Ched Evans was convicted and sentenced for rape. I am not going to discuss whether that was appropriate; I think it was not, but that is not the point of my article. Ched Evans wants to play football again. Cool for him; who cares but his friends and fans, right. A big debate arises. A petition is started by Jean Hatchet, some self-proclaimed radical feminist enduring the sufferings of Poe’s law, not to allow him to play football again. It already has some 20.000 signers. Why does she even care? Does she know him? Does she want justice? What is justice?
False group thinking
Growing up in internet culture is interesting. You get contact with people from all over the world and somehow you feel like a part of the world. So when anything happens in the world, you feel concerned. But, is that really plausible? Is the group of people you are in contact with really the world? Or is it, by the Law of Attraction, simply a group of like-minded people, scattered all over the world?
When you have the experience of physically being part of a small group of people about whom you really care, and then you hear something about someone, told by somebody, not affecting you or the group, it just … dissipates. There’s no thought in your head about what is right. It just doesn’t concern you. You’ve got better things to do.
When you are part of a group, you see the group for what it is. It is like-minded people. But when you are on the internet, people don’t label themselves person-feeling-oppressed-by-men, no, they call themselves feminists, and they call themselves women. And since other like-minded people do it, too, they get under the impression that they represent some imaginary group of, well, women. That’s simply not true for women are diverse, as are all people. They are individuals who make individual decisions.
In fact, trying to identify with such an abstract kind of value, or even with being human, somehow only shows a strong urge to feel accepted as normal, does it not. For most people whom I used to call normal in my earlier years actually were very diverse. It was me who felt alien and due to that I couldn’t see any variety. So finding a lot of other women can indeed feel liberating, can it not. So you don’t say “I met a few women on the internet who share my ideas.” No, you say “I know women.” In fact, this trend of intra-gender generalization also affects the manosphere, where people, including me, simply want to be men. But at least we (wit intended) have values that have to do with self-responsibility instead and respect instead of demanding pity and consideration for our feelings.
Ms Hatchet is simply bored. She has no idea what really happened.
I am okay with the fact that law was applied and that it may or may not have been fair to the accused man. I feel compassion for him. Yeah, I feel compassion for the girl with whom he had sex, too. Both possibly have very upsetting experiences in this. I do not know what happened. I know neither of those two people. How does Ms Hatchet know?
Look at her petition. The basic argument is that the possibly raped girl would not like to see Ched Evans succeed.
The significance of his return to football whilst still traumatising his victim by refusing to acknowledge his crime outweighs the needs of your club for a striker.
Although I doubt that Jean has the competence or insight to use the word traumatising in a meaningful matter, I will let it stand. Let’s even say that it will traumatize her – whatever that means. She is basically saying that the girl will feel pretty bad if this happens. She will feel bad because Ched did not acknowledge the (not his) crime. Therefore she is being viewed as a liar. Whatever the truth is, that sucks, yeah. Either everybody sees you for the liar you aren’t or everybody sees you for the liar you are. Fucking depressing.
In this article, I am going to talk about justice. My basic premise is that justice does not exist to satisfy everybody’s need on every occasion, but to satisfy society’s need for equilibrium.
For Ms Hatchet, it is not enough that Ched Evans has served time. She wants more. She says it is wrong that he should be cheered while denying the accusations. Being the radical feminist she calls herself, she is proud of being somewhat inconvenient. Like so many spoiled rebelling children. What kind of concept does she have about something being right or wrong. What are her values. I will argue that her perception of right and wrong has nothing to do with justice, but everything with her personal whims which she claims are in favor of the supposed victim. For the sole reason of the supposed victim being a woman and having been the accusing party in a rape case.
Take this sentence, for instance: “Women should be more important than goals and money” I accept everyones right for humor and satire, but I am wondering whether people actually take this seriously. If you don’t get this, it’s hard to explain the concept behind my confusion. Read it aloud. It’s a sentence grammatically, but it doesn’t really make any sense. What is she saying? Women (all women or someone specifically?) should (by what standard?) be more important (to whom and in what regard?) than goals (whose goals?) and money (whose money?). Let’s fill the blanks and make it more concrete, just as an example: The rape victim should, in the name of justice, be more important to the sports club in regard to their decision to reinstate Ched Evans than their goals and their income. This sentence still doesn’t take into account a lot of things, for example the friendship between Ched Evans and members of his club. But even so, the sentence still doesn’t make sense. So the rape victim should be more important to them than their goals and their income. Huh. How would that serve justice, though? But anyhow, so she is important to the sports club. What kind of decision would follow from that. Not to reinstate Ched Evans? Why. What kind of relevance does it have. It’s lunacy to even take the sentence apart like I do – there is no argument, no reasoning, no answer to be given to it. But as a reply to my modified sentence in the whole, at least, you could ask: Why?
The sentence demonstrates another thing: This isn’t about the particular girl who was possibly raped here. It’s not about compassion. Jean doesn’t give a fuck about her. It’s about women. Which Jean feels the need to be accepted as a part of. And that’s where it starts to be irrational. Again, not all women are the same. Some get raped, others make false rape accusations. Some wear earrings, others have a tattoo on their vagina. It has nothing to do with being a woman. Will society be a better place if women are treated favorably due to a perceived injustice of a few? I personally know few women who endorse feminism beyond what protects them from political oppression. And these times of oppression through law are long gone. I also know a few feminists whom I kinda like but who don’t like me. And that’s fine and their right.
Acceptance of law
The law is the law. Feminists fought against laws that oppressed them, now they fight for laws that protect them. Okay. So they are friends of the law. What law does is to allow prosecution of crimes. This has happened. Yet this is not enough for Jean. She does not want to accept the law and move on. She does not see its use as a form of justice and she does not see justice as a means to regulate society on order to create equilibrium, a state where competing forces are balanced and people can go on with their lives for the price of accepting some setbacks.
It is okay to be upset about something, it is okay to cry out about the unfairness of life. It is even okay for an apparently angry woman named Ms Hatchet to try to punish somebody who was involved in an incident that, for some reason, makes her emotionally affected very much. It is okay to feel compassion with Jean.
But it is not okay to let the law be used as a way for one dominant force to destroy another force out of sympathy. It is in the nature of justice that not always everybody will be content with the outcome. It is impossible. Thus they are called opposing forces. Of course one force will try to dominate another. Law ideally provides us with rules by which the justness of an action is judged by somewhat objective rules; a part of that are the rules of the court, and yes, even hiring a talented lawyer. The purpose of justice is not to find absolute truth – for it may not be determinable – but to have an instrument which will be accepted by the whole population for matters of resolving conflict in order to preserve peace. Yes, that means sacrifice.
We can decide to disobey the law – I often do. But we can not want the law to accept our transgression for then it could not fulfill the function it was created for. That is the price we pay to live in a big state without being in civil war. Sometimes we don’t get our way and suffer for nothing. It’s nobody’s fault, it just can’t be changed.
Ched Evans has been convicted and sentenced. Thus, the case is closed and life has to go on, that’s the whole point of justice. In my opinion, it is not fair, but it is what the law decided and I accept it. For the only alternative is to reject the whole system and be a rebel. But in the end, a rebel always has to live the life of a coward, because he who rejects the system completely still cannot live in accordance to his belief, because the system will extinct him. Thus everybody who accepts the system becomes the rebels enemy. And that’s potentially everyone.
Jean Hatchet does not accept the law. Yet she will use it if it fits her. If it doesn’t fit her, any other means to her cause is acceptable. I estimate that she would be willing to kill Ched Evans. So what does this make her, a hypocrite? A monster? I would say it makes her an opportunist. She does not care for equilibrium. She cares for her cause more than for the society she lives in. This can only be explained by the fact that she does not understand or value the privileges she really enjoys through law. She sees that she could harm another person; law is merely an obstacle or an ally. But she does not see that, were it not for the law, her entitled attitude and obnoxiousness would probably get her raped and killed quickly by the people she opposes. People, and thus society, can be cruel; if everybody lived out all his intense needs and desires without respect and regard to those he calls his opponents, we would be at war; if you don’t believe it, just look at Twitter. Give those people a gun, a free pass to anonymously kill and see what happens.
Ms Hatchet does not realize that her sense of injustice may not be stronger than that of a thousand males she opposes; only her mouth is bigger. Everybody thinks they are right. Mafia bosses honestly believe they are doing a good thing. Read How to Win Friends & Influence people by Dale Carnegie for more insight into that. So, if everybody is allowed to use every possible way of getting what they want tomorrow, I suspect that an angry feminist of today will quickly be sucking dicks in order to find a safe place to stay. On the other hand, were it not for the law, people like Jean may never have even come to a place of power from which they could actually have acted in an obnoxious way.
So let’s stay with law and justice. Consider the idea of not accepting a verdict. Is that a plausible way to deal with a situation? It is not. The plausible way, even for Ms Hatchet, is to try to change the law if it is that important a matter to her. Instead, she stays in her cocoon like a coward and gets a lot of narcissistic supply by all her followers.
Look where it leads in the long run, if you support this stupid kind of bullying. Again, think about her motivations. What is it that she can possibly gain? Justice? No, justice doesn’t serve the whim of the individual. If she wanted justice, she would be a politician, arguing her case. She’s too lazy for that and she doesn’t even care; she, paranoid, probably thinks that politics is simply another instrument of the white male conspiration, not even worth to try to penetrate, for it is morally despicable (since it does not serve her whims) and beneath her. I ask once more: Why does she even care? Nietzsche would argue that she herself only wants to see Ched violated and hurt for her own enjoyment. That’s okay, Jean, but it has nothing to do with justice. Your personal desires are something for your bedroom, not politics.
If you support her cause and similar causes and if a lot of other people do, this will effectively make the male population slaves. To themselves, ironically, because who could enact the law forcefully if not men? When that state is reached, of course, gender differences won’t vanish and the personal suffering of confused feminine souls will search for other outlets for some undefined feeling that they believe has to do with oppression. And even if you are a woman, wonder whether you really desire that. What use will it be? Even if you have had bad experiences with men, this will not change anything. It will relieve you, but not give you peace. Maybe you feel bad, girl, because you weren’t/aren’t very attractive and got rejected for the way you look; I was morbidly obese, I know it can be horrible if you have a bad mindset about it. And I am not going to tell you that not men are like that. That’s bullshit. Men decide whom they find attractive as little as you do, it’s subconscious at best and genetical at worst. It’s not a lack of compassion necessarily; it’s a lack of lust. But maybe it would be smarter for you to try your fucking best to get what you want, still, instead of destroying everything you once wanted to have. This advice goes to men and women alike.