If women aren't people in your eyes, then how can they be held accountable for their actions (including crimes of any kind)?
(Don't argue that you believe women are 'personish' enough to be held accountable for their actions and yet not enough to have ownership of their very own bodies. You can't have it both ways.)
If a dog shits on the sidewalk, it's the owner and not the dog who gets fined for a failure to scoop the poop.
And yet for all those bloviating anti-suffragists who argued women are not persons, I've never heard one claim a husband should be punished for the crimes of his wife, or a father for the crimes of her daughter.
Now, let's say you, Marjan, are hired by a company which then pays for all your training and in exchange has a binding (though obviously time-limited) employment contract with you that is about as hard to dissolve in court as marriage.
One of your immediate supervisors hauls your tight little ass behind the toolshed and turns you into Goatsie.
Rather than being compensated yourself for damage done and wages lost, the company is instead the exclusive beneficiary of monies reimbursed by insurance for the vandalism/damage committed against company property - you.
Thy're losing time to use the investment you represent, since you'll likely be out of order - broken - at least until the internal physical damage has healed.
And the raper is merely fired for causing property damage, and perhaps fined as well.
You wouldn't be okay with that anymore than you'd be okay, if have kids, with someone sexually assaulting your daughter.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet you'd break out the duct tape and jumper cables because someone traumitized a person you love - a level of rage youd likely never feel even if someone damaged the most expensive property you own. (I am, of course, giving you benefit of the doubt.)
And why would women want sex with men who have umpteen kids by a dozen other women? That is NOT a good survival strategy - especially if the woman's aim at a gut level is for security as provided by an involved and invested mate - y'know, one who doesn't have bloodshot hips from all the unprotected sex he's having in an effort to afflict us all with more dullards.
The nesting mother almost ALWAYS wants there to be a solid (usually) male figure in the life of her child since both sexes have a lot to contribute to healthy child development. Misogynists in particular should be championing long-term relationships, either monogamous or polygamous, that men might have strong impacts on their offspring.
Deadbeats with 50 kids by lots of "girlfriends" - I'm making a gross generalization, here, but I stand by it - are ALWAYS dumb. For such intellectualy unfortunte men, these kinds of activities - procreation by choice or force - are dysgenic without a doubt. Their poot kids rarely have a chance to get the most out of however many natural gifts they have.
How in the hell could a man be patriarch to a family when he has more "families" than some people have underwear?
No one legitimately owns anyone else. Even parents don't own their chilren, else they could use and abuse the kids without fear of prosecution.
Part of the reason some of you MRA-types are so pissed is that the law won't force women to have sex with you. You rub your woes together on MRA-forums and yet you still have no clue why women don't just throw themselves all over you.
[Edited for length, and to take a higher road than in my first draft.]