The Hindi movie Pink has opened to hugely favorable reviews. Interestingly, this film explores a grey area with respect to rape and successfully paints such scenarios with the widest possible brush to paint women as only victims, and men as only aggressors.
Let me begin with the most glaring conflation in the movie, one that sets the tone and tenor of the narrative. The men accused of rape are from the rich-class, with political connections. The women, on the contrary, are middle-class. Clearly, the men were able to misuse law, not because they’re men, but because of their class. Likewise, the women suffered not on account of being women, but because they’re not powerful enough to buy influence. This is a class divide, which the movie has cunningly collapsed into a gender divide.
Turn the tables, and a rich women can run down a middle-class man with more crushing finesse, given our current state of misandric laws. Even when both the men and women are on equal footing, our misandric laws that substitute allegation for proof ensure that a mere accusation from women, without any corroborative evidence, can land the accused men in jail immediately.
The meaning of consent
Feminists proudly exclaim that they’ve redefined rape laws, which to traditional users of English, translates to admission of falsely accusing men. Notice that the new rape scenarios do not involve a predator waiting for a woman in a dark lane, and forcing himself upon her. This is an open-and-shut case of rape, which nobody would contest.
The new-age rape laws involve not just casting the net of guilt as widely as possible on men, but effectively absolving women of all responsibility. Consent, as defined by feminists, means something entirely different from what is usually connotes. In this sense, rape, today, is sex that women later regrets. In West, if a drunk man and woman have sex, which the woman later regrets, she can, by retrospective withdrawal of consent, turn the consensual sex into a rape. The feminist argument is that the woman, being intoxicated, was not in position to give consent; but in the same vein, isn’t the intoxicated man too incapable of processing consent? While on it, do note that we do not likewise absolve drunk men of the consequences of rash driving. Rather, we hold them responsible for endangering others’ lives by consuming alcohol and driving under its influence.
Back to “Pink”, if the men in question tried to force themselves on the women right in the very rock concert where they first met, this verily constitutes attempt to rape. But these women accept invitation from a rank stranger to an unknown place! One wonders why would any woman accept an invitation from strangers at all, that too, to an unknown, uninhabited place? Were they expecting a platonic, poetry-reciting session?
This is a recurring theme in feminist propaganda; in a short film “I Saw Him Again“, the female lead follows a stranger to the washroom in a rock concert (again), with the manifest intent of having consensual sex. But apparently she regrets the decision at the nick of moment and wants out. She stalks the man six years later and accuses him of rape while making a stunningly revealing comment that he never even contacted her again. The male lead, aptly confronts her, asking if the crux of her angst is that he didn’t date her later. See the video for yourself; notwithstanding the overt propagandist orientation, many will question if what occurred can be labeled rape at all!
Or sample this account of a woman who traveled to another city to meet a man she had never met on his offer to share his bed. She attempts to resist his advances initially, before giving in. Ironically, if she presses rape charges against the man whom she visited from another place and in whose home they had sex, they will stand. Whether or not she said “no” is of little consequence, because in this kind of typical “she said, he said” scenario our feminist laws enjoin that a woman’s word must always be accorded precedence. So, if the woman in question regrets sex or feels that she was coerced into it, she can withdraw her consent retrospectively, notwithstanding the fact she was the one who willingly walked into the situation. Since these laws interpret the consent on event-by-event, we can get tragic scenarios, where out of 10 acts, the women can claim that while the 4th and 6th act were consensual, the 5th was rape. What, however, does the man say? Forget it, didn’t you understand even thus far that a man’s testimony is barely relevant?
What feminists actually want is to make it safe for women to walk into a stranger’s house at an unknown place and feel protected should they regret it in the nick of moment. “Teach men not to rape”, paradoxically, ignores the fact that most law-abiding men neither have the intent nor the power to do so, since they can’t ignore the serious repercussions from such an act. If feminists, instead of absolving women of their responsibility, asked them not to send confusing signals to strangers and say “no” to any invitations from strangers, much anger and pain could have been avoided to the victims (and by victims I mean both the women and men). Such feminist laws will only encourage women to pursue strangers and walk into dangerous situations, all while giving them a false sense of security.
Rape in real-life scenarios
Except in remote, rural areas or where an exceptionally powerful backing prevails (as in this movie), the ground reality is vastly different in India. A mere allegation from a woman, even a live-in partner of years, can land the accused man in jail. Nowadays, even the police fear accusations of favoritism or apathy so much, that despite grasping the true situation (hell, even if they can sense it as blatantly false), they anyway go ahead the arrest the man. The accused man, without a shred of evidence against him, can find himself being treated as guilty and must seek bail from court i.e. after several days in jail. In a feminist reinterpretation of Khap panchayati tradition of forcing a couple having sexual relations to marry, modern woman uses the threat of rape to force an unwilling man into marriage.
The feminist shrill that most genuinely harassed women fear approaching police is a thing of past. Now, fempowered women, secure in the knowledge that their false accusations entail no disciplinary action, do not hesitate to bring rapist color to civil disputes. Notice that the feminist progress in law mostly pertains to the eliminating the need of evidence, by virtue of which any allegation automatically translates to men’s guilt – thus upturning the basic premise of “innocent until proven guilty” maxim.
If any feminist feels otherwise, do inform us what corresponding laws have been drafted in tandem with feminist ones that discourage misuse of the latter. The burden falls on the toothless, old laws that are barely sufficient to discourage misuse. Feminists claim that the misuse clause is overstated, and seek evidence to substantiate it. Notice the paradox: evidence is sought of misuse of laws whose very USP is removal of necessity of evidence. But on point, since the very case is based on claim-as-evidence foundation, it is extremely hard for the judges to ascertain if the allegation was made with a malafide motive (to initiate perjury charges) even if the man in question is eventually acquitted.
Contrary to the coinage of “rape culture” which gives an impression of a society condoning or even celebrating rape, we live in a culture where Supreme Court finds a man guilty based on the strength of a woman’s testimony alone, without corroborating evidence. While feminists frame this as the right of a woman to be heard and believed, what they’re obfuscating and suppressing is the right of man to be considered “innocent until proven guilty”. In no other scenario is the accused burdened with proving himself innocent, it is always the accuser who must present the evidence to prove his allegations. However, in the bizarre feminist-legal ecosystem, once a man is accused, he’s deemed guilty and nothing proves him innocent (he’s just let go; even acquittal cannot mean he’s innocent).