u/Big-Bandicoot3976

From men’s perspective, rape is benefit to males, because it give mens what they can’t get in conventional way. By the way, if everyone just rape other man’s woman, for those man with desire for clean, peace, hygiene, loyalty, it may harm other man’s benefit. This is where ancient law about rape come from.

Later, one more component come to there, class. When rape happen, higher class female can be raped by lower class man, lower class female can be raped by higher class man too. But combine with the actual power and force there, most time it’s upper class male rape lower class females, which are lower class men’s wife or daughter. In this period, rape does have a balance on restricting men and protecting men’s right

Today, it’s a different condition. Today, chastity can’t restrict female much, women look for money, look for easy life, even for those who not pursuing these, when these come to them, they have no reason to refuse these, and society has literally no restriction to these. This made a trend, upper class males occupy more females, lower class male occupy less females. Lower class females also go to upper class males, or low class female go to middle class male, middle class female go to upper class males, low to low, middle to middle become less. Upper class males doesn’t need to rape middle class female, lower class female anymore, every society force pushing them toward them to upper class males. In this case, rape law only prevent lower class man to occupy females, or marry a same class females, or play higher class females. The condition become very hard for low class, middle class males. Female has freedom to pursue a higher class man, males doesn’t have much chance to pursue same level females or higher level females. It’s very clear, the rape law today, harm low class, middle class male’s benefit. Rape give lower class middle class males to occupy same level females and higher level females. in this case, the privilege of upper class males has been restricted. At mean while, not having a woman can give man pressure, this can push man to find a way to solve this, men may work hard to compete with other people, or crime to earn money, this making males in a harsh condition, pushing them to be more like slaves. This kind productivity is not driven by a direct reason, there are many loophole in this kind society productivity push model, this only guarantee competition between males, it doesn’t guarantee more productivity, in actual condition, in pushing some productivity and some destructive competitions.

From a mutual respect perspective, rape is benefit to males, may not benefit to females, what it give to females is uncertain to males, if assume the completely opposite possibility, it harm females, then combine rape benefit men, harm females, it should not be legal.

But the most important thing here is, this is based on mutual respect perspective, if female doesn’t respect males, males have no reason to use this mutual respect perspective, don’t mention about use female perspectives, men has no reason to use mutual respective perspective or female perspective in this case. But the mainstream media controlled by capitalism forcing you to use mutual respect perspective or female perspective while females doesn’t respect males, they only use female perspectives and some time mutual respect perspectives.

The conclusion here is very clear: When not using a mutual respect perspective, but self-fish perspective, rape is benefit to most males today, beside upper class males, their benefit comparatively got violated more than the lower class males.

If female doesn’t use a mutual respect perspective, men has no benefit to use mutual respect perspective, not mention female’s perspective. If it’s a case females don’t respect males, there is no reason for males to criticize rape, which align with their own benefit, which only can be not legal in the mutual respect perspective, or female perspective. Any media promote criticize for rape in this condition, should not be trust, accepted by men.

At the 2025 San Sebastián International Film Festival in Spain, a Chinese film titled Her Heart Beats in Its Cage attracted considerable attention. Its lead actress, Zhao Xiaohong (now using the name Zhao Xiaohong/Zhao Xiaorong), won the Silver Shell for Best Actress through what was described as a “true-to-life performance.” Presented in a documentary-style format, the film portrays the protagonist as an educated, reasonable mother who suffered domestic violence, depicts her husband as an abuser, and beautifies a fatal stabbing during a quarrel over a trivial matter as an “accidental act of resistance against domestic abuse.” Under the name of art, the film attempts to reconstruct the facts and whitewash a crime.

However, the actual court judgment and case facts were entirely different. On the evening of April 15, 2009, Zhao Xiaohong and her husband Zhang Bo quarreled and fought in their rented apartment in Xi’an over a mundane household matter involving setting up a bed. Zhao retreated to the living room, picked up a fruit knife, and when Zhang Bo chased after her, she stabbed him in the chest, causing a ruptured aorta and his death. Testimony from a roommate who lived with the couple indicated that Zhang Bo was a hardworking man who did housework and had no record of domestic violence. The court convicted Zhao Xiaohong of intentional injury resulting in death and sentenced her to 15 years in prison and five years’ deprivation of political rights. Her appeal was rejected. The judgment explicitly determined that her intent to cause injury was evident and that there was no long-term domestic abuse.

Zhao Xiaohong’s actual circumstances—having a vocational secondary-school education, being lazy, and refusing to do housework—were repackaged in the film into the image of a gentle, virtuous victim. This was not simple artistic adaptation but a secondary smearing of the deceased and an open distortion of judicial facts. After being released from prison, rather than reflecting on her actions, she used the film platform to fabricate the persona of a “domestic violence victim,” winning international awards and public sympathy.

Gender Differences in the Legal System and Opportunism

Within China’s current legal environment, cases involving family disputes are often accompanied by preferential protection toward women. In similar cases, if the perpetrator were male, it would be extremely difficult to receive a lighter conviction of intentional injury rather than intentional homicide, and even less likely to obtain sentence reductions and early release. Yet Zhao Xiaohong received multiple sentence reductions during her imprisonment and was released around 2020. This appears to conflict with the requirement that sentence reductions be based on genuine admission of guilt and remorse. After all, she immediately began promoting what amounted to a public-relations “reversal of the case” after her release. Where, then, was the real remorse?

The logic behind the domestic-abuse narrative itself is weak. In reality, when men suffer domestic abuse, it is often related to factors such as a wife’s infidelity, career frustrations, laziness, or the tendency to vent emotions onto a comparatively “easier target” partner. Zhao Xiaohong possessed neither exceptional beauty that might provoke jealousy nor the kind of vulnerable personality that would invite male competition. Her husband’s willingness to take on household responsibilities reflected a sense of responsibility. Given that the court had already ruled out domestic violence, the narrative of “resisting after years of abuse” has virtually no logical basis and is purely a fabrication created after the fact.

Part of the Essence of the Feminist Movement: Seeking Power Without Responsibility

What is most worthy of concern in this case is not the crime of a single woman, but the opportunistic mentality displayed by some women (and their supporters) under the influence of the feminist movement: demanding power while rejecting responsibility. They package extreme personal behavior as “resistance to domestic violence” or “female awakening,” exploit loopholes in law and public opinion, evade deserved punishment, and at the same time demand unlimited sympathy and resources.

Turning Crime into Resistance

Murder is described as “accidental self-defense.” Intentional injury becomes “helplessness under emotional collapse.” This narrative is particularly attractive at international film festivals because it perfectly aligns with Western feminist discourse: women are always the victims, and men are always the original sinners.

Opportunism

By exploiting the label of “female vulnerability,” they seek reduced sentences and diminished responsibility. After release, they turn around and accuse both the system and the deceased in pursuit of fame and profit. The so-called true-to-life performance, along with the involvement of her mother-in-law and son in the film, is in essence a hijacking of family ties and the commercialization of tragedy.

Absence of Responsibility

True equality should mean that rights and responsibilities are balanced. Yet some feminist practices have evolved into a one-sided pursuit of rights: demanding that husbands provide support and tolerance within marriage, while invoking “independence” and the “right to resist” during conflict; emphasizing victimhood after committing crimes in order to avoid criminal liability. This is not empowerment. It is the creation of privilege and the erosion of social rules.

The Zhao Xiaohong case is not an isolated incident but a reflection of this broader trend of thought. It tells us that when the “victim narrative” becomes a universal shield and when art and media become tools of whitewashing, truth will be drowned out by emotion. Domestic violence should be met with zero tolerance, but “anti-domestic-violence” rhetoric must not be allowed to become a vehicle for opportunism, nor should killers be transformed into award-winning actresses and inspirational icons.

Society should return to rationality: respect judicial facts and reject false narratives. Equality does not mean that one side enjoys unlimited benefits while the other permanently bears the blame. It means that every individual must bear the consequences of his or her own actions. Otherwise, this version of “feminism” will only create more family tragedies and deepen gender antagonism, ultimately harming everyone, including the women who genuinely need help.

To be vigilant about the Zhao Xiaohong case is to be vigilant about the spread of this culture of “power opportunism.” The truth cannot be erased by a single film, and the injustice suffered by Zhang Bo should not be concealed beneath international awards.