You may remember a couple of weeks ago I raised some concerns about this (now edited) piece, written by Phyllis Stephen, for the “daily online news and current affairs service aimed at women” Women’s Views on News.
Well today, Phyllis is at it again. Here she is, in a piece entitled Rape, commenting on the distressing story of a 16 year old girl who was raped while out walking her dog in Edinburgh:
“I would not like you to think that I have empathy or sympathy for the attacker in any way at all, but….
The 16 year-old girl was walking her dog along a path in Edinburgh which I use regularly as a cycle way. I would not actually be very comfortable cycling there on my own, nor would I do so at 10pm, when it is almost dark, even this far north. But this girl did. And she was attacked.
So what am I saying? I am merely making a tiny little suggestion that women should not put themselves in situations of danger. So an isolated path in the hours of near-darkness are not really the place for women of any age. And this is not actually a very dangerous city to live in. But it is common sense to protect yourself isn’t it?”
Wtf? I mean, where to even begin with this one.
Ok, first off I’ll admit to feeling a bit guilty about doing two posts in quick succession about Women’s Views on News, because let’s face it, it’s not the Daily Mail. In fact most of the time it’s a news site that I actually find really informative and useful. However, I suspect that’s part of the problem, in that it’s a site I go to regularly, and one which I’ve come to respect, especially when Alison Clarke is writing for it. So when pieces like this one go up it comes as a bit of shock – I guess what I’m saying is, it’s not what I’d expect to find on a news site written by women about women.
With that clarification out of the way then, let’s take a look at what Phyllis is saying here:
“I would not like you to think that I have empathy or sympathy for the attacker in any way at all, but….”
A big part of the problem is with that “but….” Phyllis may as well have ended the sentence “but I do”, because that’s the implication in the “….”
And then there’s this:
“I am merely making a tiny little suggestion that women should not put themselves in situations of danger”
Considering that the majority of rape victims are raped by men they know, partners, ex partners and so on, I’m curious as to how Phyllis would suggest we do that. Perhaps she thinks women should live separately from men or something, although I suspect not: she doesn’t really come across as a radical feminist separatist type.
“So an isolated path in the hours of near-darkness are not really the place for women of any age.”
No, indeed, women should all be curfewed and locked safely indoors during the hours of darkness, or even near-darkness, shouldn’t they Phyllis?
“But it is common sense to protect yourself isn’t it?”
Because if you don’t, you’ve only got yourself to blame…..
This is a classic case of victim blaming. Nowhere does Phyllis mention the rapist (apart from referring to him as the attacker who she doesn’t want us to think she has any sympathy for, but…) or his responsibility in perpetrating the rape. No, this is all about a silly young girl who put herself in danger by daring to go where no woman should in the hours of near-darkness. Phyllis even knows the area, and she wouldn’t go there at night. But this girl did, and look what happened to her.
Bet she’s learnt her lesson now though eh?
Well thanks for that contribution Phyllis, and WVoN. I’m sure rape victims up and down the country are wondering now why on earth they didn’t think of employing a bit of “common sense” before they went and got themselves raped.
Strewth.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Oh dear, yet another case of victim blaming. Seriously, what is it with people who think that it’s ok to blame rape victims for what has happened to them but not victims of other crimes?
Sounds like Phyllis needs to wake up to the idea that women have just as much right to walk their dogs (or in fact be on the streets in general) at whatever time they please as men do!
Phyllis Stephen is on Twitter @PMStephen I’ve thanked her for reminding me that I am to blame for being raped.
Seems the post has now been removed.
Hi,
I can’t understand why a lot of women, like this Phyllis indeed, are always finding excuses and justification to rapists and to all the oppressions going on and serious injustices done to women all the time. They certainly identify with the other side of the “sex” war. I am just glad they are not men themselves because they might just add their names on the lists of rapists (that are not advertised publicly most of the time and that only victims know by the way), but their opinions or absence of opinion when it needs an opinion are dangerous. They are working as alibis for men not to feel guilty and not to open their mind and stop dominating and destroying us.
Sometimes, women, whatever good feminist discourse you serve them, still like to be oppressed and to oppress, and help oppress. Maybe because they won’t feel guilty enough when we challenge men as oppressors, as we carefully do not target them, holding them as “victims” as well who suffer Stockolm syndrome or something alike.
Phyllis there are two solutions either all women should live totally separate lives from males wherein no male ever comes into contact with a woman/girl OR – men must be held accountable for committing rape and sexual violence against women and girls.
Neither of these two options would be acceptable to pro-rape apologists would they? So of course the focus has to be on blaming women rather than holding men responsible for condoning/justifying/believing rape/male sexual violence against women rarely happens.
Or perhaps Phyllis is deluding herself by believing because ‘I wouldn’t do this or that this in itself supposedly protects me from those deviant individuals who are apparently easily recognisable as ‘rapists’ from attacking me.’
Good try Phyllis but reality is no woman or girl can ever be 100% safe unless of course she exiles herself to an island where no man lives. Apart from that the issue is as always ‘the men’s issue’ because only men can stop committing rape and condoning/justifying/not speaking out against other men who do commit rape with impunity.
Why this happens is because guess what Phyllis? We live in a male supremacist society or perhaps you might understand the word patriarchy both of which mean male-dominat and male-centered worlds.
Well glad it’s been removed, but did Phyllis actually think the girl who was raped herself may have read this? And given any thought as to how that would have made her feel?
I’m glad it’s been removed too, although I’m not sure removing it without putting up an explanatory post is the answer. There will be people who did read it, and who aren’t aware of the controversy it caused.
Phyllis Stephen replied to me on twitter:
“Thank you for your comment. I do not agree with your interpretation of my article. I am truly sorry that you have been a victim.”
A hollow apology.
I’d like to see an explanatory post too Cath.
Phillipa Willitts has ammended a press article about a rapist to show how it should read, on The F-Word http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010/07/rapist_urged_no
Phyllis Stephen on women in Uganda:
“It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities…”
http://bit.ly/aZ2DnC?r=td
Phyllis Stephen on women in Britain:
“women should not put themselves in situations of danger”
Phyllis Stephen’s rape ‘facts’ and the hierarchy of rape:
“99% of all rapists are themselves the victims of abuse. This I have always found fascinating, and a bit of an insight into why men would rape in the first place. Some date rape scenarios, whilst not forgivable are easier to understand, but the motivation for someone to randomly pick out a woman and rape her remains a crime of the highest order in most criminal justice systems. If you know however that the perpetrator has themselves been the victim of some abuse, then it may not make it all right but it may allow for a limited type of empathy in certain limited circumstances.”
http://phyllisstephen.com/2010/03/14/what-do-you-know/
The article highlighted in the OP isn’t a one-off.
Rape is a horrible crime. It should not happen in our country – but it happens to 50,000 women every year (according to statistics published by the FAWCETT Society).
It is also a very emotive topic. Women are not responsible for being raped – that is absolutely true. It appears that no other crime carries the same level of emotion. Is this because it is a crime that is overwhelmingly carried out against women? The legal definition does of course apply to the crime when committed against a man.
I am not a shrinking violet but there are places I don’t go at night and places I would not go during the day on my own. My first duty of care is to myself. When I visit a new city, I check the guidance in the hotel on how to leave the building in the event of a fire and I check the guidance on what the hotel has to say about safety in the city. I should be free to walk down any street and any alley – and I am – but I choose not to because it is a risk I am not willing to take. I don’t feel under curfew.
It is one thing to excuse rape – it is quite another to suggest that people should not take unnecessary risks. Read any university web site and indeed any police web site and they will offer guidance on keeping safe in the locality or the city.
I am distressed by the story of this rape. I worry about my daughter when she goes out at night. I ask her who she is with? How is she getting home? Always watch your drink. These are normal sensible concerns. If I had a son I would ask the same questions. No young man asks to have his head kicked, or a bottle smashed in his face.
My reading of Ms. Stephen’s article as copied above is simple – she suggested that there are some places which are unsafe. Please can we have a debate on what she said – she does not condone rape, she is not an apologist for a rapist. She is suggesting that the duty of care is to ourselves – why is that so wrong?
I don’t see what there is to debate. I don’t think women should ‘put themselves in situations of danger’ either – so for example I don’t think women (or men) should stand around on railway lines or walk on thinly frozen lakes in winter etc, they should look both ways before crossing the road and wear seatbelts when they drive.
But taking your dog for an evening walk? That hardly seems an act of wildly reckless risk-taking – in fact I do it myself every day at the moment, as it’s too hot for my dog to walk far during the day. Do you really think it’s reasonable to say no woman or girl should ever leave her house alone in the ‘hours of near-darkness’ (note that in the winter in the UK this is going to mean most of us wouldn’t be able to go to work or school)? But some rapes happen in full daylight, so maybe we should stay indoors all the time unless accompanied by a man? But what about the many women and girls who are raped in their own homes, sometimes by their husband or a family member, or in the home of a friend or boyfriend? Maybe we should all be locked up in prison for our own safety? Except do you think people in positions of power like prison guards never take advantage of that to rape?
As for some places being unsafe – yes, there are such places in the world (I believe the K2 mountain is considered one of the most dangerous, and you couldn’t pay me enough to try sailing around Cape Horn), but an Edinburgh footpath is not one of them. The young woman in question was going about her everyday business in a perfectly reasonable way, doing the same thing that dog owners all over the country do every day. There’s no need at all for any scrutiny of her behaviour. Let’s have a bit less of that, and a bit more focus on the person who chose to single her out for a brutal attack. Because someone did, which seems to be forgotten in articles like Phyllis Stephen’s, which frame rape as something that just ‘happens’ if you venture into ‘unsafe places’ like some kind of natural force.
Martin, you are completely right: there are places which are unsafe and where a woman is more likely to be raped.
The MAJORITY of rapes happen in the victim’s own home.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2146077.stm
What do you expect women to do, lock themselves in a box?
It’s rapists who make these places unsafe Martin!
If I didn’t go anywhere I could possibly be raped, (like hello, outside, or my own home though since there are no men here, that’s pretty safe unless someone breaks in of course) I wouldn’t go to work and then the Condems would be after me for being a dole scrounger!
Jesus H Christ on a barbecue.
I note you just made the same point Sarah. Snap.
Hi, Cath, I hadn’t been aware of the debate on your site about the blog post that Phyllis put up last Friday until she drew my attention to it. As you know the post was removed and I just wanted to tell you that this morning I’ve put up an apology to all our readers.
Thanks Alison.
What’s so terrible about what Martin said?
There are plenty of places I wouldn’t dare go, certainly at night.
Of course if I did get assaulted, mugged, raped, murdered the person in the wrong would be by attacker. And avoiding these places is certainly not a long term solution and doesn’t solve the problem.
But it does reduce my likelihood of getting assaulted, mugged, raped, murdered.
So I’ll continue avoiding those places for now.
Lolly: I have lived in lots of ‘dangerous’ places. The kind of places where people say ‘oh you shouldn’t go there’. Nothing ever happened to me in any of these places.
If you never GO to these places how do you know they’re dangerous? Think about it.
Are there statistics that say your likelihood of getting assaulted, mugged, raped, murdered is reduced by avoiding them? Or are you just making an assumption?
The one single thing a female person can do to reduce her likelihood or being raped, or murdered is probably to be a lesbian. Because most rapes are committed by males, and most of those rapes are by partners or ex partners. Approximately 100 women a year are killed in incidents of domestic violence also. Mostly by males.
So, if you are female Lolly, do you intend to become a dyke, if you’re not one already? If the answer is no, is it because you don’t want to?
Ok then: if you’re raped/murdered by a male partner, you’re to blame. You could have avoided it and you chose not to.
Fracking hell.
Oh Polly, I liked what you wrote.. It is good to laugh but I totally agree, I mean.
polly:
I respect your point of view on this, but I don’t thinkk we’re talking about the same thing.
Of course it’s never a woman’s fault if she gets raped.
If I jump in my yacht (well, if i had one 😉 and spent some time drifting around off the coast of somalia and then got abducted by pirates, whose fault is it? The people doing the abducting of course. Was I “asking for it” by sailing there? Nope. Getting abducted by pirates is not in my To Do list.
But if someone you cared about called you and said they were heading off on such a sailing trip, what would you say / feel?
There’s the semantics of whose fault it is and the reality of self-preservation, and while we obviously need to prevent the latter from obscuring the former, the inverse is also true.
But Lolly it’s not necessary to go boating in dangerous waters, whereas sometimes people have no option but to go through supposedly dodgy areas. If you live in an area with high crime rates then it’s extremely likely you will return there after dark and it’s not feasible to always go around as part as a pair. Articles such as the one mentioned support the horrible belief that the person attacked is partly to blame by being in the wrong place at the wrong time which is completely unjust and irresponsible.
The point is this Lolly:
That even if you deliberately do something you don’t ‘Need’ to (need is a relative term, not an absolute one), you still have the right to do without anyone raping you.
You might want to circumscribe your life for fear of rape. Go right ahead, be my guest. And good luck with it as well, because I don’t think you’ll necessarily be successful. Anymore than you can legislate against having an air crash or a road accident. Shit happens basically, and the only place you are 100% safe from rape is on your own, though not having a man present helps a lot. Hell women are raped by work colleagues. Women are raped in public toilets. Women are raped on trains. Women are (most of all) raped in their own home by someone they know.
Just don’t expect me to follow suit. In the very unlikely event that I am raped/murdered it will be the fault of the person who did it. Not my fault. And I’m not about to spend my life cowering in fear.
Got it?
I want to engage with you Polly but I find your tone very unpleasant, I’m sorry.
Rebecca, of course that young woman is not responsible for what happened to her.
But by the sound of it I would advise my daughter not to go where she did when she did. That’s the angle I see this from- parental paranoia!
Lolly and Martin,
The problem is that we are in a sex war. Of course I won’t advise to go in dark places if you are a woman, without knowing the probability of an attack and possibly carrying a weapon, but I won’t advise to make fear part of your agenda, because the fear in itself is a kind of terrorism which disables women in dangerous situation to the profit of the ennemy: men. It is not only question of crimes at dark or dodgy places (why are these places dodgy, is it because of men or women by the way?) generally speaking but of women being specific targets due to a millenarium long education of violence towards women.. plus some testosterone factors..
So facing terrorism, what do you choose to do ?
Don’t be sorry Lolly. I don’t believe in being nice, it’s expected of women, and women are usually told when they tell the truth that they’re not acting like ‘proper women’ and are acting in an unfeminine way.
So don’t ask me to apologize, and I won’t ask you to forgive me.
Cath can I interrupt your blog to ask when you think we’re going to get the first ‘it was Raoul Moat’s mother’s fault’ pieces? They kind of had one in the Times yesterday by Oliver James, but the paywall prevents me linking.
However Lolly you may wish to google ‘tone argument’. It’s usually used when the writer can’t actuallysubstantially refute what’s being said of course.
Polly. I dunno, but we’ve already had this piece of excrement from some fuckwit male blogger blaming it all on Samantha Stobbart:
http:// benjaminbartonformp.wordpress.com/ 2010/07/10/ why-i-apportion-a-lot-of-the-blame-from-the-raoul-moat-shooting-on-samantha-stobbart/
I’m not linking to it directly, so you’ll have to copy/paste into your browser and get rid of the gaps.
Not only that Cath, my friend told me her dad (who is a JUDGE) said it was her fault for ‘taunting’ him as well.
Ye Gods. She told him he was talking crap.
Actually I may have underestimated the meeja at large, or at least the BBC, as they have very carefully pointed out that Moat’s behaviour was typical of someone who commits domestic violence, particularly blaming everyone else. Both on their website and on Radio 5 this morning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10584777.stm
Monique- a sex war? Sorry, I don’t see it that way.
Polly- Having googled it, I think you’ve misunderstood the principle of the tone argument. At no point did I ask you to change how you expressed yourself.
My point was that I didn’t feel any exchange with you, I felt that if we’d been standing face to face you’d have been screaming at me and poking me in the chest- and certainly not trying to understand where I was coming from. I’m not asking you to apologize and you don’t need my forgiveness. It’s not hurtful, it won’t keep me awake at night. But I suspect it will prevent you from having lots of potentially interesting conversations.
But I’m sure it’s nice to believe that whenever someone loses interest in what you have to say it’s not due to your way of expressing yourself, it’s because you’ve somehow outwitted her…
Yes, no sex war, you are right.. Do you know why the male sex carriers act exactly like parasites do?
How can they rule the countries, the world, blow off the natural connections and respect that female sex carriers have with nature and animals, while they, the men dare to rape their own children and girlfriends, while they exploit women and benefit of this exploitation with the larger masculine consensus, they dominate (why ? Are they cleaver, do they bring anything better than women would and need to be in charge because women would be dangerous? I believed they had less intelligence, less empathy and were more violent, so why ?), they impose masturbation in the bodies of women, they impose their religion in order we believe in a bigger father-man and submit to him, they impose the nuclear family commanded by them where incest, paedophily and rape is easier and will destroy little girls for life.
These men who are our equals, obviously run 90 % of companies, but make 94 % of criminals in jail and 100 % of rapists.
And it is going worse and worse.
Mass feminism is dead, I don’t see any place or very few, which will not be held by elitist, classist women (fake feminists).
Masculinist movements, liberalism, capitalism, men domination, integrism are doing better than ever. That’s it.
That’s why I think we should address the question of who are men in reality.
Personally I believe it is a war against a parasite and I have entered the resistance.
Monique- surely there is cause for hope? Aren’t things better now than they were 100 years ago?
What do you propose in the place of liberalism, capitalism, etc?
I would propose to :
– Liberate women and make them aware of all the freedom they are entitled to live, of all their potential and for that I would try to increase revolt, political discussion groups, mass emails to inform women and teach them about mental self-defence in this society.
– I would fight for women and lesbians to be free to create and manage their autonomous lesbians or women-only spaces, states, continent where to grow and nurture oneself.
– I would propose to stop to waste and consume so much, and so boycott all stupid products not answering to any basic need, I would try to find a way to gather people of similar minds but who are isolated now and who want social justice (it means justice for women including support them to be free of imposed sexuality, religion, family, end of racism, ableism, classism, to stop to exploit nature and animals and to share equally all ressources without taking advantage on any people or animal or the Earth).
In order to help them to be heard, to disobey, to ask for free ethical studies and jobs, housing, abolition of borders, for lands and for the possibility to be more autonomous (that means to have to grow vegetables),
Well, the unexamined privilege of the “don’t go there at night! It’s for your own good!” brigade is always interesting. I wish that my choices for getting home from work didn’t involve a) walking down a badly lit, isolated, non-residential road, under a railway line or b) walking down a less dark and slightly busier road, then through an unlit underpass, but unfortunately the only other way for me to get from my flat to work and vice versa would probably be helicopter, which is slightly beyond my budget, and unfortunately I don’t have a 24 hour chaperone at my disposal. Self-preservation is all fine and well when you can afford to not go to these “unsafe” places. Some of us don’t always have that luxury.
Talking about self-preservation is fine, in theory, and I agree insofar as that I wouldn’t go to a dodgy bar on my own or go on a hitchhiking holiday, but where is the line drawn? Is my journey home from work less blame-worthy than someone walking through the park with their dogs because work is a more necessary and unavoidable pursuit than dog-walking? What exactly can and can’t I do so as not to fall foul of these rules?
And if not victim-blaming, exactly what purpose does essentially saying “women should not put themselves in danger because they might be raped” actually serve, particularly when not all of us lead Phyllis Stephen’s presumably privileged lifestyle in which she is able to avoid “isolated paths in the hours of near-darkness” at all times. Answers on a postcard please.
Word, SamC.
Lolly: which bit of ‘I don’t give a shit what you think’ do you not understand?
Good question polly. It’s usually used when the writer can’t actually substantially refute what’s being said of course.
Have a nice day.
Ha ha! Lolly obviously doesn’t know you, Polly!
For which we can both give thanks (sorry Cath).
Meanwhile I will go and mourn all the potentially interesting conversations I could have had, had I only been a bit NICER, with folks who obviously aren’t Elvis Costello fans.
Sorry again Cath, I really will shut up now. Except to say Valerie I forgot to add you to the top sekrit place and came over here for your wordpress ID to rectify that error.