Liar? (It takes one to know one.)

Burglary. Kidnapping. Embezzlement. Arson. These and other crimes. What do they all have in common?

When people come forward to report them, those reports are believed until evidence suggests otherwise.

So why is it that rape or sexual assault and charges related to domestic abuse are so suspected regardless of the geographic area where they are reported? What is it that they have in common?

Women are by far the victims and reporters of these crimes. The distrust of women, the malevolence of the female, the demonization of femininity are motifs through out the world and through out history. Are these the traditions that cause women around the globe to be undervalued and untrusted? Is it the fear of the status quo (read: old men in their respective cultures) that these allegations will lead to their hierarchical unseating?

I cannot see, however I twist the vantage point or selectively blind myself, the justification for leaving society's most vulnerable subject to its harshest scrutiny. If we take for granted the paternalistic view that men are around to protect us helpless women from harm, then why are men perpetrating these crimes? Even if we look to the patriarchal king-of-the-castle philosophy, we're left with authority devoid of power when its primary supporters are maimed and murdered--rendered effectively useless.

But of course, we gaze from feminist and humanist eyes and so must question exactly what motivators there truly are. And the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. In her brilliant book "Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller asserts "that some men rape provides a sufficient threat to keep all women in a constant state of intimidation..." I lean more and more to that over-simplified 'greatest fear of the status quo' theory when I think of the law enforcement systems' second victimization of assault and abuse survivors. I had never seen how many similarities these two social travesties have until the sexual violence training portion for my new job on a domestic violence response team.

I don't guess we'll ever know the answer. What abuser will stand up and take the fall, "It was me, and I'll tell you why we all do it because I know"? After all, each rapist and abuser is as unique as his victim(s) when you get down to it. Sure, the psychologists and sociologists have opined and conjectured some solutions for us, some empty and vague criteria by which to identify an attacker after the fact, but. But. It lacks.

Should we all really just blame it on the patriarchy? Can we? The logic has made sense for years: (biologically born) men have privilege of their forebears' creation and will do anything to protect it, beyond the scope of "natural" human decency. "Thou shalt not kill" unless that bitch keeps threatening to leave. (Whatever happened to that "Thou shalt not rape" commandment? "Thou shalt not beat"? Or "abuse"?) But is that fair, to the men we know and to the women we know? Internalized sexism coud very well be the root of it all; it is the genesis of the "I deserved it, it's not his fault" and "if I hadn't been wearing that skirt" anti-defenses.

Man-hating, I'm sure, is not the answer. Education, they tell me, is the answer. But I'm prepared to be called impatient and angry because I insist that the reports of battered women and rape survivors be considered legitimate and therefore be believed.