I've been diving into the Blogsphere recently, mainly at awesome places like The Sexist - a blog I think everyone should read - and there have been quite a few posts about rape*, and why it is or isn't a lot like X. And I'm noticing a few themes here. Aside from the usual victim-blaming crap, or at the very least, perpetrator-excusing crap **, there seems to be the disturbing tendancy to compare women to money or goods. I cannot count the times that I've seen a woman's wearing of a short skirt, or getting drunk, or making a bad decision (or several) being compared to someone openly displaying property. Even by feminists and allies.
I think just about everyone will be familiar with the "Jut because someone is flashing their wallet doesn't mean they are asking to get robbed" analogy (or its odious cousin which claims that they were asking to get robbed) but how about the Shop window full of goods, or the parking your car in the wrong place, or this one:
"Let’s say a short skirt is “sexually provocative.” If so, then putting a “for sale” sign on your car is also provocative. If you put the sign up, that means you hope someone is going to be interested in buying your car. That doesn’t give them the right to steal your car, nor does it oblige you to sell your car for any price they offer just because you “provoked” the car-buying public into making offers in the hopes that someone would propose a deal you thought was worthwhile" (post 39)
Why do, even people making the right kind of point, still have to return to the same stupid mindset of the people who coined the word "rape" (which, as etymologists will tell you, originaly meant the same as "theft") to try and convince people that it is wrong, no matter what the circumstances. All the time we seem to come back to this idea that rape is a property crime (or at least analogous with one). Why is this? Why not use a comparison with, say, murder? It's not person A's fault if person B murders them, even if person A was being deliberately (or accidentally) antagonistic and "totally asking for it" - and I think we can all agree on that. So why is it any different if person B rapes person A instead? Why do all those "they were asking for it" arguments get given so much weight now? I think that's pretty clear cut. But people get upset when you equate destroying another human life with "just"... well, destroying another human's life.***
So how about this one; let's stop equating the woman with property, and try a little role reversal. Instead of saying that a woman is a car who shouldn't be parked in a bad neighbourhood, let's equate a penis with a car; and why not - men do it all the time :).
If you get run over by a car, or are a passenger in a car when it crashes, is it your fault you got hurt, or the driver's? I'm going to say, (and I think the laws of the land agree with me here) that it's going to be the driver's fault - ie, the active participant. Over at The Sexist again, they agree with me, and Amanda Hess has done a great piece which includes a section about how driving is a privilege, and in some cases, while legally pedestrians have right of way, this sense of privilege tends to mean that drivers ignore the law and as a result people get hurt... (sounding familiar anyone?) only no-one would ever think to blame the pedestrian in this scenario, while we blame rape victims all the time...
I came up with a few others - the passenger-in-a-car one, explaining why it's often difficult to say "I want to get out" when your friend is driving dangerously, or the "flirting" one explaining that consenting to being given a lift home is not the same as consenting to being in a car crash, or the drink-driving one suggesting that even if your judgement is impared with regards to who you accept a lift from, it's still not your fault if the driver crashes - But the thing is, while I enjoy making up metaphors like this (and the drunk-in-charge-of-a-penis jokes that follow), the sad thing is that no metaphor can ever really do justice to the fact that rape is a hideous, heinous, horrific crime, and no-one should ever have to be blamed for it happening to them. I may complain about the kinds of metaphors being used to teach people that victim blaming is not ok but truth is, it's even sadder that we need to use metaphors, indeed that we have to explain this to some people at all.
* Yes, the "Alex" in the comments is me on this one...
** Not always the same thing - this one usually comes up in the "rape as natural disaster" analogies.
*** I never know if this is disengenuous or not towards rape survivors - is tying someone's life (and the destruction thereof) to their bodily integrity (and the violation thereof) trivialising the person? Or is it trivialising the suffering to say that rape does anything less? Suffice to say that I think rape has the potential to destroy someone's life and/or mental wellbeing - or at least f**k it up beyond recognition.
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Friday, 26 February 2010
This Post Has Been Airbrushed
Ok, so this is something that's been rattling around in my brain for a while - the arguments over airbrushing in magazines and the effect that it has on women's self-image.
I think we can all agree that being constantly shown images of perfection which, not only are unobtainable for you the reader, but which haven't been obtained in the first place by the model/ celebrity you're looking at, is a bad thing for your confidence. It contributes to this culture which demonsises anyone above a size 10/12. My concern is with what people are proposing to do about it - which is essentially just full disclosure. People at the moment are pushing for laws that require magazines to put a stamp, or a little notice on the bottom of the picture saying "this photo has been airbrushed".
How is that going to help?
Women (for the most part) are not stupid and/or blind to the world around them (and I wish people would stop trying to pretend that we are). We know that the pictures we are seeing have been airbrushed - we're told often enough at the moment. There are even magazines that have deliberately unairbrushed paparazzi photos of celebs not looking their best held up for women to mock (which is a fairly disgusting practice in it's own right), so we know our idols don't look picture perfect all the time in real life. Women are not stupid, so telling us something that we already know, or could probably guess, is not going to help one iota.
The problem is not that airbrushing is undisclosed - the problem is that people feel the need to airbrush at all. What magazines are doing is promoting an ideal. It may not be a real one, it may not even be a possible one (though women do tend to kid themselves that it is; whether or not they have proof) but it is held as an ideal. I don't care if they're telling me (or showing me) that such body types are achievable, they are telling me that such body types are admirable, possibly even the only ones which are even acceptable. They are saying 'look at these celebrities and models. They were gorgeous to start with, but even then they are not gorgeous enough. We must make them "better", we must, in fact make them conform to our standards of what is beautiful, what women should look like. We must bring them up to scratch, and hold them up before you as the standard to which you must aspire.'
Who cares if that standard is achievable or not? It is still being touted as the standard. In effect, by acnowledging that all their pictures are airbrushed, all these magazines would be saying is that no woman will ever be good enough. No women's bodies can ever be beautiful in their natural state - that all women, in fact, are ugly and sub-par. So we have to air brush them to make them better. Only when airbrushing stops, when real women are lauded for their real beauty (whatever size that comes in) will women start being able to accept themselves for who they are.
I think we can all agree that being constantly shown images of perfection which, not only are unobtainable for you the reader, but which haven't been obtained in the first place by the model/ celebrity you're looking at, is a bad thing for your confidence. It contributes to this culture which demonsises anyone above a size 10/12. My concern is with what people are proposing to do about it - which is essentially just full disclosure. People at the moment are pushing for laws that require magazines to put a stamp, or a little notice on the bottom of the picture saying "this photo has been airbrushed".
How is that going to help?
Women (for the most part) are not stupid and/or blind to the world around them (and I wish people would stop trying to pretend that we are). We know that the pictures we are seeing have been airbrushed - we're told often enough at the moment. There are even magazines that have deliberately unairbrushed paparazzi photos of celebs not looking their best held up for women to mock (which is a fairly disgusting practice in it's own right), so we know our idols don't look picture perfect all the time in real life. Women are not stupid, so telling us something that we already know, or could probably guess, is not going to help one iota.
The problem is not that airbrushing is undisclosed - the problem is that people feel the need to airbrush at all. What magazines are doing is promoting an ideal. It may not be a real one, it may not even be a possible one (though women do tend to kid themselves that it is; whether or not they have proof) but it is held as an ideal. I don't care if they're telling me (or showing me) that such body types are achievable, they are telling me that such body types are admirable, possibly even the only ones which are even acceptable. They are saying 'look at these celebrities and models. They were gorgeous to start with, but even then they are not gorgeous enough. We must make them "better", we must, in fact make them conform to our standards of what is beautiful, what women should look like. We must bring them up to scratch, and hold them up before you as the standard to which you must aspire.'
Who cares if that standard is achievable or not? It is still being touted as the standard. In effect, by acnowledging that all their pictures are airbrushed, all these magazines would be saying is that no woman will ever be good enough. No women's bodies can ever be beautiful in their natural state - that all women, in fact, are ugly and sub-par. So we have to air brush them to make them better. Only when airbrushing stops, when real women are lauded for their real beauty (whatever size that comes in) will women start being able to accept themselves for who they are.
Saturday, 20 February 2010
Another Reason To Love Margaret Atwood
I got pointed at two Good links for writers this morning by Neil Gaiman, and found this list by Margaret Atwood. I've read quite a lot of "advice to young authors" bits and bobs over the years, but this is the first one that's really struck a chord and made me laugh at the same time.
1 Take a pencil to write with on aeroplanes. Pens leak. But if the pencil breaks, you can't sharpen it on the plane, because you can't take knives with you. Therefore: take two pencils.
2 If both pencils break, you can do a rough sharpening job with a nail file of the metal or glass type.
3 Take something to write on. Paper is good. In a pinch, pieces of wood or your arm will do.
4 If you're using a computer, always safeguard new text with a memory stick.
5 Do back exercises. Pain is distracting.
6 Hold the reader's attention. (This is likely to work better if you can hold your own.) But you don't know who the reader is, so it's like shooting fish with a slingshot in the dark. What fascinates A will bore the pants off B.
7 You most likely need a thesaurus, a rudimentary grammar book, and a grip on reality. This latter means: there's no free lunch. Writing is work. It's also gambling. You don't get a pension plan. Other people can help you a bit, but essentially you're on your own. Nobody is making you do this: you chose it, so don't whine.
8 You can never read your own book with the innocent anticipation that comes with that first delicious page of a new book, because you wrote the thing. You've been backstage. You've seen how the rabbits were smuggled into the hat. Therefore ask a reading friend or two to look at it before you give it to anyone in the publishing business. This friend should not be someone with whom you have a romantic relationship, unless you want to break up.
9 Don't sit down in the middle of the woods. If you're lost in the plot or blocked, retrace your steps to where you went wrong. Then take the other road. And/or change the person. Change the tense. Change the opening page.
10 Prayer might work. Or reading something else. Or a constant visualisation of the holy grail that is the finished, published version of your resplendent book.
There is some good advice there from other authors, so the rest of the link is also well worth a read. I just wanted to share this little gem.Friday, 12 February 2010
In Defence of Reading Into Things
Something that I seem to be hearing a lot in comments threads, arguments and discussions of all sorts of things is the accusation that someone is "reading too much into" something, that the original something was "just a joke" or was somehow too frivolous to warrant anything more than a surface analysis.
So when a group of feminists complain about a facebook group called "GTA taught me if you kill a hooker, you get your money back." the response from a lot of people (as well as the usual hate speech from a couple of users who I hope get banned sometime soon) was that the feminists were overreacting, because the group's category was "just for fun - in-jokes", and this was about a game not real life. (Never mind that the title itself uses the wording "taught me"- thus suggesting that this is learned behaviour, and that people take what they have learned in the game into the rest of their life. The title is suggesting there is a link.) But because it's not explicitly saying "go out and kill hookers because you'll get your money back" people feel they can say "you're reading too much into this" - which, reading into that statement itself, essentially means either "there is no context to this, no meaning beyond the explicit, so stop looking for it. This should be taken in absolute isolation." or "I wrote it, so the only meaning in it is what I say there is," or just "there is no ill intent here, so you can't blame us when you get offended when you look at this."
Now, I'm an English Literature graduate. I have done (and am still doing) several degrees, the entire point of which is "reading into things". I have been taught that there is no way you can take anything in isolation from its context, literary, historical or social. I have been taught that one should look beyond the surface meaning - always. I have even been taught to look at a text divorced from what it's original author intended, and my reader response is as valid as that author's intent (if not more so). Anyone who doubts that last statement should look up a guy named Roland Barthes, and an essay he wrote in 1967 called "The Death of the Author". So naturally, I feel I have to step up here, and defend... well, let's face it, the principle which my entire university education is based on.
I think it's fairly obvious to anyone who visits the aforementioned facebook group that it is full of vile little hatemongering misogynists, who have proved the aformentioned feminists' point for them quite ineloquently, but I'm not arguing the toss over freedom of speech here (I'll save that for a later post) I'm arguing why things that are ostensibly jokes, or otherwise frivolous comments (or called so by their creators) are actually no less meaningful than something meant seriously.
What it comes down to is this: no-one owns the English language. You do not, and cannot claim ownership of words, even words that you yourself say or write, to the extent that you can dictate what they mean. Words are very egalitarian in that respect. They mean what we all agree them to mean, and while that can change, the process takes years of continual usage and gradual change, not one isolated post, or one person suddenly deciding otherwise. You can choose what you want to say, you can choose what words you use, but you cannot choose what everyone understands those words to mean. You cannot possibly divorce words from context, because context is the only thing that gives language meaning in the first place.
What this means is that all the stuff that anyone chooses to read into a text (be that oral or written) is there. The author may not have realised, may not have intended that to be the message they wanted to convey, but that message has been conveyed, whether they intended it or not. The reader cannot help it if they are a better reader than the author is a writer. Essentially, if I get offended by something you say, then I'm bloody well offended whether you meant to offend me or not. You may have meant me to laugh at what you said, but it's not my fault if I don't find it funny.
And if someone does get offended by something you have said, then you have two options; stand by what you say and not care if you offend, or appologise. You can say that what you said wasn't what you meant to say, but what you cannot do is pretend that what you just said doesn't mean what I took it to mean. Because that's not up to you to say. You, the author, are deader than a GTA Hooker. (only joking!)
So when a group of feminists complain about a facebook group called "GTA taught me if you kill a hooker, you get your money back." the response from a lot of people (as well as the usual hate speech from a couple of users who I hope get banned sometime soon) was that the feminists were overreacting, because the group's category was "just for fun - in-jokes", and this was about a game not real life. (Never mind that the title itself uses the wording "taught me"- thus suggesting that this is learned behaviour, and that people take what they have learned in the game into the rest of their life. The title is suggesting there is a link.) But because it's not explicitly saying "go out and kill hookers because you'll get your money back" people feel they can say "you're reading too much into this" - which, reading into that statement itself, essentially means either "there is no context to this, no meaning beyond the explicit, so stop looking for it. This should be taken in absolute isolation." or "I wrote it, so the only meaning in it is what I say there is," or just "there is no ill intent here, so you can't blame us when you get offended when you look at this."
Now, I'm an English Literature graduate. I have done (and am still doing) several degrees, the entire point of which is "reading into things". I have been taught that there is no way you can take anything in isolation from its context, literary, historical or social. I have been taught that one should look beyond the surface meaning - always. I have even been taught to look at a text divorced from what it's original author intended, and my reader response is as valid as that author's intent (if not more so). Anyone who doubts that last statement should look up a guy named Roland Barthes, and an essay he wrote in 1967 called "The Death of the Author". So naturally, I feel I have to step up here, and defend... well, let's face it, the principle which my entire university education is based on.
I think it's fairly obvious to anyone who visits the aforementioned facebook group that it is full of vile little hatemongering misogynists, who have proved the aformentioned feminists' point for them quite ineloquently, but I'm not arguing the toss over freedom of speech here (I'll save that for a later post) I'm arguing why things that are ostensibly jokes, or otherwise frivolous comments (or called so by their creators) are actually no less meaningful than something meant seriously.
What it comes down to is this: no-one owns the English language. You do not, and cannot claim ownership of words, even words that you yourself say or write, to the extent that you can dictate what they mean. Words are very egalitarian in that respect. They mean what we all agree them to mean, and while that can change, the process takes years of continual usage and gradual change, not one isolated post, or one person suddenly deciding otherwise. You can choose what you want to say, you can choose what words you use, but you cannot choose what everyone understands those words to mean. You cannot possibly divorce words from context, because context is the only thing that gives language meaning in the first place.
What this means is that all the stuff that anyone chooses to read into a text (be that oral or written) is there. The author may not have realised, may not have intended that to be the message they wanted to convey, but that message has been conveyed, whether they intended it or not. The reader cannot help it if they are a better reader than the author is a writer. Essentially, if I get offended by something you say, then I'm bloody well offended whether you meant to offend me or not. You may have meant me to laugh at what you said, but it's not my fault if I don't find it funny.
And if someone does get offended by something you have said, then you have two options; stand by what you say and not care if you offend, or appologise. You can say that what you said wasn't what you meant to say, but what you cannot do is pretend that what you just said doesn't mean what I took it to mean. Because that's not up to you to say. You, the author, are deader than a GTA Hooker. (only joking!)
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
And here endeth the rejoicing
Despite being a Christian, I'm not a Catholic. For several very good reasons. Now I have another one.
I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was. And saddened. And horrified. And downright blasphemous; to whit - what the fuck is such a backward, twisted, homophobic, bigoted, insane asshat doing in charge of one of the largest religious communities on the planet???
Ok, firstly the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality is confined to (and correct me if I'm wrong) about 3 mentions total. All Old Testament. I don't believe Jesus said a thing about it. However, He did say an awful lot about discrimination - essentially that it's wrong, don't do it guys, please. The message Love Thy Neighbour is all through the Bible, it's the second most important Commandment that Christians are supposed to believe in (the first being Love God). I don't remember there being a caveat; Love thy Neighbour (but only if he's a straight white male...).
The only thing I can do now is hope to God that the bill is too far through the process of being passed that there's not a damn thing that can be done to stop it.
I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was. And saddened. And horrified. And downright blasphemous; to whit - what the fuck is such a backward, twisted, homophobic, bigoted, insane asshat doing in charge of one of the largest religious communities on the planet???
Ok, firstly the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality is confined to (and correct me if I'm wrong) about 3 mentions total. All Old Testament. I don't believe Jesus said a thing about it. However, He did say an awful lot about discrimination - essentially that it's wrong, don't do it guys, please. The message Love Thy Neighbour is all through the Bible, it's the second most important Commandment that Christians are supposed to believe in (the first being Love God). I don't remember there being a caveat; Love thy Neighbour (but only if he's a straight white male...).
The only thing I can do now is hope to God that the bill is too far through the process of being passed that there's not a damn thing that can be done to stop it.
Monday, 1 February 2010
And the Happiness just keeps on coming
Good for Harriet :)
Seriously, if that woman ever becomes leader of the Labour Party, I'm voting for them.
Seriously, if that woman ever becomes leader of the Labour Party, I'm voting for them.
Monday, 28 December 2009
Happy Post
Firstly, here's hoping that everyone had a very Merry Christmas; I certainly did, despite the mega amounts of things trying to stress me out this year.
One thing in particular that made me smile I'd like to share with you: it got sneaked in the news late at night on the 23rd, so I nearly missed it, but hip hip hooray and God bless Harriet Harman, she's done it. She's got the equality bill passed. :D
Here's the link for full discussion of what it will mean when the legislature comes into force, but in summation:
1) Banning pay secrecy
2) The definition of harrasment has been extended and consolidated: now defined as "unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity or creating an intimidating or hostile environment" which may or may not be related to a "protected" characteristic, such as race, age, gender, sexual orientation etc. It also covers harrasment on the grounds of an employee's connection to a person with a protected characteristic, and harrassment from a third party.
3) Private sector employers will be required to publish information about differences in pay between male and female employees.
4) Employers are allowed to positively discriminate, and take a "protected characteristic" into account when making recruitment or promotion decisions, all other things being equal.
5) Employment tribunals which uphold harrasment or discrimination claims may make recommendations to an organisation to prevent future discrimination.
Awesome. Just Awesome. Best Christmas present this country's had in a long while.
One thing in particular that made me smile I'd like to share with you: it got sneaked in the news late at night on the 23rd, so I nearly missed it, but hip hip hooray and God bless Harriet Harman, she's done it. She's got the equality bill passed. :D
Here's the link for full discussion of what it will mean when the legislature comes into force, but in summation:
1) Banning pay secrecy
2) The definition of harrasment has been extended and consolidated: now defined as "unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity or creating an intimidating or hostile environment" which may or may not be related to a "protected" characteristic, such as race, age, gender, sexual orientation etc. It also covers harrasment on the grounds of an employee's connection to a person with a protected characteristic, and harrassment from a third party.
3) Private sector employers will be required to publish information about differences in pay between male and female employees.
4) Employers are allowed to positively discriminate, and take a "protected characteristic" into account when making recruitment or promotion decisions, all other things being equal.
5) Employment tribunals which uphold harrasment or discrimination claims may make recommendations to an organisation to prevent future discrimination.
Awesome. Just Awesome. Best Christmas present this country's had in a long while.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
A post of very little sympathy
This article, and another one (trackback) really pissed me off today.
These stories should just not be run. It perpetuates the idea that those falsely accused of rape have such a hard time, the unspoken conclusion of which is that we shouldn't be bringing them to trial at all. Because you're *Ruining* these poor young men's lives!
Sorry, but Boo, Hoo.
Callous I may sound, here, but I don't really care. Mr Bacon can go away, re start his life (didn't even have to be in Malaysia) under a new name, and escape. What about the woman who was raped? Does she have that luxury? No. She has to live with what happened for the rest of her life. To make a comparison, the man in such a situation has had his name trashed. He can get another one. The woman has had the same thing done to her body. It is a private trashing, but therefore more personal, more immediate, and most importantly, irreversible. She cannot go down the council offices and get a new body, like he can get a new name.
Why, why, why are people (mostly men) so hung up on the idea that it is worse for the wrongly accused than for the victim(/survivor)? And then use the fact that a small percentage of men might possibly get wrongfully accused/convicted etc as an excuse for why we should not toughen up rape laws, and bring justice to the One in four* women in the Western world who will be raped at some point in their lives. Or prove wrong the 60% of rape victims/survivors who do not report their rape because they feel they will not be able to get it to court, let alone get a conviction.
Yes, it must be hard for someone to be accused of a crime they didn't commit. But please remember that more people report false claims of grand theft auto than rape. And that false claims make up less than 2% of all reported rapes.
The idea of concealing the accused's identity as well as the plaintiff's is, on the surface, quite an appealing sop to those who want it both ways, but as Ruth Hall from WAR (Women Against Rape) points out, "Most rapists are serial rapists. Many rape cases could be won if more than one woman came forward to give evidence." And if the defendant's identity is kept hidden, then these other possible victim/survivors cannot come forward.
The only scenarios in which this would not apply is if a) this is a first-time rapist (and we all know that all rapes are reported, and we always convict the bastards the first time) or b) we know the defendant is innocent (in which case, why the trial?) or c) All rapists only rape one victim, ever. And if c), then let's take another look at that troubling stat - that 1:4 women are raped at some time in their life. Lets take the lower estimate, the 1:6 even. Now, I can't find the exact stat for the gender split between men and women (I know there's ever so slightly more women in this country), but if we take it as 50:50, then that means, if every rapist only rapes one woman, that one in six men is a rapist.
So let's run through that scenario again, shall we? To argue that we should keep a defendant in a rape case's identity private (something denied to a defendant in any other crime), you are arguing that either a) we have a perfect system where all rapists are caught once they've committed rape, b) there is no such thing as rape, c) 1:6 men are rapists, or the much more likely scenario of d): it is more important for a man to preserve his reputation than it is for a woman to see justice.
Another terrifying thing is that the jury in this case took only 45 minutes to declare Mr Bacon innocent. And look at the circumstances - a woman too drunk to give consent, he carried on... where have I seen this before? And in 45 minutes, 12 people have decided that a man's right to pleasure trumps that of a woman's to bodily integrity. That men shouldn't have to go through all the bother of obtaining consent, of making sure a woman is really into it, if it's too much bother because she was drunk. That consent must be assumed, unless a woman is sober enough, rational enough, and brave enough to give a loud and clear "No!" (preferably accompanied with fighting him off, and then being found afterwards crying and showing obvious distress.). That rape is not rape, essentially, if she was drunk.
I admit I don't know all the facts here. There may be other factors to this case that I haven't considered. But this is the impression that is given out to the public in cases like this: women, if you're drunk and raped, it was your fault for getting drunk. When the message we should be sending out is: Men, if you don't want to be accused of rape, don't take advantage of women when they've been drinking. Never, ever, ever, presume consent, or that you are entitled to sex. No matter how many drinks she's had. No matter how many of them you bought her. No matter how short her skirt or low her neckline. No matter whether or not she's been flirting with you. No matter if she was happy with kissing. Not until she is getting the condom out of her handbag and passing it to you - or even better, she's asking you, actually saying those words "would you like to have sex with me?" can you presume consent. Follow that rule, and you'll never be accused of rape! Simple!**
*An oft quibbled with statistic. Which does apply to America, and is sometimes reduced to 1:6 (troubling enough even then, n'est pas?).
** and in fact much more simple than the current "rule" for women, which seems to be: don't get drunk, don't wear too short a skirt, don't draw attention to yourself, don't be sexual, don't flirt/kiss/otherwise encourage/talk to a man you don't intend to have sex with, (don't, in short, have fun or go out. Ever.) don't walk home alone at night, don't stay in the same room alone with a man, don't act/look/think in any possible way that could be interpreted as provocative, and.... well, you might still get raped. But if you followed all those rules, and told him no, screamed and shouted, tried to fight him off, and looked suitably upset afterwards, and remembered his face, and he isn't a lying f***wit as well as a rapist and doesn't fake an alibi, and you're lucky enough that the jury doesn't believe him anyway and think you're a lying little slut (because your previous sexual conduct must also be absolutely spotless) then you might, just might get a conviction. Which won't be Justice, (because he'll be out in a few years) but it might provide a tiny bit of solace and comfort while you try to put your life back together.
These stories should just not be run. It perpetuates the idea that those falsely accused of rape have such a hard time, the unspoken conclusion of which is that we shouldn't be bringing them to trial at all. Because you're *Ruining* these poor young men's lives!
Sorry, but Boo, Hoo.
Callous I may sound, here, but I don't really care. Mr Bacon can go away, re start his life (didn't even have to be in Malaysia) under a new name, and escape. What about the woman who was raped? Does she have that luxury? No. She has to live with what happened for the rest of her life. To make a comparison, the man in such a situation has had his name trashed. He can get another one. The woman has had the same thing done to her body. It is a private trashing, but therefore more personal, more immediate, and most importantly, irreversible. She cannot go down the council offices and get a new body, like he can get a new name.
Why, why, why are people (mostly men) so hung up on the idea that it is worse for the wrongly accused than for the victim(/survivor)? And then use the fact that a small percentage of men might possibly get wrongfully accused/convicted etc as an excuse for why we should not toughen up rape laws, and bring justice to the One in four* women in the Western world who will be raped at some point in their lives. Or prove wrong the 60% of rape victims/survivors who do not report their rape because they feel they will not be able to get it to court, let alone get a conviction.
Yes, it must be hard for someone to be accused of a crime they didn't commit. But please remember that more people report false claims of grand theft auto than rape. And that false claims make up less than 2% of all reported rapes.
The idea of concealing the accused's identity as well as the plaintiff's is, on the surface, quite an appealing sop to those who want it both ways, but as Ruth Hall from WAR (Women Against Rape) points out, "Most rapists are serial rapists. Many rape cases could be won if more than one woman came forward to give evidence." And if the defendant's identity is kept hidden, then these other possible victim/survivors cannot come forward.
The only scenarios in which this would not apply is if a) this is a first-time rapist (and we all know that all rapes are reported, and we always convict the bastards the first time) or b) we know the defendant is innocent (in which case, why the trial?) or c) All rapists only rape one victim, ever. And if c), then let's take another look at that troubling stat - that 1:4 women are raped at some time in their life. Lets take the lower estimate, the 1:6 even. Now, I can't find the exact stat for the gender split between men and women (I know there's ever so slightly more women in this country), but if we take it as 50:50, then that means, if every rapist only rapes one woman, that one in six men is a rapist.
So let's run through that scenario again, shall we? To argue that we should keep a defendant in a rape case's identity private (something denied to a defendant in any other crime), you are arguing that either a) we have a perfect system where all rapists are caught once they've committed rape, b) there is no such thing as rape, c) 1:6 men are rapists, or the much more likely scenario of d): it is more important for a man to preserve his reputation than it is for a woman to see justice.
Another terrifying thing is that the jury in this case took only 45 minutes to declare Mr Bacon innocent. And look at the circumstances - a woman too drunk to give consent, he carried on... where have I seen this before? And in 45 minutes, 12 people have decided that a man's right to pleasure trumps that of a woman's to bodily integrity. That men shouldn't have to go through all the bother of obtaining consent, of making sure a woman is really into it, if it's too much bother because she was drunk. That consent must be assumed, unless a woman is sober enough, rational enough, and brave enough to give a loud and clear "No!" (preferably accompanied with fighting him off, and then being found afterwards crying and showing obvious distress.). That rape is not rape, essentially, if she was drunk.
I admit I don't know all the facts here. There may be other factors to this case that I haven't considered. But this is the impression that is given out to the public in cases like this: women, if you're drunk and raped, it was your fault for getting drunk. When the message we should be sending out is: Men, if you don't want to be accused of rape, don't take advantage of women when they've been drinking. Never, ever, ever, presume consent, or that you are entitled to sex. No matter how many drinks she's had. No matter how many of them you bought her. No matter how short her skirt or low her neckline. No matter whether or not she's been flirting with you. No matter if she was happy with kissing. Not until she is getting the condom out of her handbag and passing it to you - or even better, she's asking you, actually saying those words "would you like to have sex with me?" can you presume consent. Follow that rule, and you'll never be accused of rape! Simple!**
*An oft quibbled with statistic. Which does apply to America, and is sometimes reduced to 1:6 (troubling enough even then, n'est pas?).
** and in fact much more simple than the current "rule" for women, which seems to be: don't get drunk, don't wear too short a skirt, don't draw attention to yourself, don't be sexual, don't flirt/kiss/otherwise encourage/talk to a man you don't intend to have sex with, (don't, in short, have fun or go out. Ever.) don't walk home alone at night, don't stay in the same room alone with a man, don't act/look/think in any possible way that could be interpreted as provocative, and.... well, you might still get raped. But if you followed all those rules, and told him no, screamed and shouted, tried to fight him off, and looked suitably upset afterwards, and remembered his face, and he isn't a lying f***wit as well as a rapist and doesn't fake an alibi, and you're lucky enough that the jury doesn't believe him anyway and think you're a lying little slut (because your previous sexual conduct must also be absolutely spotless) then you might, just might get a conviction. Which won't be Justice, (because he'll be out in a few years) but it might provide a tiny bit of solace and comfort while you try to put your life back together.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
One law for the Goose...
Ok, now I'm all in favour of criminals being rehabilitated, and made into productive members of society again, but this article really made me feel ill.
How come footballers can get away with this? They already get far and away too much money for what they do, and now they're being let off something like this with, effectively a slap on the wrist. This man has 13 previous convictions - THIRTEEN!! That would bar most people from being able to get a job anywhere, but because he's a footballer, he's going to get away with an 18 month sentence (of which he'll serve... how much...? Bet you not a lot.) and then he'll be back as normal. HOW is that supposed to be a detterent for him, or anyone else, to continue such crimes?
The worst bit is just how cosseted he's going to be when he comes out. Gordon Taylor, from the PFA is quoted as having said: "Everybody in life can have big problems to face and this is probably his biggest and I hope he's able to overcome it and if he needs help to get his life back on track I assure you we'll be there for him."
It's as if he's been falsely accused. Or people are treating him as if his prison sentence is as bad as what he has done to this woman, worse even. When let's face it, it's probably less than he deserves. I think a quote from his victim sums it up perfectly: "King's defence moaned that the sentence would lose him £1 million in earnings - but I've lost my face." (italics mine.)
This is the real meaning of "privilege" - Private Law. And I'm not sure if it's male privilege, or celebrity privilege, (In either case, I'll draw parallels with Polanski) but, as a society, we have GOT to stop thinking of it as a good thing.
How come footballers can get away with this? They already get far and away too much money for what they do, and now they're being let off something like this with, effectively a slap on the wrist. This man has 13 previous convictions - THIRTEEN!! That would bar most people from being able to get a job anywhere, but because he's a footballer, he's going to get away with an 18 month sentence (of which he'll serve... how much...? Bet you not a lot.) and then he'll be back as normal. HOW is that supposed to be a detterent for him, or anyone else, to continue such crimes?
The worst bit is just how cosseted he's going to be when he comes out. Gordon Taylor, from the PFA is quoted as having said: "Everybody in life can have big problems to face and this is probably his biggest and I hope he's able to overcome it and if he needs help to get his life back on track I assure you we'll be there for him."
It's as if he's been falsely accused. Or people are treating him as if his prison sentence is as bad as what he has done to this woman, worse even. When let's face it, it's probably less than he deserves. I think a quote from his victim sums it up perfectly: "King's defence moaned that the sentence would lose him £1 million in earnings - but I've lost my face." (italics mine.)
This is the real meaning of "privilege" - Private Law. And I'm not sure if it's male privilege, or celebrity privilege, (In either case, I'll draw parallels with Polanski) but, as a society, we have GOT to stop thinking of it as a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)