She was raped by a God in a temple. And as a “punishment” for being violated, the Goddess of said temple transformed her from a beautiful maiden into a terrifying monster. Her hair became a web of snakes. Her gaze, a curse that turned men into stone. Her monstrosity ensured she was banished from humanity.

Who would want to come near such a “monster” let alone listen to her side of the story? Who would believe the word of a “damaged” woman over the word of a God? Even if he is the one who committed the crime, she is the one who is the monster. In the end of the story, she was beheaded; because she was no longer the woman who was violated at the start of the story, but a beast to be neutralized. 

My take on a “Medusa” comic (OC) 🐍✨
byu/ArtbyMoga incomics

That is the ancient myth of Medusa as narrated by Roman poet Ovid. Although she is a “myth”- so much of what we learn about our world and our norms is passed on to us through such myths. In particular, one could argue that the story of victim blaming Medusa isn’t a myth at all but a persistent reality that women still face. Through the lens of Medusa, we see the blueprint for modern victim-blaming: the process of making a traumatized woman so “monstrous” that we are no longer required to recognize her perpetrator.

While women who are raped by men aren’t literally turned into having a head of snakes or a gaze of stone- they are still villainized by being called liars, shamed, seen as damaged, blamed, called names, and sent outcast. The perpetrator remains a “God”- excused, justified, entitled, even rewarded. In fact, there are countries with “marry your rapist” laws whereby a woman who is raped is given as a wife to her rapist. That violent act is actually portrayed as a “just solution”; instead of sending the perpetrator to jail, he is given the woman he “damaged” (the “monster”) as a wife. To have the “monster” (that should ideally be banished like Medusa was) as a wife is seen as a harsher punishment than jail because the woman is now a “beast to be neutralized”.

An interesting detail of the story of Medusa is that it was another woman (a Goddess) who turned her into a monster. Why would a woman do that to another woman- punish the victim instead of the perpetrator? Some say that because the Goddess could not punish the God for committing such a heinous act in her temple, she directed her rage at the “mortal” instead. Others say that actually turning Medusa into a monster wasn’t a punishment but a weapon- to ensure she is terrifying enough that no man would ever want to come near her again let alone violate her. 

Whatever the Goddess’s motivations were, it shouldn’t be surprising that it was a woman who turned another woman into a monster in a story told by a man. The patriarchy has, time and time again, taught us that women are the “enemies” of one another to distract us from the “real enemies”. Breaking our sisterhood bonds is a major pillar of patriarchy. So, it isn’t surprising that this reality is reflected in our mythology too. In a way, not only the woman (Medusa) who was raped was made into a monster, but also, we’re encouraged to see that the woman (Goddess) who had nothing to do with the rape also as a monster by unjustly directing her rage at Medusa. The hidden moral of the story shows us that every woman is a monster. And men, even when they are rapists, are unscathed Gods.

Indeed, I believe that the most terrifying aspect of Medusa’s tale is that her rapist is a God. What chance do we, women, stand to fight this crime if it is committed by a God? What does that say about the way society views the untouchable power of rapists?

So, are the men who rape monsters then?

We’ve heard it time and time again; “men who rape are monsters- they’re not real men”. But if you dig deeper into such statement, it isn’t said to demonize men who rape (the way Medusa was demonized, banished, beheaded) but to protect them and to protect “real men”. The monster archetype is a gendered double standard; when used on women it aims to banish them but when used on men it aims to protect them. 

By casting the rapist as a monster- we successfully separate him from the mankind which he belongs to. It makes us think of his crime as an isolated incident of an outlier, rather than the result of normalized systemic violence (making redundant statistics such 99% of rapists are men). Paradoxically, we then make mental space to excuse the perpetrator and his crime- how can we apply the laws of human logic and decency to a “monster”? If we can understand that the men who rape are monsters, then we can also understand that men (“real men”) don’t rape. 

But the men who rape are not monsters. They’re fathers, brothers, husbands, sons, Gods. They’re politicians, presidents, priests. They’re scientists, artists, self-proclaimed feminists. If the men who rape are monsters- if they had a head of snakes and a gaze of stone- then they can’t hide because we can easily spot them and behead them. But it is because the men who rape are NOT monsters that they can easily hide. Research shows us that women are raped mostly by the men they know and love. Gisèle Pelicot was raped by her husband who orchestrated her violation with a series of men.

Besides the “monster” shield, another way that society protects rapists at the expense of victims is by using DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender). When women speak out about men’s violence or report rape- they are often asked “What were you wearing?” “Why did you go to his place?” “How much did you drink?” “Did you say no?”. This “standard part of investigation” is a calculated systemic practice to find a loophole to victim blame. The roles become reversed- the perpetrator is now the victim of a woman who was “asking for it” while the victim herself is out to “destroy his life”.

This pattern is overwhelmingly recurrent to the extent that women often do not report rape at all for fear of being blamed for the crimes of men. The victim is terrified of being transformed into a monster (like Medusa), so she remains silent. In that way, the burden shifts from the crime committed to the consequences of speaking out about it. The mortals suffer while the Gods get away with it once again.

From Eve to Epstein: What will it take to believe women?

We are taught that Eve, as our foremother, is the original “unreliable” woman- the source of original sin whose curiosity and speech brought about the fall of man and human suffering. She is portrayed as the one who tempted the helpless Adam to eat the apple- and thus she is also blamed for his sin. This theological distrust migrated into medicine where the “wandering womb” and “hysteria” were used to dismiss female physical pain as emotional instability. In law, the “Lord Hale” instruction warned centuries of juries that women’s accusations were easily made and impossible to disprove. We saw the culmination of this in the Jeffrey Epstein case, where decades of reports from young girls were dismissed as “gold-digging” or “teen drama.” These victims were not seen as humans who were violated by men in power, but as predatory threats to the reputation of “great men.”

View this post on Instagram

Indeed, the most shocking part about the Epstein Files isn’t the data; it’s the dates. Why did it take 20 years of “paperwork” to validate what women were saying in real-time?

Answer: Because the system is built on a specific lie- the lie of the “unreliable woman”. This lie was invented to protect men at the expense of women’s safety. The lie isn’t a mistake- it is a structural design. The system is set up to treat our trauma as “suspicion” to enable the succession of men’s crimes. We are told to wait for “official reports” while the predators use that “waiting period” to negotiate their immunity. It’s how the system gives men privilege at the expense of women’s protection.

The system doesn’t lack information; it lacks the will to protect girls and women. By demanding “perfect evidence” from survivors while granting “presumed innocence” to male perpetrators, the system ensures that justice is a luxury and a privilege women can rarely afford. This is how patriarchy perfectly works: it sacrifices women’s safety to protect men’s security.

If there’s one key takeaway from this, it’s that the truth doesn’t need an institutional letterhead to be valid. We must move past the era of seeking men’s “permission” to believe women. We must believe women, period. And if you can’t just believe women because you’re wired to need the evidence first- ask yourself why you can believe men’s claims of “innocence” without evidence? That’s all it takes to believe women.

The facts we ignore.

We know for a fact that sexual violence is rampant and one of the oldest recorded crimes of man. We know for a fact that historically rape was treated as a “property crime” against a father or husband (where woman is the property and sometimes even viewed as an accomplice in her rape if she didn’t exhibit the “perfect victim” persona i.e. the legal system is built to doubt women). We know for a fact that 1 in 3 women are sexually violated by men. We know for a fact that women are sexually violated by men they know and trust. We know for a fact that 99% of rapists are men. We know for a fact that false accusations of rape are extremely rare and magnified much louder than most other felonies. We know for a fact that in almost every category of crime- from theft to insurance fraud-society accepts the victim’s word as the baseline for investigation; but in crimes against women the specter of the “false allegation” is used to gatekeep justice. We know for a fact that even the definition of “false accusation” is false -because it also includes not enough evidence (as per the requirements of laws created by men) and survivor retraction out of fear or threats or settlements out of court; all of those do not mean a rape report “did not happen”- yet it’s considered false. We know for a fact that the vast majority of rape cases go unreported. We know for a fact that 98% of reported perpetrators walk free.

We also know for a fact that rapists are not fictional monsters; they’re men in flesh.

And when we put all those facts together- and still find a way to make “monsters” out of the women who are violated by men- then it becomes clear our problem isn’t that we don’t have the facts we need to believe women. It’s that we want to protect men who perpetrate. It’s that it is easier for a patriarchal culture to create “monstrous women” as shields to protect criminal men. This is how the victims of men become monsters: because we are trained to hunt Medusa rather than hold Poseidon accountable.

Farida D.’s room membership: Once a month I will email members an article that helps dismantle patriarchy. To become a member, type your email and click join:

Farida D. is an Arab gender researcher and poet, studying Arab women’s everyday oppressions for over a decade. Check out her books!