Reply #23: reasoning by analogy ...

[iverglas]

the sign of mature intellect ...


I'm not talking about "blacks", my dear little fella.

What we have here is an analogy. It's about how laws that originated in a desire to oppress and subjugate may have their counterpart in similar-looking laws designed to protect.

Laws against rape were initially part of a system designed to oppress and subjugate women. Those laws did not protect women. Women in whom no man had an interest were raped at will. Men who raped women who had a property value to men were punished solely because of their interference in another man's property interests.

Laws that protected men's property interests in women oppressed women. Women were unable to engage in sexual activities of their own choice because of the possibility that their male partners would be prosecuted for rape, even where the women had consented. Either the woman's consent would be ignored in order that the husband's/father's property interest could be asserted and protected, or she would have to claim non-consent to save her own life, since as property of her husband/father she was not entitled to choose her own sexual partners and could be harmed or killed with impunity.

Heard of "honour killings", have you then?


This is WHY it was possible to use laws that looked like they were written to protect women as a weapon for racists to use against black men in the US. The laws were in fact written to provide for punishment of ANY man who interfered in another man's interests in a woman, and used for that purpose, so they just happened to come in quite handy for persecuting black men who interfered in the property interests of white men in their women.

The laws were, at their inception, MISOGYNIST. They were written in order to control WOMEN. And yet you don't actually hear large numbers of women calling for laws against sexual assault to be repealed today.


Funny thing. You don't actually hear large numbers of African-Americans calling for firearms control measures to be repealed today, either.

And I just have to wonder how someone like you would explain the firearms control measures adopted in, oh, Canada, where your Jim Crow stuff just doesn't come into it.

One would think the USofA was the centre of the universe, to hear some people.