Posted: February 4, 2011 in Feminism, Gender Violence


In the state of Georgia, a bill is being considered to remove the ‘victim status’ of those who take rape, sexual assault, domestic violence and stalking cases to court. The complainants will, if the bill is passed, be known only as the ‘accusers’ until a prosecution is achieved.

Feminists are up in arms, saying the bill itself is ‘ like one long assault on women’s autonomy and capacity as thinking human beings. Each time the word “victim” is crossed out in favor of “accuser,” it’s another slap in the face to justice. Franklin’s utterly misogynistic, hateful bill tells victims that regardless of what they’ve experienced,  those experiences aren’t valid and they’re not to be believed until our justice system deems it so.’

But I agree with this commenter:

‘”To diminish a victim’s ordeal by branding him/her an accuser essentially questions whether the crime committed against the victim is a crime at all.”

Yes, it does. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees an accused person the right to confront his accuser. This includes men accused of rape, whether you like it or not. When a court designates someone a ‘victim’ before a conviction, the accused person’s constitutional right to due process is violated.

As a liberal, I find it bizarre that many of us on the left will scream our heads off for due process for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and beg to commute the death sentences of convicted murderers, but conveniently forget these principles as soon as the word “rape” is uttered.’

Feminism likes to accord ‘victim status’ to all women, in its most extreme form. ‘Rape culture’, according to feminists such as Melissa McEwan, is  ‘the objectification of women, which is part of a dehumanizing process that renders consent irrelevant.’ that renders consent irrelevant.

So women are victims before they are even raped, before they even go to the police, before they even get to court.

I think it is about time someone challenged this myth. That someone seems to be the State of Georgia. I welcome this bill.


  1. But fraud, burglary and assault ‘victims’ will still be called ‘victims’, even before any conviction. So why are they trying to change the status of rape ‘victims’?

    From what I’ve read, this is linked to the pro-Life lobby’s attempted redefinition of rape, to maximise the number of women not eligible for abortions – something part of an extremely illiberal agenda.


  2. I’d like to read another article on it. This one was so determined to frame the bill as ‘misogynist’ that it wasn’t very measured!

    Here is a comment from the post that was linked to in the article I have mentioned above. It raises some interesting points:

    ‘I’ll admit on first glance I was appalled. But I agree with others in that this bill just seems to reaffirm the right to face the accused and the right to a fair trial and the right to remain innocent until proven guilty, which is often undermined in Rape/sexual assault/and stalking cases. It seems that sexual assault automatically puts the accused in a guilty category, look at what happened to Big Ben, in Georgia no less. He committed no crime, but because someone accused him of sexual assault he’ll always be remembered as a sexual deviant.
    Also, in Georgia, there is a racist legacy. The Rape/Sexual Assault angle has often been used historically to place a disproportionate number of black men in prison. Often innocent black men who are assumed guilty before the trial started.
    Then there are cases of Christian young women who can’t admit to their family that they’ve began having sex before marriage so they accuse their partners of Rape when their family finds out they’ve been deflowered.
    Then finally think of the sort of people who sit on Juries. I know attorneys specifically go for the uneducated when they prosecute certain cases, like rape, and if in the courtroom the accused is constantly referred to as a victim, then that implies that someone in that room will have to be punished.’

  3. elflojo84 says:

    Damn straight. I can’t speak for the US (are you a yank QRG?), but it’s an absolute disgrace how casually journalists and the general public use the term ‘victim’, andd even ‘rapist’ when no crime has been proven – even after the case has been concluded and the accused acquitted.


    “But fraud, burglary and assault ‘victims’ will still be called ‘victims’, even before any conviction. So why are they trying to change the status of rape ‘victims’?”

    Again, you may be speaking from an American perspective which I can’t comment on, but I don’t notice this being so commonplace in other crimes as in rape cases here in the UK. Although it may simply be that I don’t notice because it isn’t a contentious issue, certainly in any case relating to any crime it shouldn’t be accepted.

    Another important point, though, is what disagreement the case hangs on. In, say, a burglary case, it is generally accepted that if someone says they were burgled they were burgled, the only issue is whether the person in the dock was the perpetrator. So calling the person who was burgled ‘victim’ is a) almost certainly correct and b) doesn’t directly implicate the accused. Whereas in contentious rape cases it is often accepted that the accuser and accused had sex, and the case hangs on whether or not there was consent – so to call the accuser ‘victim’ automatically implies the accused is a rapist.

    • ‘in contentious rape cases it is often accepted that the accuser and accused had sex, and the case hangs on whether or not there was consent – so to call the accuser ‘victim’ automatically implies the accused is a rapist.’

      yes that’s it elflojo I was trying to explain the difference between rape and other crimes/assaults even and that is it. the relationship between accused/accuser is already established so if there is a perpetrator it can only be that one person in the dock!


      No I am not a yank but I find American gender politics interesting and they can lead to ideas/laws in the UK too.

  4. Saige Morada says:

    These are shaky grounds. One does not want to assume the man is a rapist and one does not want to shame the accused and victimize her yet again. If the evidence shows the victim has without a doubt been a victim of rape, then she is a victim.

    Finding the perpetrator and finding out if a person has been raped should be two different things.

    Stuff like this comes to close to the olden days of saying women deserved it or had it coming.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s