I linked to an article I read this morning about Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF managing director. As many of you may know, he's been arrested for allegedly forcing a woman to perform oral sex on him. One would think we should wait and see what happens in the trial, right? Wrong. The article I linked to is similar to a thousand other articles, questioning Dominique's promiscuous past. This is the male equivalent of slut shaming. That is, casting aspersion on his character because of previous sexual activity. I've read feminist blogs, opinion, and even a recent submission on r/feminisms, outright claiming that his previous sexual past does matter, and it somehow proves he's now guilty of rape.

So I thought it was a good time to bring up yet another hypocrisy within society. For some reason, in society and in trials, it's acceptable to discuss the accused's sexual history. Yet it's not only taboo in society, and the media, to discuss the prior sexual history of those who accuse others of rape, but it's enshrined in law in the US: rape shield laws. The tl;dr is that, if you're accused of rape, your ability to question the accuser's previous instances of rape allegation, false rape allegation, and especially prior sexual conduct, are prohibited. So why aren't the accused afforded this same right? If we find it morally repugnant to question the accuser's sexual history - including their history of previous false allegations - why don't we afford this belief for the accused?

What we see here is the premature condemnation of Dominique because of his sexual history. Perhaps people find his behaviour morally unacceptable. Yet no one seems the least bit remorseful about judging him because of his history. Of course, there would by widespread condemnation by feminists if Dominique happened to be a woman, and was accusing another of rape. If feminism were really about equality, they would be defending Dominique. Of course, feminism isn't about equality. It's about female privilege.

So I wanted to take this opportunity to point out the countless men who have undoubtedly had their good names dragged through the mud because it's acceptable to judge them without evidence. Consider those countless men who have been attacked in court by their accusers, brandishing that one time 20 years ago when he cheated on his girlfriend, all while sitting comfortably behind laws which prevent the accuser experiencing the same treatment in return. Society is biassed. The law is biassed. We must recognize that inconsistency and call out any person and group which doesn't both recognize and condemn that hypocrisy.