’t actually have any with respect to the issues affirmative consent purports to address. The fact that they minimize or dismiss any that are pointed out to them makes it clear to me that a good portion of this ignorance is willfully maintained though, which is what makes it explicitly sexist in my view. This is feminism opting to use a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel to solve a problem in society, and not really caring about collateral damage.
I don’t think they want to see men suffer. I just don’t think they realize that’s exactly what they’re ensuring. They’re in denial—plain old, run-of-the-mill denial—because they don’t want to face the fact that the problem is more complicated than they initially thought, and that a truly just solution might actually demand women be more assertive and responsible about their sexual experiences. Their conception of the problem is that men are ignoring women’s subtle (yet, somehow clear enough) signals that they aren’t okay with something in bed, and thus that men are the problem, when the reality is that women are making bad choices and choosing to stay silent when they’re uncomfortable, rather than speaking up and refusing to do things they don’t want to do.
Then there’s the fact that sexual communication is far more complicated and subtle than affirmative consent treats it. Almost all communication during sex is nonverbal, and advancement from one stage of sex to another is almost always contingent upon someone spontaneously doing something more intimate—usually the guy. There is no deliberate asking for permission during sex—that destroys the moment—the «asking» is in the act itself, and the expectation is that the recipient stop things if she isn’t comfortable.
Affirmative consent throws that entire social structure out the window. It criminalizes 95% of the actions during sex and leaves it up to the complainant to decide whether or not a crime has been committed. Yes, the laws are written in gender-neutral language, but its drafters clearly don’t expect men to be the majority of complainants, and are thus relying on preexisting gender stereotypes of rapists and victims to ensure that the law is not enforced in a gender-neutral way. That is to say, the law as intended, is meant to be enforced against men by women, and not the reverse. Reverse cases are possible under the law, but the societal and cultural context in which they exist (which the drafters are obviously well aware of) practically ensures that they will be uphill battles and an exception to the rule.
I don’t think this is about heterosexuality or making men suffer. I think this is an hysterical reaction to a societal problem by people who are only looking at it from one angle, and who more generally only really care about one gender when it comes to justice and equality.
and they really just don’t give a shit about innocent men being falsely convicted.
Of course not. It will look good in statistics. It doesn’t matter to them if men are accused with no basis, because they can’t be accused (except Gayle Newland).
And those feminists who are behind this law are already reaching their goal. Their goal is make men suffer and to estrange women from men thus pushing back heterosexuality.
Did you hear that the new wave of feminism is reaching Spain, they are called Muslims and are known to fight and die for the rights of women.
Well, cross Spain off the list of places I will ever spend any money. Enjoy your fascist state.
I think it only protects women. I don’t speak Spanish so I may be wrong. If anyone has information about it feel free to prove me wrong.
It is said in the video, that there are about 400 reports a day. So if that average is true, about 1.46 million men were reported since 2004. I bet it is also great for the economy. Consider only 2×8 hours for each accusation (if the men is let free after the hearing, rare case). That’s 23 million man-hours missing. Can you imagine how much tax it is? Of course the lawyers go job, but they don’t do the job of the imprisoned ones. And if you compensate with the 0.9 factor that lady mentioned it is still 20 M man-hours. The GDP per capita is $26,517 according to Wikipedia. If I count with 40 hour weeks, that’s 5 days / 7 days * 365 days * 40 hour, so on average 260,71 man-hours a year. That means that the hourly wage is $101,7. If I multiply it with the 20 M man-hours, I get $2.034 billion. If I calculate with 35% income tax, that’s $711 M missing tax. That’s only a rough estimate assuming every man gets accused only once or spends 48 hours in prison for each accusation. Good to see how feminism boosts economy too.
Did he spend 2 days in jail?
Franco would have been proud.
It’s not just the radfems who are for affirmative consent—most feminists are.
Correct me if I’m wrong but in the video they never mentioned rape or sexual assault, but domestic violence. On man is said to be accused of incest, but I can’t recall anything else. IIRC there is a part in the video where they that in 2003 on the list Spain had the second less women murdered in a year. It was only better in Sweden. AFAIK rape statistics are bad in Sweden, so I think we deviated from the subject.
This is feminism opting to use a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel to solve a problem in society, and not really caring about collateral damage.
Would I be a conspiracy theorist, I would say that some people in power could think of this deed as an accidental suicide.
There is no deliberate asking for permission during sex—that destroys the moment
You are point on. I think that most feminists fully miss this fact.
and the expectation is that the recipient stop things if she isn’t comfortable.
Some times they don’t want to hurt the man. Nobody is perfect. But my experience is that women very often retreat to their shells, play hurt and wait for the White Knight to escape them from that emotional castle tower.
I mostly agree with your comment. But I think there is the time when a radfem has to reinvent herself as someone with real power and not simply an activist influencing politics. God forbid I be right, but if a politician finds a way to create an enemy to fight against and the fight itself creates more enemy, that politician has a permanent job.
When you have 2 related groups, and one of them has problems, you do not solve this by giving the other groups more problems.
Nothing gets solved that way. There’s just a net increase in amount of problems.
You can’t just create more problems and claim things are balanced. Problems have to be solved. You have to make them go away.
This is part of the depopulation effort.
Criminalize male sexuality. Jailing them and making them suspicious of women makes it impossible or undesirable to enter into relationships and they don’t reproduce and the plutocracy can carry on after having replaced them with machines.