Everyone must be familiar with the old philosophical riddle: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Well, prompted by the news of the direct action taken in City Hall by a group of young feminists last week, and by this recent piece on DollyMix, I’ve come up with a new one: if you set off a rape alarm in your own home where no one can hear it apart from you and your perpetrator, then what the fuck’s the point of having one?
Actually that’s obviously a completely unrealistic scenario, as no woman is going to walk around inside her own house carrying a rape alarm, just as no woman is likely to spend much time lounging around her own gaffe wearing an electrified, can-fell-an-attacker-at-50-paces anti-rape jacket, or indeed sporting a viciously hooked anti-rape tampon, both of which also got a mention on DollyMix.
But when the reality is that the vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults happen in the home, then surely logic would dictate that any anti-rape device worth its salt should be designed to be used there? Not for in the street, or down a dark alleyway, where only a tiny percentage of these assaults happen, but for in the bedroom, the front room, in fact for any and every bloody room in the house.
In much the same way that the media tries to sell us the lie that women who dress demurely, don’t drink, and don’t walk about unaccompanied in dodgy areas in the early hours of the morning are unlikely to ever provoke a rapist, rape alarms, anti-rape jackets, and any other such merchandise designed to make women feel safer when going about their daily lives, feed into the myth that the only real rape is stranger rape, and that the only men women have to fear are the masked psychos hiding in the night-time shadows waiting to pounce on unarmed and unsuspecting passersby. As L said when we were discussing this a couple of days ago, they lull women into a false sense of security, especially when you consider that the majority of rapes are carried out by men who are known to and often trusted by their victims:
women are most likely to be raped by men they know (intimates, 54%, other known individuals, 29%); and a considerable proportion involve repeat assaults by the same perpetrator (50% in the last 12 months) (Walby and Allen, 2004). The Myhill and Allen (2002) report also reflected findings from other jurisdictions (Bergen, 1995; Easteal, 1998) that rapes by current and ex partners were the most likely to result in injuries. This profile also accounted for the most common locations, which were the victim’s home (55%) followed by offender’s home (20%), public place (13%) and elsewhere (13%).
A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases. Liz Kelly, Jo Lovett and Linda Regan
The ‘myth of the safe home’ is well established in the literature surrounding violence against women. Evidence from the current study confirms that women are far more likely to be sexually victimised in their own home than any other location. Not surprisingly, nearly three quarters (74%) of incidents involving partners occurred in the victim’s own home and a further 16 per cent occurred in the offender’s home. This pattern is almost exactly mirrored for attacks by ex-partners. There is no way of telling how many of the ex-partners were in the victim’s house without permission (possible stalking scenarios). Attacks by ‘dates’ occur in a variety of locations, but are most likely to occur in the home of the offender….
…Women are also most often sexually victimised by men they know. Attacks by men who were the victim’s current partner at the time of the incident account for almost half (45%) of all rapes. The BCS found ‘strangers’ to be responsible for only 8 per cent of rapes.
Rape and sexual assault of women: the extent and nature of the problem. Findings from the British Crime Survey. Andy Myhill and Jonathan Allen
Now of course I’m not suggesting that every home should be fitted with a safe room or the latest hi-tech gadgetry (although I did once live in a house that had attack alarm buttons on the wall on either side of the bed, that when pressed set off an ear-splitting, loud, blue, flashing alarm on the outside wall of the house, and very safe I felt too!), because I don’t hold with the theory that all men are potential rapists, and I’m also not into scaremongering or promoting the idea that women should live their lives in constant fear.
No, what I am suggesting is that while a rape alarm may make a woman feel safer, it won’t in fact actually make her any safer, and that rather than putting the onus on women to do something to protect themselves from rape, whether that’s buying an alarm or signing up for self-defence classes, it might be an idea to concentrate instead on trying to find ways to stop men from raping.
Because, and I realise this might sound obvious to some, if men didn’t rape then there’d be no need for rape alarms. Simple as that.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
I think you’re almost totally right. (The one exception being I don’t think you can say a rape alarm won’t make a woman any safer, because in certain circumstances … well, it might).
But what’s your proposed solution?
Personally, I’d have no obvious problem with the ‘flashing alarm bed thing’, but then I’m not (offline, at least) a bad man. But I can’t see it making much difference legally, given the range of defences open: it’s effectively an anonymous tip off to the police that someone in the room isn’t happy. And to press it in the first instance requires a degree of fortitude and opposition that might be lacking in the relevant relationships.
Can you clarify some of the statistics you quote, out of interest? Because
is potentially mindboggling to me. Is that “50% of convicted rapes are committed by men previously convicted of raping the same person”? Is it accusations of rape? Is it 50% of a smaller percentage of ‘overall’ attacks?
I’m not meaning to be pedantic or argumentative here – the differences would surely have massive implications for policy?
Hi damagedoor
The figures are taken from the 2004 Home Office Research Study: Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey by Sylvia Walby and Jonathan Allen.
Only a small proportion of the cases included in the survey have ever been reported to any of the criminal justice agencies, so no, they’re not talking about convicted rapists or even those accused of rape. For a whole host of reasons the vast majority of women who have been raped or sexually assaulted (something like 95% if memory serves me right) never report, and the crimes committed against them only come to the Govt’s attention through the use of surveys such as the BCS.
On page 23 of the survey the authors note that:
You can read the full report here
There have also been some US studies into serial abusers:
One very effective ‘solution’ is to prevent male sexual violence occurring in the first place and this can only be done by challenging ingrained myths concerning male sexual violence against women.
This means of course, challenging dominant notions of male sexuality and entitlement as well as gendered notions that women not men are responsible for preventing rape.
Scotland’s Parliament has done excellent work on challenging common perceptions that it is acceptable for males to dominate and control women and girls. Futhermore, Womankind is working in a number of schools to challenge beliefs concerning male and female behaviour and accountability.
The White Ribbon Campaign too actively works with men in order to raise the issue of ‘bystanders’ and how this effectively condones and upholds male violence against women as a ‘right’ not an abuse of women’s human rights.
We must focus on the male perpetrators rather than constantly blaming and holding women and girls accountable for male violence committed against them. Not all men are violent but all men are responsible for refusing to take a ‘bystander approach’ wherein the belief is ‘I’m not violent so it has nothing to do with me.’ Men who commit violence against women, do so because they know their actions and crimes will not be challenged and therefore are effectively condoned by other non-violent men.
Diversionary tactics are common in that many individuals will ask ‘but what about male on male violence’ or ‘women are equally as violent as men.’ These are attempts to simultaneously put men once again at the centre and also put the blame on women for supposedly causing men to commit violence against them.
Reality is, as Cath shows is that male violence against women is commonly committed by men who know the woman/girl not random acts committed by so-called ‘deviant male monsters.’
But what’s your proposed solution?
Men stop committing rape? Or is that too simple?
(cue 5,000 comments about how not all men commit rape and a surprisingly large amount of women do apparently zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)
Cath – thanks for that. I have read it before, but obviously I need another look.
Polly – great. That’s all sorted, then.
Jennifer – I kind of take issue with this:
Isn’t everyone – male or female – responsible for taking a ‘bystander approach’? Aren’t these men’s actions effectively condoned by ‘other non-violent people‘? This isn’t just semantics. The idea that I’m more responsible than you for an offence neither of us is remotely connected to, simply on the basis that I share an arbitrary characteristic with the offender, is abhorrent to me, and plainly wrong.
(And I’m not transferring it to male-on-male violence, although I think they’re obviously connected: it’s male violence, we’re talking about, and I think the roots of its different expressions are fairly similar).
But what do you do? I am a non-violent male, and I do my best to challenge attitudes I find objectionable whenever I come across them. My approach with violent guys is to avoid them.
So: what’s the policy approach?
What’s the policy approach? Well how about women avoid men on the grounds you can never be too careful? I mean we’re meant to avoid walking home alone at night, and getting drunk and to buy electrified jackets (nb Cath am I being thick, is it a spoof or what?).
The policy approach is men stop raping. I’m serious. Or else we hugely increase the conviction rate and imprison for life a substantial amount of the male population.
Personally I avoid men. It’s worked so far.
I love this when a man comes on a feminist blog and goes but “What are YOU going to do about it women!”.
I think we should try that approach more often. You know, go up to women in Africa who’ve been horribly multiply raped and go “But what are YOU doing to stop it?” Or we could have done that in South Africa. “But what are YOU going to do about apartheid black people!”
What are YOU going to do about it damagedoor?
Sigh. I didn’t say “what are you going to do about it, women“: you’re debating in your own head again, Polly. You know, deep down, we’re part of a society, don’t you? That’s not divided into blacks v whites, or gays v straight, or men v women? Christ, maybe you don’t.
It’s perfectly reasonable, when someone is saying “this isn’t the way it should be done” – which Cath was, and about which she is quite right – to say “okay, so then what…?”
Your advice, apparently, is for men to stop raping. You’re a genius, Polly. I never started, but job done. Problem solved. What a good thing it is that we have you.
Ok damagedoor, look at it like this. I’m not the owner of a big capitalist company. I don’t own any shares. But big capitalist companies exploit low paid workers in the third world. And as someone who lives in the western world I benefit from that. No matter how right on I pretend to be.
Just as you, a man, benefit from patriarchy. No matter how liberal, non violent and all round right on you are (and I’d suggest you’re probably a lot less right on than you congratulate yourself on being).
As a man you benefit from rape. It’s part of the system of social control of women aka patriarchy. And you – as a man – benefit from the social control of women whether you acknowledge that or not. I think you’d be the first to squeal if the rape conviction rate went up actually.
And I gave you a solution. Women avoid men. But you don’t like that because ‘we’re all part of a society’.
I gave you a solution, it just isn’t a solution you like.
And you know what: I NEVER trust a man who tells me what a nice guy he is. Well I never trust a man full stop.
PS.
a considerable proportion involve repeat assaults by the same perpetrator (50% in the last 12 months)
Means the same man repeatedly rapes the same women. Usually a wife/girlfriend.
Just as men frequently beat up the same women.
Polly, you know next to nothing about me, so I can’t be bothered arguing that point too deeply. There are impressions I’ve formed about you too, but so what? I genuinely don’t want to make it personal. We’re probably both wrong about each other – in real life, I imagine you’re a decent person, even if we wouldn’t get along – and it doesn’t matter anyway. Surely we can just, you know, talk about stuff?
Yeah, I benefit from patriarchy. I guess so, anyway – by its nature, it’s kind of invisible to me, and I’m still unsure how ‘privilege’ has helped or hindered me as a person (hinders me here, doesn’t it?). But that’s sort of the point, isn’t it? It doesn’t really apply to individuals in any sensible, obvious way.
I mean, seriously, how does this work?
A woman is raped. Either by her husband, her partner, a friend, or by a stranger.
Neither you nor I gain any material benefit from this. Both you and I feel this is equally abhorrent. Both you and I would have done exactly the same things to prevent it, had we the power. Both you and I would like the offender punished. Both you and I would speak out equally against attitudes perpetuating the atmosphere in which a thing could occur.
Without retreating to psychological hideout words like “patriarchy!” or “privilege!” can you explain how me being a man has any bearing, morally, on any of those things?
Or are you saying that, even though you and I as individuals might behave exactly the same way, I’m somehow more culpable in the crime on the basis of having a cock?
I can’t decide if it’s a spoof or not Polly. I’d like to think it is, but……
damagedoor. Re solutions. I think Jennifer Drew has covered a lot of it, with the mention of the work of the Scottish Parliament on this issue, and the work of organisations such as Womankind.
It has to be about challenging attitudes and changing societal acceptance of these crimes. And I know your instant reaction will be to say “But society doesn’t accept rape etc, that’s why we have laws in place that acknowledge these acts to be crimes.” But when those laws are essentially ineffective, when women are put off from reporting because of the low conviction rates and because of the reception they’re likely to receive from both the police and the court system, what effectively exists in this country is a licence for men to rape.
Just as an indication of how mundane and almost everyday rape is now viewed, 10 years ago or so any man convicted of rape would have had to be segregated within the prison system for his own protection: honour among thieves and all that. Nowadays, only high profile cases, or those involving the rape of the very old or the very young are considered revolting enough to be set apart within the prison system; the others are just viewed as ordinary, everyday criminals, neither in need of protection from their fellow inmates, nor viewed by their peers as being in any way aberrant.
The jacket, from what I can tell, isn’t intended as a spoof, but there’s no way it would ever be legal to wear or use in the UK. It’s clearly a made or adapted offensive weapon under law – and an ineffective, exploitative money-making one at that. It’s also effectively licensing people – specifically men – with the right to become walking tasers. Umm – no thanks.
Cath – It’s not that I disagree with Jennifer – beyond the semantics – or you. But how is this done? I don’t want to cif-ify the place, but I do think the presumption of innocence for someone accused of a crime is important as a principle, and given the context (from your post) of most rapes that seems to be a real problem. It seems, from the 50% statistic, that more emphasis on an exit strategy for women from such relationships would be key – but I guess that just places the emphasis on women in a different way, and doesn’t solve the underlying problem of the men left behind.
At the same time – as you’d expect – I find it hard to see it as a societal acceptance, because I (and as far as I can tell, all my friends) grew up with the idea that rape was always, unequivocally wrong. Even with drink involved, none of us would have wanted to wake up in a situation where there was any grey area at all. Maybe it helped growing up in a mixed group, so that all the women around were respected as good friends first and foremost. (Don’t take the piss, Polly – it does happen). But I genuinely can’t see how education could or should be targeted, as it’s not like education ever played an obvious part in informing my attitudes…
Oh, I don’t know. Anyway.
@damagedoor
“as it’s not like education ever played an obvious part in informing my attitudes… ”
That just means you didn’t notice it happening.
Polly has it right when she makes this comparison:
I’m not the owner of a big capitalist company. I don’t own any shares. But big capitalist companies exploit low paid workers in the third world. And as someone who lives in the western world I benefit from that. No matter how right on I pretend to be.
but if you want something more explicit:
“Why do German people behave so apathetically in the face of all these abominable crimes, crimes so unworthy of the human race? … The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals….[The German] must evidence not only sympathy; no, much more: a sense of complicity in guilt….For through his apathetic behaviour he gives these evil men the opportunity to act as they do…. he himself is to blame for the fact that it came about at all! Each man wants to be exonerated ….But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty!… now that we have recognized [the Nazis] for what they are, it must be the sole and first duty, the holiest duty of every German to destroy these beasts. (From Leaflet 2)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose
Women don’t take very kindly to being asked for policy suggestions from men – it’s rather like Germans in the 1940’s asking the British what they should do about Nazism. It’s not that women don’t have any good ideas, it’s just that it’s really rather up to us rather than them
David –
Yes, that’s exactly what I said.
Polly has it wrong, because it’s question-begging, as is your German example. The fact I benefit from something doesn’t make me more responsible for preventing or opposing it than someone who doesn’t benefit. Responsibility stems from opportunity. Perhaps, rather than parroting Polly (sorry; couldn’t resist), you could look at the last thing I wrote to her and explain why I, as an individual, am more culpable or responsible than she is? And the fact I may tacitly ‘benefit’ in some way isn’t it.
Whereas I’m sure ‘women’ take very kindly to you speaking on their behalf.
Can we keep some perspective here? I’m not saying it’s up to women to solve the problem. What I was saying was more like “Hi Cath, I like your article and I’m interested to know what you think”. You know – the way normal people interact with each other.
damagedoor
Can we keep some perspective here?…You know – the way normal people interact with each other.
I think that you just don’t like the answers to your questions and getting snippy won’t help.
Polly and David do have it right. You benefit from male privilege. This privilege is so ubiquitous, pervasive and normalised that it is invisible. Male is the default. The only time men really notice it is in it’s absence – only when something privileges female interests.
This may not be your fault but you benefit from it every single day. You may not have started it but you are responsible for it’s upkeep. Every time you don’t say anything – you let a rape joke or sexist comment pass by or you shrug your shoulders and think “well what can I do?” you are supporting male privilege.
The playing field is not level – you have more power than women. With that comes the responsibility. You may not want it but that is the way the world is. If you don’t want the responsibility then you should be doing everything you can to end male privilege.
I’m a white woman, but I don’t sit around demanding that those of ethnic minority background do all the work to end racism. I am part of group that perpetuates racism – therefore it is my responsibility more than theirs to actively fight racism whenever I see it.
Here is a good article on privilege which might help further understanding:
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146
Hi Jennifer
I’m sorry if I seemed snippy – I wasn’t meaning to be. But Cath has a blog where she presents her opinions, and all I was doing was asking her to expand on it – just because I was interested in what she had to say. That’s a world away from me saying “solve the problem yourselves, women!”, which some people seem to have taken it as. Somehow.
Thanks for the explanation and the link. I don’t think Polly and David were wrong that I benefit from male privilege (amongst others; I have the whole lot, I think), but that doesn’t support the argument that I’m more responsible for ending the bad actions of other men than you, Cath or Polly are, simply because I’m a man too.
Responsibility depends on opportunity, not membership of a group. And although the playing field isn’t level, opportunity is still distributed all the way across it. (Unlike the example of third-world exploitation, say, where one of the groups is defined by its total lack of opportunity to influence the situation in any way). You can’t just tell me I “have more power than women”, unless you can say what extra opportunity it gives me as an individual over you as an individual. Don’t we all have an equal responsibility to speak out, intervene, report, and so on, as much as we’re able, irrespective of what sex we are? And a right to ask someone’s opinion?
You can’t just tell me I “have more power than women”, unless you can say what extra opportunity it gives me as an individual over you as an individual. Don’t we all have an equal responsibility to speak out, intervene, report, and so on, as much as we’re able, irrespective of what sex we are? And a right to ask someone’s opinion?
Yes, we all have responsibility. And woman are not going to sit about a wait for men to change themselves – it isn’t going to happen. But here is the sad truth – men are more likely to listen to other men than they are to women. You are less likely to be dismissed. You are less likely to be shouted down. You are less likely to be accused of having no sense of humour. You are less likely to have your credentials questioned. You are less likely to have your appearance used as a reason not to listen to your words. You are less likely to be told to stop being a victim. You are less likely to be threatened. I could go on…
Your opportunities are greater than mine – they are greater because of privilege and when taken, they have more influence. When you don’t take them, they reinforce patriarchy.
This is what I mean when I say you have more power. And hey, the saying is true, with power comes responsibility.
But don’t worry, I’m not going to sit around biting my fingernails waiting for men to take responsibility for what they created and destroy patriarchy. Women will most likely do it by themselves. It sucks, but this is the way of the world.
You seem like a good guy who wants to understand and be an ally. I would recommend not getting so het up though. 🙂
Jennifer –
Thanks for that. Not sure I totally agree on all those points, but I see better where you’re coming from now, so thanks for taking the time. Will think about it some more.
And I’m not het up, honestly. I just have an incredibly annoying personality… 🙂
What was it Twisty faster said? Oh yes.
I don’t want no MRA’s in my car. No nice guys either
I think you’d be the first to squeal if the rape conviction rate went up actually.
And lo:
but I do think the presumption of innocence for someone accused of a crime is important as a principle, and given the context (from your post) of most rapes that seems to be a real problem.
I rest my case.
And the court shuffles nervously, unsure whether this might be a joke. Because it must be…
But then – perhaps it’s her first case? Perhaps she’s gone mad? Maybe she is serious. A few people cough, nervously. For a few seconds, everything seems to hang in the balance. And despite the awkwardness of the situation, the world feels strangely fresh and new.
Actually, Polly –
The first person to squeal would be a rapist, wouldn’t it? I don’t know whether you were aware of what you said – it’s possible you weren’t – but I suspect you probably were, and that’s why you chose those words.
So in the spirit of what Jennifer said, can I call you on the fact you think it’s okay to exploit the real world suffering of women to score a cheap rhetorical point against an anonymous stranger on the internet?
Nobody else will, I guess. And obviously, you’ll just disregard this. But anyway.
You know, I think Polly has come up with the best practical solution. You simply avoid men as much as possible. You don’t live with them, thus the 56% “rape in the woman’s home scenario” is diminished. You don’t go to parties with men, you don’t waste time with this.
Women need to say this loud and clear, and I also agree that any man who says he is a “nice” guy I assume is up to no good. I give men absolutely NO benefit of the doubt ever. I am prepared to fight to the death, I have grabbed men by the throat and threatening to strangle them for grabbing my breast. And I will not tolerate mealy mouthed men who say, hey it’s society, I’m not at fault, I’m not responsible, and I don’t have to speak up or do a damn thing.
The silence of men socially on these subjects in the general public tells me loud and clear that they could give a damn.
So I assume all men could be rapists, I assume all men are sexists, and if I absolutely have to have a man in my home for some reason, I have a very large dog that HE is afraid of the whole time he is in the house. I usually tell the man casually that my giant dog is very friendly, but would tear the throat out of any person who laid a hand on me. This evens up the power imbalance, it causes the man to really not get out of line, and I rarely if ever get overcharged or taken advantage for the service I’ve hired him for.
Men are surprised if they come to my door, and I have the dog with me, and refuse to deal with them because they have no proper ID. If a man comes up to me in a park, I tell him I’m going to let the dog loose on him if he doesn’t get out of my face. I have no patience at all with men, none.
So women need to just put it out there… get the men out of your lives, don’t live with them, and don’t ever trust them. All men are evil until proven otherwise and all nice men are the worst.
Tough guys, you have been so dreadful that I condemn you all, no exceptions ever. The price for women making one small mistake and dating the wrong guy leads to HER rape or being terrorized, and most of the time, the man escapes what he deserves, summary execution.
My 5 pence…
1) Again the majority of women sticking so much effort in to this cause which I strongly admire then take the wrong move of alienating men – who, while not sounding sexist – still dominate the legal system, still dominate in politics etc. – women have come a long way in this equality race and without creating another argument/debate on that… there are more female MP’s, more females in the legal system etc. then there used to be but losing track on the actual issue by attacking other men and men in general is the case of 4 steps forward and 12 step backwards.
2) The electric jacket seems a really good idea but in order for it to be rape it requires penetration and to the best of my knowledge neither the 3 types are on her chest. I don’t really know what those evil men do while doing rape so if there are some breast touching he will get a shock (no pun intended) and I realise that it could be seen as difficult to avoid touching the jacket deliberate or not but could be possible. Also vary much depends on how long the shock will last.
You mention about violence towards women here, what stops the man violent tripping the female up so she brought to the ground? You also mention that rapists like to reoffend which I believe to be absolutely true; therefore if they are shocked with this once, the next time, with exception obviously to the extremely violent rape she will be physically beaten too.
The questions I raise as to if this is effective are: Can you only use it once? (before recharging at home) How long does it shock for? If it can be used multiple times how long does it take to recharge before it can be used again? If it is a single application use, it is all about a false sense of security, she would be thrown to the ground, the rapist doesn’t get shocked (the victim possibly shocking her face or legs?) he waits until the shock stops and she gets raped. It sends a shiver down my spine. I also think that the jacket doesn’t blend in with other jackets and would be rather easy to spot. Also would a female be less likely to use it should a potential rapist throw water all over her?
Then there are the accidental circumstances i.e. what if someone taps you on the back gently to alert you that you dropped something only to be shocked by yourself? You would have committed a crime. These use low amp electricity however can kill people if they have certain health issues and give certain people heart attacks.
3) I don’t agree with the anti-rape tampon. I am sure this is a hoax anyway. Fighting violence with violence isn’t a good idea. I think in general the concept is good: it hurts (I am sure!) and would stop them raping again but it is an offense on the person. I think it would be misused for revenge i.e. to get back on a cheating boyfriend. I don’t believe in cheating but this wouldn’t be the answer. It doesn’t look comfortable. Could a real tampon go inside? Otherwise not very practical. There is a good chance of injury for the woman too.
4) Rape alarms? They were released originally as panic alarms and personal alarms. I am sure renaming this clever device to “rape alarm” stuck the price up. The promotion from campaigners etc. actually makes the situation worse. A simple promotion of these personal alarms was all that was needed. Oh no, let’s do something better… price increases!
5) I don’t agree with any of the using technology etc. to counter it. I do however recommend everyone (men and women) to take a personal alarm/panic alarm at night – not just to stop rape or sexual assault but also stop you getting robbed etc.
I think there are two main issues here: 1) the fear (before should an event take place, and also for rape victims: after) and 2) the actual crime. Technology costs and even if it can be afforded it dilutes the crime. How many women would one day decide not to wear it just once as they feel very secure then get raped? Even a few is far too much.
We are forgetting the main issues here. Everyone has a right not to be scared or intimidated by terrorism, rape, assault etc. and this is what needs to be tackled. You can’t expect women to wear these devices to prevent these crimes and this would only divide the opinion of rape up – should someone not wear the jacket: do they deserve to be raped? Of course NOT! I agree women should hold some responsibility for their safety (same for men – we all should) but should someone exploit either of us and commit a crime on us it isn’t our fault and we need to make sure that we never get to the stage where self-blame for a crime someone else committed on you becomes the norm.
In order to tackle the fear the actual crime needs to be reduced – this means tougher sentencing, breaking the trend (weirdoes that commit these crimes typically are those society leaves out. The unpopular one at school, “Billy-no-mates”, I believe that these people can be prevented turning mentally sick if everyone was inclusive – don’t have to be your best mate just don’t exclude them and say hi once in a while – everyone needs to take responsibility), better policing, more of a community spirit nationwide (more people willing to help, people keeping an eye out etc.) and better street lighting!
Sigh. No wonder so many older/ more experienced feminists just stop talking to men altogether. Men just keep making the same tiresome arguments decade after decade! They never bother to read the carefully written and researched take-downs of these pathetic excuses for mass rape and oppression, many of which have been available in handy book or essay format for generations.
No, no! That would be way too much bother! So much more constructive to shrug and say ‘I dunno, what can you do?’
According to them, nothing. Women resisting rape are always met with either outrage or head-patting condescension.
I have stopped caring about men’s opinion on these type of subjects. Don’t like it? Stop raping. We’ve only been asking for millennia, but that hasn’t worked, has it?
Newsflash: If women wanted to put sharp objects in their vaginas to ‘get back’ at their cheating boyfriends, it would already be going on in droves. Yes, we are already capable of turning an ordinary tampon into a weapon! But why aren’t we doing this? Because we aren’t violent arseholes. I know it’s hard to relate to.
Tough.
Valerie it seems like your post may have been directed at me.
There is no excuse/justification for either rape or “mass rape” as you call it.
I am not sure what you mean about outrage of women resisting rape. I don’t know of anyone of either gender that would be outraged about a female trying to escape being raped.
Now you accuse me as being a man like all other men are somewhat affiliated to rapists – which is a human rights violation.
Valerie, the reason why it not being done is because its a hoax.
Take this dispute about Boris (who appears to be male) ignoring to spend money for these rape crisis centres whcih really are needed (sorry for being male and having an opinion on this)… could it be down to people like you denying him an opinion to take action?
A lot of women still go round calling it “a man’s world”, whereas you could be a lesbian and not need a man for love, if you are even a tiny bit interested about anything being done YOU NEED TO INCLUDE MEN IN THE CAMPAIGNING AND ALLOW THEM TO SUPPORT THE CAUSE.
In case you were too thick to realise, Boris is a man, you will need to include him as he has the power, if you wish to exclude nothing will be done and so far it looks like nothing is being done.
What a waste of space you are…
Look – the jacket is irrelevant. Nobody will ever be allowed to wear it legally, and it wouldn’t work if they did. Good luck if it’s charged and it starts raining. Or someone squirts water at you. Or your nose bleeds. It was ‘out there’ in 2003. There’s a reason it’s not in the shops.
More important is the principle: putting the onus on women to protect themselves. And I agree with Cath about this. Totally wrong.
But – and I know people don’t really care – I wouldn’t mind an answer to my last post. I have no privilege here. I’m more likely, as an acknowledged male poster, to suffer the things Jennifer mentioned. It’s the female posters who have the most power here, surely? And yet Polly exploits rape to score an ad hom point against me, and none of you say anything.
What am I missing? Seriously.
I apologise for directing Ipswich Unemployed Action here. Perhaps he and damagedoor can email each other directly about their outrages and save me having to waste the time scrolling past their posts.
http://carnivalagainstsexualviolence.blogspot.com/
You don’t even see it, do you? Amazing. Although validation, I guess, that people are all the same, regardless of sex.
What differentiates Polly’s comment from a rape joke, and why?
yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I know, the scrolling…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Damagedoor, you might as well stay out of this like I think I will. It’s a women thing. About equality and such like – excluding the men ironically… they want to solve the problem themselves. The sad fact they don’t really stand much of a chance by their sexist exclusion ways.
What can you do? Step in to assist and get something done or give them the satisfaction that they are doing it without male support which ends up with increasingly more women getting raped.
Earwicga – The main issue why I keep taking part in these rape talks is because, it may be cramping your sexist feministic ways and I might be continuously flamed for every comment, however, there are women out there who are violently attacked, sexually assaulted and raped. It doesn’t matter if there are a hundred of you against me there are many more people out there, victims out there, who require increase support after and of course more preventative measures such as tougher sentences. You determining the sex of the poster then skipping all male comments is not acceptable. It is for this reason that there will never be gender equality, race equality or age equality.
To see more of Dan’s wisdom then please go to http://tenpercent.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/boris-rape-funding/#comment-22753 which is another great site that suffers from his rubbish.
The bystander thing. Well I’m possibly the poster boy of awareness chic, but, we are all guilty of everything, together. That’s society.
“Men who commit violence against women, do so because they know their actions and crimes will not be challenged and therefore are effectively condoned by other non-violent men.”
my advice is to ask ‘is it true’ and in your case, only to an extent, and also applicable to women.
The labour govt. has a child safe sex offender theory, and gender specific sex offender theory & etc.
Women were (almost exclusively) responsible for that, you want a list of them?
So play fair, I spend a lot of my time keeping crazy Brit ideas in Britain and out of N. Ireland and the people who are a prob, are often so-called feminists.
The global default generally has women as fair game, we could say that.
I agree with the camber of what you are saying, your argument has the lie of the land generally in its favor.
Also if you use child offending stats, then, the deal has to be, in Britain, the NASUWT/NAHT, because they do more than the Sex Offenders Register, they really do.
You have 250,000 pouring money into the legalization of statutory rape. It is their number one expenditure, the foremost policy.
And yet, where are the protests? That’s why the icrease has ‘lose’ written all over it.
It is not possible to make real progress in Britain, until, the ‘sick ideas’ people are separated from the corridors of power.
Child pornography is unquestionably the dominant sex crime in the UK.
Gregory
What differentiates Polly’s comment from a rape joke and why?
My comment is using the words of an internet MRA who voluntarily disrupts any discussion on this blog about violence against women (that’s you damagedoor BTW) against him to show his real attitudes.
Rape jokes are making fun of the victims of a nasty crime.
Clear?
*goes back to sleep zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*
NB earwigca – are Damagedoor and Dan the same person?
NB Gregory, I am in agreement with you about the cover up of child abuse in this country. There’s a lot of well connected people getting away with a lot of extremely bad stuff.
Nah Polly – damagedoor is your splinter and Dan is mine!
*wakes up briefly*
Again the majority of women sticking so much effort in to this cause which I strongly admire then take the wrong move of alienating men – who, while not sounding sexist – still dominate the legal system, still dominate in politics etc. –
Which bit of THAT IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM do you not understand?
I have no privilege here
Yes but you have privilege everywhere else Damagedoor that’s the point. And you’re still expecting to have privilege here, which is why you’re so upset.
My comment was not an ad hominem attack either. I was criticising your expressed opinions. And ad hominem attack is on a commenter as a person – the kind of attacks you constantly direct against me when you say things like this:
Sigh. I didn’t say “what are you going to do about it, women“: you’re debating in your own head again, Polly. You know, deep down, we’re part of a society, don’t you? That’s not divided into blacks v whites, or gays v straight, or men v women? Christ, maybe you don’t.
What you do is to troll this blog asking what women are going to *do* about rape, deride sensible suggestions, and then squeal, yes squeal, about the possibility of an increased rape conviction rate. And that’s what my comment was directed at.
Yes, experienced feminists know that men are clueless, and that women need to just leave men out of the equation entirely. Women creating their own worlds and excluding men is an excellent way to prevent rape. Another thing women can do is brand the letter “R” on the forehead of every rapist. That way, it would be open season if these men dared to go out in public.
Men could stop raping any time they wanted to, just like they could stop telling rape jokes. But we know men are inherently evil, have no intention of changing, and it is a waste of time even talking to them. They don’t get it, they are subhuman animals who I am sure will disappear off the face of the earth eventually when women gain complete control over female reproduction.
I want the species to just go the way of the dinos!
P.S. I don’t even know why men bother to come to feminist sites. They never say anything worth reading anyway, and are just up to no good always. They are worthless sexists idiots.
@Sheila G
Referring to your PS. My understanding is that this is Cath Elliotts blog and as such she has final say on who posts here and who doesnt.
If men do come to this site, which deals with a variety of issues from a feminist perspective, it may be because they want to have a debate; to learn; to share their experiences.
You might not want to engage with men per se, that is your choice, but I dont think its your prerogative to say who can comment here anymore than me.
Jemima, you must have read SheilaG’s comments in a different way to me, as nowhere did I see her say that anybody was not allowed to comment. I think it has been said however, that male comments are generally crap and then time has to be wasted scrolling past them.
Polly – I cannot get into your blog – is there a problem with it?
I’ve just added you earwicga. The blog is private for a bit to frustrate perverted searchers. You’ll need to be logged into wordpress to access it.
Anyone else who is a regular and wants to be added. You need to get a wordpress account (go to wordpress.com) with the e-mail address you use to comment.
SheilaG
This is the closest thing to hate speech I’ve seen on this blog yet, and with the MRA trolls I get here that’s quite some achievement.
Suffice to say I don’t agree with you. Furthermore I think it’s incredibly dangerous to label any group of people as subhuman animals and so on. It’s that kind of attitude that enabled outrages like the holocaust and the Rwandan massacre to take place, because once people are viewed as being less than it makes torturing or killing them that much easier.
Now I’m not here to defend men, or to defend the patriarchy in any way, shape or form, that should probably go without saying. However, even I have my limits, and your comment crosses the line IMO. I would therefore like to draw your attention to my comment policy, which states clearly that hate speech will not be tolerated on this blog.
I’ve left your comment up this time because I think it’s interesting/important for some to see the levels of very real anger that are out there, but any future comments in that vein will be deleted.
Best wishes
Cath
Thank you Cath – I totally agree with you.
It falls straight into the “hate speech” category and that alone could get an entire blog post removed if someone did complain which would be a large shame.
It’s all about limits – SheilaG and a couple of others commenting on this blog are in my opinion exceeding the limits of free speech and being totally offensive.
(I am IUA btw – I forgot to change the name before… it hasn’t been changed to mislead anyone thinking that I am someone else)
Nice blog 🙂 I can’t post on mine at the moment.
Oh god, Polly – you do know “troll” isn’t a synonym for “person disagreeing with Polly on someone else’s blog”, don’t you? Tell me one thing I’ve said as an attempt to derail the discussion, rather than engage with people. Christ, I’m even doing it now.
For the record, I’m not an MRA troll: I think the only time I’ve mentioned MRA on here is about receiving death threats from a fathers’ rights group. And all I did was ask Cath’s opinion. Not because I think it’s her job to solve the problem. But because I’m interested in what she thinks and has to say. Try to imagine that. If you think that means I’m “asking what women are going to *do* about rape”, then you need very basic lessons in comprehension.
And if you think saying “the presumption of innocence is important” makes me a terrible person, then I guess I can live with it. Anyone who equates that with me ‘squealing if the rape conviction went up’ is – frankly – odd.
I’m really not upset at all, Polly. The point was simply that I don’t have privilege here, and you said “yes’, so the rest was irrelevant. I just think it’s funny how little self-awareness you show in using words like “squeal”, presenting me as having opinions I don’t have, dismissing me as a troll whenever I don’t agree with you, suggesting I’m a rape-sympathiser, and so on. And yet I’m expecting to have privilege on here, am I? Blimey.
Maybe we should just not talk to or about each other for a while, okay?
Sorry for derailing the thread in this post, Cath.
damagedoor, I saw this and thought of you 🙂
http://www.feministing.com/archives/011339.html
That’s really sweet, thanks. 🙂
Look – I don’t think I’m a troll. Maybe I am, accidentally, but that’s not for anyone other than the blog-owner to say, although I think a fair reading of the entire thread would say I very obviously wasn’t.
You don’t have to like me: I really don’t care. But I’m not an MRA activist. (How or why would anyone think that? Give me a relevant quote, in context, that I’ve made). And I’ve made an effort to be polite and to engage. If you don’t want me to, that’s cool. Just ignore me. I don’t actually feel like one of the worst men in the world, but perhaps I am, and – if so – I’ll figure it out eventually, although probably not from you or Polly insinuating it. Cheers and all.
Damagedoor, you said:
” I am a non-violent male, and I do my best to challenge attitudes I find objectionable whenever I come across them. My approach with violent guys is to avoid them.
So: what’s the policy approach?”
Jennifer Drew already detailed some positive initiatives already happening, right before you asked this.
Polly gave you the simple answer after you asked this. Men stop raping. You dismissed Polly’s answer, but her answer is the simple end-goal of the initiatives that Jennifer Drew described: changing men’s entitled attitudes to women and helping women challenge/deal with/survive those attitudes. Polly’s other simple answer: women avoid men – actually, that’s your solution too – see above quoted comment – why you are disagreeing? (Ah, you said you avoid violent men. You still think that rape is a clearcut situation, where a man comes at you with a weapon, or beats you up. But by this point in the discussion we’ve already established that acquaintance/partner rape is the more typical scenario – women are raped in their own homes by men who are supposed to like/love them. If you actually give a shit, please go and read the links I posted here and also this. Avoid “violent” men? How do we know who is going to override our lack of consent? How do we avoid them if they are our friends or partners? The neighbour’s son, the kids we’re at school with? Our bosses, our doctors or dentists?).
Cath then referred you to Jennifer’s answers. You said “It’s not that I disagree with Jennifer – beyond the semantics – or you. But how is this done?” Ignoring the fact that the things that Jennifer described are already being done.
Everything that’s been said by women commenters about what is needed you have dismissed or ignored. So, it’s rather as if you seek a particular answer/interpretation: one that reassures you that there’s nothing more you can do, nothing more worth doing, that you, damagedoor, already do all you can and so you don’t need to change anything that you do or think in response to the problem of rape. We aren’t saying that, so in effect you put your fingers in your ears & go la-la-la.
THIS is male privilege in action. You CAN go your own sweet way and not think about rape or feel any direct urgency to do anything about it. Women can’t. We take personal action against rape day in, day out – being wary and cautious when out at night, trying anything and everything to appease an abusive partner, keeping our defenses up against a man we’re dating and who we might actually feel attracted to if he wasn’t acting so entitled and coercive. Rape is a threat to all women.
Damagedoor, you’re behaving trollishly – I believe you when you say you don’t mean to, but intention doesn’t count for much when it doesn’t match behaviour – because you are not engaging and listening in good faith: you keep making this discussion about how to tackle a serious, ongoing threat to women all about you personally. You keep objecting to everything that’s said, most especially the simple fact that ultimately men are responsible for stopping rape. You are a man, yes that puts some responsibility on you. But you keep obtusely mistaking responsibility for individual culpability, and so you dominate the discussion demanding that the handful of women in this conversation reassure you that they don’t think that you personally are a rapist.
This is so not the point. I can assure you, they couldn’ t care less. We don’t know anything about you beyond what you say and how you behave in these blog discussions. We’re not a big mean judge & jury, so stop feeling hard done by. All we can do is ignore you, argue against you, mock you or, in Cath’s case, ban you. At most you face being shoved out of one small corner of the internet.
Taking action, really changing attitudes, taking responsibility, is a big scary commitment. I would respectfully suggest that what’s really freaking you out here is the notion that you do have responsibility to do something – that the choice is to do something about stopping rape or to go on being oblivious. You say “I do my best to challenge attitudes I find objectionable”, and I would be genuinely interested to hear some examples of what was said or done and what you said or did in response, because from your comments here I don’t think you are as clued up about the dynamics of rape and the issues of consent as you think you are, and so aren’t going to be as effective as you could be at this.
Fine, if you aren’t interested in stopping rape. In that case, please go away and stop interrupting us. We’re just a handful of women on the internet – we’re going to have an uphill struggle to achieve anything and be taken seriously anyway. Or if you are interested, sit back and read, both here and elsewhere – try here, here and here and stop interrupting us. Bite your tongue, sit on your hands, think before you speak, resist the urge to talk over and at us. (The most important thing that you can do if you are a man who actually gives a damn about feminism and women’s liberation is to listen to women, credit what they say, and show other men that you do so).
MariaS – I would ask you to marry me if it weren’t a patriarchal institution. Do you have a blog? I’ve seen you commenting on The F Word and you’re always spot on.
MariaS, thank you for taking the time to write the above comment. I do not have the patience (or the writing eloquence) to respond to damagedoor, but you speak for me too.
Okay, fair enough. I don’t think I made it personally about me until someone made a personal comment about me – in fact, I’m sure of it – but if that’s the consensus, then fine. Thank you. I’ll take it on board.
Good god, damagedoor you have the patience of a saint. I understand your question about the assumed benefits that the patriarchy brings. I’d love a solid explanantion.
I’d argue that women benefit massively from the patriarchy too. You probably won’t admit it on here because it’s easier to think in simplistic “women vs men” terms. But, you know, little things like not getting conscripted and sent to war… well they’re perks of your gender. Like getting the benefit of the doubt. So what if ultimately the copper said “oh, we’ll let it go this time” just because he wants to get into your pants- you still got out of that ticket or whatever it was. So what if you got that job instead of me because that old guy would rather stare at you all day than at me- you still got the job.
Women are assumed to be potential victims and in need of protection. Disgusting, thoroughly unfair- but pretty useful sometimes, huh?
I get screwed over by the patriarchy and so do you.
What solid benefit do I get from a woman being raped? I get reminded that the world is a scary place. I get reminded that I’m powerless too. I worry about the women in my life. I get treated with more distrust by every woman I come into contact with. Plenty of downsides that affect me *personally*. Where’s the benefit?
We can work together and do something about it. But that will require you admitting that we’re on the same side. Or you can look for an excuse to set your dog on me.
Polly, nice attitude.
What’s all this talk about rape jokes? I’ve *never once* heard anyone joke about rape. Then again I don’t hang around with people who would find that funny. Do you?
Those of you who go on about avoiding men, it’s probably for the best for everyone.
Nice one Cath for curtailing the hate speech.
Hi Polly, if you read this could you add me too please?
These guys are wierd. They are extremely concerned that even women who don’t like or trust men include them.
Er, if a bunch of black people said they were sick of white people, would a reasonable person pester them? I wouldn’t, because I would respect their desire to be left alone.
And that’s what all this boils down to. Repect. These wierdos don’t respect female humans or the choices which female humans make. Most women are happy to include creepy men and so these dudes can literally find inclusion anywhere, but being included by most women isn’t enough for these twits. They want to be included by women who expressly choose to exclude them.
Reminds me of the transgendered, who remind me of the MRA’s. It’s a domination thing. Sorry if that’s been said already, I read halfway down and then started reading bottom-up.
Polly, add me too please.
Forgot password to original Butterflywings for some bizarre reason, *shrug* hence the 2.
Oh and I agree with Cath re: SheilaG’s comment. I am no coddler of teh ickle menz, but…
Matt – yes, the patriarchy hurts men too. It hurts *everyone* and should be got rid of. There are feminists who agree with much of what you’ve said. They are not the ones being divisive (‘women vs men’.) Yes, many feminists do want to work together.
You (in the sense of men as a class, not you as an individual, since I don’t know you) benefit from patriarchy whether you want to or not.
Men, on average, earn more than women.
Men don’t have to worry that they got the job for their looks.
Men aren’t made to feel scared of walking alone at night.
Men aren’t socialised to behave in unassertive and essentially self-destructive ways.
“Er, if a bunch of black people said they were sick of white people, would a reasonable person pester them? I wouldn’t, because I would respect their desire to be left alone.”
If I am white, I have to throw rocks at the Roxbury kids.
And if somebody from Roxbury says I am white,
I ask him the capital of Nigeria or etc. and then I tell him I didn’t let anybody trick me into thinking I’m white.
And it is Abuja (was Lagos)
So lets find an oil company or a banker and throw rocks together.
Hi butterflywings2
Thanks for your comment. I can’t agree with some of it though. You say:
“Men, on average, earn more than women.”
This is a complicated subject and is not a result of simple sexism. It’s because childcare seems to be seen as women’s work. This is unfair on women. It’s also unfair on men. Obviously matters like child custody, and also general attitudes in society toward men and children… PAEDOS!!!
“Men don’t have to worry that they got the job for their looks.”
As I mentioned in my post before, this is unfair but something that women often benefit from. As a student, responding to ads for “waiting staff” and, unsurprisingly getting rejected taught me this. You might moan that the pretty ladies are more likely to get the job- where does that leave the guys?
So yes, it’s wrong that women should be get a job for anything other than competence. But I don’t see how you can identify this as a way that the patriarchy helps me out.
“Men aren’t made to feel scared of walking alone at night.”
Are you serious? Men are *far* more likely to be physically assaulted when out around town. I think it’s something like 8 times as likely. The difference is that, as a bloke, you’re not allowed to admit that you’re scared of that. Because, you know, you’re a man and a real man can handle ANYTHING.
That’s why we have sensible conventions like “women and children first” and whenever war or danger loom, who’s going to end up injured or dead? Real men.
Real men have no feelings. Real men don’t cry. Real men don’t feel pain. Real men are strong and silent.
I don’t want to conform to that bullshit. Does society make that easy? Nope.
“Men aren’t socialised to behave in unassertive and essentially self-destructive ways.”
Yes they are! Real Men are! Maybe not unnassertive -but more self-destructive I’d say.
So no, I don’t think, on the whole, I benefit from what you call the patriarchy.
You say that the patriarchy harms everyone.
I could see where you were coming from if you said it harms women more than men.
But I simply can’t see how I benefit from it. And as for how I benefit from a woman being raped… well that’s mind boggling but I guess it’s one of those things that will never be explained.
earwigca, you’re welcome. JenniferRuth, thank you! 🙂 Have been reading & absorbing feminist blogs for a long while and didn’t comment much till quite recently – mostly am applying stuff I read elsewhere. But it takes me AGES to finish writing anything, and life gets in the way. Once the thought->writing process becomes less painstakingly slow am reasonably positive that I will blog; I’ll make my name linky when commenting if that happens.
Matt: Finally Feminism101: FAQ: Don’t women have “female privilege”?.
If you think we’re all getting screwed over by patriarchy, why are you so averse to feminism? What other political & philosophical movement than feminism is out there trying to dismantle patriarchy? You seem resigned to living in an unsatisfactory, unfair system – or is this just a convenient argument for the status quo? An appealing rationalisation for doing nothing? Everyone is oppressed, so feminists should just stop whining.
Anyone having problems muddling up criticism of men as a class with verbal attacks on individual men, which I think is usually simultaneously an understandable error in thinking AND a silencing tactic (by making it all about the individual men rather than the problems faced by women and an attempt to deflect discussion about men’s participation and privilege in an oppressive system into appeasement and reassurance of individual men), I recommend The Gender Knot by Allan G. Johnson. He explains very accessibly the idea of patriarchy as a male-identified, male-dominated social system that we all participate in, and specifically addresses the confusion about discussion of patriarchy, gender & feminism at the level of systems and classes versus the personal, individual level. The first chapter is available free as a pdf download, and there is discussion of it here, (with follow-up posts from same blog listed here)
Well, I linked to my comment on that FWord post on rape jokes simply to conveniently refer to links I had included in that comment, particularlythis and this, to illustrate why the violence of rape is not typically overt aggression or use of weapons – why damagedoor’s statement “My approach with violent guys is to avoid them” in a discussion about rape is simplistic and uninformed.
I don’t hear many rape jokes from people I know personally either, and I’m very thankful about that. But, I do hear and hear of them in the media, and there’s a lot of people out there writing about hearing them and being upset by them (see that F word post & the comments for one), so because YOU don’t hear them doesn’t mean they don’t exist and aren’t a problem. (I don’t know why I’m still surprised to realise how often men’s arguments are based purely on “because I say so”.) Rape jokes normalise and trivialise rape, including the rape of men (“don’t bend over in the showers!”-type prison rape jokes for example) and of children (any joke about children and famous sex offenders or suspected sex offenders – Gary Glitter, Michael Jackson – is a joke about the sexual abuse of children).
For all that men participating in discussions about rape express abhorrence of rape, what they usually fail to understand and acknowledge is the awful and all-pervasive normalisation of rape in our culture. A culture in which advertising creatives can applaud an ad campaign that includes an image of a half-naked woman lying face down & seemingly lifeless in a river, and say that it screams “raw sex”. THAT is where we are at gentlemen.
Eff off you snide git.
Small, niggling point about this line of argument that always talks about singular rape. It’s not a woman being raped, it’s many many women being raped, every day, everywhere.
Damagedoor, in the comment you took offence at, Polly was pointing out that for all your disclaimers about how you, and your friends, were brought up not to rape and would never ever do so, your instinctive loyalty lies with men accused of rape.
This does not mean that Polly was accusing you of being a rapist. It means that you were siding with hypothetical accused rapists. (What that means for what you do or have done in your real life is unknowable for us. What we do know from this is that you’re going to be an obstructive and unhelpful contributor to any discussion about the problem of rape).
She had said that the solution to rape is either that men stop raping or that rape prosecuted more effectively and consistently – meaning that rape convictions will rise and more rapists will go to prison. Having asked for solutions, you rejected and disputed this answer. You started asserting that a rise in convictions would (in some entirely unspecified way) be a compromise of the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Your underlying meaning being, women tend to lie. For all you abhor rape, you’re not on the side of victims. Your first instinct is to doubt them.
You imply that rape is difficult to convict because it’s all a case of he-said, she-said, and that to place more credence on what she said would lead to wrongful convictions. If he said she was willing, and she said she was not willing, why do people think that he has more authority to definitively attest to her sense of willingness? The voices of men are granted credibility and authority, and women’s are not. Given the current low conviction rate why do people believe that women are rushing to make false accusations? Not to mention the underreporting of rape. The real problem is that victims aren’t taken seriously.
Your reiteratation of muddled, uninformed arguments just reinforces widespread attitudes that stand in the way of victims getting justice and support. You know that any Comment Is Free discussion about rape is dominated by comments warning of the supposedly high rate of false allegations and how terrible it is for a man to be falsely accused of rape, and comments that say “rape is heinous but… [insert insinuation that women lie/victim blaming/rape-minimisation here]”. Commenter after commenter pays lip service to the absolute awful terribleness of rape, yet instead of coming to the conclusion, “rape is heinous, so how can we stop it and how can we help the victims”, it somehow leads them instead to “rape is heinous, so it’s very very bad to accuse someone of it”.
Cath already referenced this report which tells us that the problem is precisely that rape victims are doubted and are let down by the system thanks to these attitudes: Home Office Research Study 293: A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases (2005) (link is to pdf file). (“Attrition” meaning how cases don’t make it through to court). From pages 14 – 15 of the pdf (from the report summary), emphasis added:
It also tells us about another, related problem: victims feeling they were being told there was no point proceeding because of the low conviction rate (again, page 15):
I am tired of being told to “Think of the plight of the possibly innocent rape suspects!”, when rape victims still get such a raw deal that they are really better off not trying to get justice, spend literally years coping with the aftermath of the assault – struggling to simply restore a sense of safety and security; to deal with attendant mental health problems and destructive coping mechanisms (like substance abuse and self-harm), and often dealing with these things entirely on their own, maybe taking years to disclose and to seek support (and then to actually get useful support is another matter entirely). I’m quite certain that most unconvicted rapists never give any thought to the person they fucked (up) all those years ago and their lives have not been remotely marked by what they did. Put the victims first. Stop siding with rapists.
Maria –
Thanks for the reply, and for the links.
Just to clarify, I’m not saying that to place more credence on “what she said” than “what he said” would lead to more wrongful convictions. I believe the vast majority of reports are rape are genuine (by which I mean very close to all of them).
But I didn’t at all – it was Polly who equated those situations, not me, in her 21 July 7:55 post. I don’t think they’re the same things at all, which is why I was so bemused by it. It assumes the only way there could be a rise in rape convictions would be to compromise that principle. I’d hate to think that was true, and I hope it isn’t.
I don’t want to prolong this in a comment trail where I’m clearly not welcome, but I don’t want to be misunderstood. I think the presumption of innocence is important – not because I think women are lying, or because I’m choosing to side specifically with men, but because the principle is the foundation of our criminal justice system. I think it’s important in all criminal cases, even if it means criminals will go free. Without it, the concept of society effectively collapses.
If you want to argue the nuances of it within rape cases especially, then we might well agree on many points. If you want to say it shouldn’t apply to rape cases, then I disagree but respect your opinion. But please don’t think I’m choosing specifically to defend men or rapists over women, or suggesting women are all lying, when I’m only defending a principle.
I guess that’s partly why Polly’s comment was so unreasonable to me: that I’d be the first to squeal if rape convictions went up. If you don’t think that implies an increase in convictions would directly affect me, then – again – I disagree. It seems fairly plain to me.
Regardless – thanks for the links and the reply (seriously) and all the best.
Hi MariaS
Thanks for your thoughts.
You ask why I’m against feminism. I’m not against feminism in general. I have a wife and I might one day have daughters- even on a selfish level why would I wish to deny equality to them? But I have no particular love for the kind that says that the current system is great for me so I’m at the back of the queue for justice because ALL women EVERYWHERE have it worse than ALL men EVERYWHERE.
Those women who, seeing everything in such simplistic terms, who have no sympathy for men, wish no contact with men- they should just avoid men- they’ll be happier and so will the people they hate (or at best, have a total inability to relate to).
How would you picture the users of a site where a load of blokes were saying “never trust a women… I just avoid them… they’re subhuman (sshh sshhh we don’t all think that way)”. When they said “hey, we want to change the world. You might benefit too. Join us!” would you be in a rush to sign up? 🙂
So yes, let’s ditch the patriarchy (as you call it), but if you’re going to point at men, at all things male and say “that’s the patriarchy”, do you really expect me to pitch in? What’s in it for me?
What I said about rape jokes (I have actually thought of one in the meantime, in Monty Python’s ‘Brian’) wasn’t to say that they don’t exist. It was because they seem to get mentioned a lot and they don’t seem to be that common. Not sure why you felt the need to follow that up with “men’s arguments are based on etc etc unless you had fabricated an argument for me in your head…)
Anyway, I *still* haven’t seen a single argument for how I benefit from the patriarchy. Me, personally. Come on…
“And as for how I benefit from a woman being raped…”
Small, niggling point about this line of argument that always talks about singular rape. It’s not a woman being raped, it’s many many women being raped, every day, everywhere.”
OK, how do I benefit from women being raped?
damagedoor:
No, I don’t think that it shouldn’t apply to rape cases, I haven’t said that it shouldn’t, and neither has anyone else.
It was you who introduced the principle & its possible compromise into the discussion and suggested that it was a problem, here:
The problem is that that argument is a distraction. I believe that you don’t mean it like that and I agree that innocent till proven guilty is an absolutely essential principle, but I still read what you said as meaning that for rape to be prosecuted more vigorously that would mean that this principle could be compromised.
I simply don’t believe that is so. It is just not a point that even needs arguing or addressing. Taking rape victims seriously and not dismissing or minimising what has happened to them does not compromise the rights of the accused. It means that the police & CPS take the victim seriously, investigate the case properly and brings it to trial if they thinks there is a case to be made. The Gap or Attrition? report shows that the problem is in getting rape properly investigated and prosecuted. Victims are being let down by the system.
To introduce the idea of a threat to the principle of innocent till proven guilty muddies the issues and sounds very much like, and feeds into, the ever present CiF chorus of “what about false rape accusations?”. I’m sure they all think they aren’t taking an anti-victim stance too – but that is the practical effect of such arguments & priorities.
We are not in a situation where rape suspects’ rights are under threat. We are, here & now, in a situation where rape victims are being failed. To argue hypotheticals is supremely unhelpful.
I don’t have time to think this through thoroughly right here and now, sorry, but I suspect that the “he said, she said” aspect of rape is not necessarily as weak as it is often assumed to be. I think that when this is raised, it is often thought of in quite a superficial way, and that really there there is more substance and worth to victim testimony. I’ll try and come back to this here but can’t guarantee it. It is larger issues about conflicting ideas about consent and mistaken assumptions about rape. It would need to be discussed with reference to actual cases.
Today I read this Australian Institute of Criminology – Juror attitudes and biases in sexual assault cases (h/t to Marcella) . It is arguing that jurors are not basing their decisions on evidence and testimony but on pre-existing assumptions about rape, rapists & rape victims (bolding is mine):
Addressing these biases & myths is necessary not only for the effective prosecution of rape but also for its prevention.
I think it’s severely stretching things to take this as Polly holding a serious belief that you actually are a rapist, and giving you any thought outside of internet discussions. (Btw, sorry Polly for presuming to interpret your meaning in your comments). You & she don’t know each other in real life, and are not going by identifiable real names. I don’t see how her comments here have any meaningful real effect upon you. Essentially, you are saying that you personally are bothered what Polly personally thinks of you, and that we should all be bothered too. Seems silly to me, and a distraction from the subject under discussion.
You’re welcome, thank you.
Matt:
You seem to be assuming that feminists are trying to convert people to feminism. It is true that if more people were feminists, feminism’s goal of liberating women from oppression would happen a bit faster. But conversion isn’t the point. Feminists carry on regardless.
What I’m remarking on is the inconsistency of arguing the patriarchy hurts men too, and yet apparently being content to put up with patriarchy hurting you.
If you need to be dragged reluctantly to a feminist viewpoint, it’s not worth the effort on our part. Either you look at the culture around us and are bothered by the injustice and oppression that women are subjected to, and think that this whole gender differentiation shit and the hierarchy & inequality that it supports are ridiculous and nonsensical – i.e. you hold a feminist viewpoint – or you don’t. It’s not up to women/feminists to go out of their way to be nice to you. We’ll just carry on saying and doing feminist things, you can listen or you can ignore us. Nobody forces you to come and read feminist blogs. There’s a whole culture out there that happily agrees with you that feminism is irrelevant.
If you choose to take it as a personal attack on you individually when feminists critique men (as a class) and masculinity, that’s your problem.
The Gender Knot: Chapter 1 (pdf)
By the way, you’re asking similar questions re male privilege etc as damagedoor did – people have already given answers.
This conversation is NOT about YOU.
I have, for the sake of my sanity just read Maria S’s comment on this.
“if you’re going to point at men, at all things male and say “that’s the patriarchy”, do you really expect me to pitch in? What’s in it for me?”
Nothing Matt, you lose male privilege by the triumph of feminism. That’s the point. Just as white people would lose white privilege in a non racist society. So are you saying all white people should therefore be racist? Are you saying white people shouldn’t have campaigned against apartheid?
MariaS:
I’m not implying that you’re trying to convert anyone to anything. I’m suggesting that you’re trying to effect some kind of change (beyond being right on with people who already agree with you 100%). In order to do that you need to engage with people, not set your dogs on them, metaphorically speaking.
““Anyway, I *still* haven’t seen a single argument for how I benefit from the patriarchy. Me, personally. Come on…”
“This conversation is NOT about YOU.”
That’s a non-answer. The statement was made about an individual man. When I asked for some explanation, I didn’t need to post links or use hideout words like patriarchy and privilege. I just asked someone to explain that idea and no one can.
How can all of you believe something, yet be unable to explain it, unable to defend it.
It reminds me of “how do you know God exists?” being responded to with “who are *you* to question *that*”
This is the thread on which that meaningless “all men benefit from the patriarchy, all men benefit from rape” line died.
Polly:
No, no- your analogy is incorrect- it would be more accurate to say white people should, rather than looking for equality, support the black panthers or some other group that regards them as ‘part of the problem’, ‘subhuman’ etc etc
There’s a difference between equality and women’s rights. One taken to extremes is a fair balance. The other isn’t.
Best wishes everyone.
MariaS –
In that case, I’m sorry, as you’re right: I didn’t mean it like that. When I said that, I was referring to the 50% statistic Cath mentioned – that 50% of rapes are repeat assaults by the same perpetrator. Within the context implied by that statistic, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say “that’s a crime that may be difficult or even impossible to prove in a court of law”.
But I didn’t mean it in an ‘alarm bells ringing’ kind of way (I didn’t bring false accusations into it at all, because I don’t believe they exist on any kind of grand scale) or that it precluded taking victims seriously and aggressively pursuing cases. And I certainly didn’t mean it dismissively, as in ‘the problem can’t be solved’. So I’m sorry if it came across like that.
Anyway – thanks again for your reply. Much still to read, so I’ll leave it at that.
Matt –
Why don’t you do some research instead of demanding MariaS answer all your questions? She provided you with quite a few links and it seems you haven’t read them (some provided answers to your questions).
I suggest you go and read this blog:
Finally Feminism 101
You will find answers to most, if not all, of your questions.
Stop expecting women to answer all your questions and then smugly dismiss feminism when they don’t spoon feed you answers. Educate yourself. You know how to use google. Go use it and stop derailing the conversation here (which, by the way, was about rape – not about how patriarchy effects you, you, you!).
jennifer ruth and maria s – well said.
“Nothing Matt, you lose male privilege by the triumph of feminism. That’s the point. Just as white people would lose white privilege in a non racist society. So are you saying all white people should therefore be racist? Are you saying white people shouldn’t have campaigned against apartheid?”
It is exactly this that makes me so curious about this whole “privilege” line. It’s not as if the spearheads of other civil rights movements constantly stressed that they were seeking a world where (say) whites had a worse time of it. That was never the approach, for a very good reason. I find it rather curious that feminists insistently press home on privilege, rather than embracing comrades readily.
The result is you get a supposedly anti-binary movement which honours & reveres the gender binary. Entirely ineffectual, of course.