Melanie Phillips talks shit, again
Posted on May 24, 2010
According to Melanie Phillips in today’s Mail, the new ConDem government is wrong to consider granting anonymity to those accused of rape. So far so good eh? Indeed, you might now be thinking: “At last! Mel “I’ve never been considered a part of the sisterhood” (Question Time 13/5/10) has finally seen some sense and come out on the side of the angels for a change.”
In which case calm yourselves, because no, that’s not what’s happened here.
In fact far from it. Because this time, Melanie Phillips has sunk lower than it was previously thought humanly possible to sink, and has suggested that rather than granting anonymity to men charged with rape, the government should instead be looking at abolishing anonymity for rape victims.
“We should name their accusers” rants Mel, in her usual calm and rational manner “‘cos they’re just a bunch of lying slags anyway!”
Yeah okay, I made that last bit up, but it’s basically what her shameful argument boils down to.
Take this claim for example:
“The injustice being done to men derives from the false accusations that result in the 40 per cent acquittal rate. And what fuels those untrue claims is that the women who make them know they will never be held to account.”
That’s right, not only has Mel rounded up the conviction rate, from the 58% Baroness Stern recommended politicians and campaigners should be using (a recommendation I and others reject by the way) to 60%; she’s then put two and two together and come up with some truly twisted fuckwittery along the lines of: 40% of men accused of rape are acquitted, therefore 40% of men accused of rape are the victims of lying scheming bitchez. Fuckwittery which she later repeats:
“the important point is that the real injustice to men in those 40 per cent of rape cases where they are acquitted is not that their identities are made known but that they are the victims of false allegations in the first place.”
She goes on:
“Women were originally granted anonymity in rape cases because of the often harsh cross-examination to which they were subjected, which laid bare their sexual history.
So to encourage those who had been sexually attacked to brave the ordeal in court, their identities were kept secret.
When the new law was introduced in 1976, there was some force behind this argument. Indeed, the Mail led the campaign which led to this change in the rules.
But circumstances now are very different. Women’s sexual behaviour has changed beyond recognition. We are in a far less prissy age. Sexual modesty has gone out of the window.”
Or in other words, there’s no reason for women to suddenly come over all coy and embarrassed when talking about their rapes nowadays, ‘cos they’re not backwards in coming forwards when it comes to sex anyway.
At which point I’m sure I’m not the only one wondering what on earth Mel thinks rape and women’s sexual behaviour have to do with each other…
According to Mel:
“Rape has been redefined from a crime in which someone is forced to have sex against their will to cover a wide variety of non-violent sexual encounters.
Thus a woman is encouraged to claim she has been raped when, for example, with the benefit of hindsight, she may become aggrieved about what she voluntarily allowed to happen, particularly when she was rather the worse for wear.”
Encouraged by who though, you might be asking. Why, by all those man-hating femnazis who’ve been driving the rape agenda for all these years of course. The same shadowy group Minette Marrin referred to as the “rape lobby” in yet another “Won’t somebody think of the poor rapists” piece in yesterday’s Times.
The comments underneath Mel’s rant are the usual mixed bag, with some rightly condemning the author for her fucked up analysis, and others lauding her as the voice of sanity. Predictably though, the misogynists are out in force. Here’s Sandy from Hertfordshire for example:
“Very little consideration, if any at all, is given to those completely innocent men whose lives have been totally ruined by the lies of vindictive, scheming, women who were found to have made false rape accusations for whatever reason, often out of sheer spite and malice or out of shame and regret for their own actions in a sexual relationship, often resulting in tragic consequences for the men concerned. Melanie spaketh the truth. I am fed up with women who claim victim status when none exists in reality, or will not accent [sic] responsibility or accountability for their own actions.”
And here’s a “world war 2 veteran” from Bradford, a man so brave he won’t even post under his own name.
“The feminists tell us women can do anything a man can do, & do it better. They can fight in the front line, use machine guns, pilot bombers & act as captain or crew on nuclear submarines & aircraft carriers. Yet when it comes to standing behind an accusation they have made, it is “Pass the smelling salts, I am a weak & vulnerable woman”.”
And finally here’s Jan from Harpenden:
“or women who go to the hotel rooms of guys and say they didn’t want or expect to have sex – what a load of rubbish”
What a load of rubbish indeed. I mean for god’s sake sisters, everyone knows that if you go to a bloke’s hotel room you’re then obliged to have sex with him. It’s in the (entirely-made-up-in Jan-from Harpenden’s-head) contract ffs!