Nick Ross on rape - warning you may feel the need to punch a wall(485 Posts)
sorry it's a daily mail link.
I am full of rage, particularly his comments on aggravated rape. Wtf. Presumably he means that there are situations in which he will not be able to stop himself from raping someone because it is aggravated. This has made me so angry. Please they'll me he no longer works for the BBC. I truly hope he loses his career over this. How the hell are we supposed to educate people who think like this?
Of course rape (of a woman by a man or a man by a man) is always the man's fault. What the fuck is he on about?
It's so terribly sad isn't it?
This woman who believes that men are too stupid and too insensitive to actually clarify whether she wanted them in her body or not?
And yet they're so clever that they run the world and have done for centuries.
Cognitive dissonance is a very useful thing.
'I put myself in situations where there would certainly have been confusion/ambiguity on the mans part'
Sweet Jesus I can't actually believe Mr Ross believes that that email helps his case. I feel a lot angrier now.
"I disagree Basil"
D'you want to elaborate why?
This going to be really long, but bumbleymummy did ask.
Bumbleymummy Re: the difficulty with convictions. I used to be a court reporter. I've seen a lot of people plead not guilty to a lot of things and I've seen some of them convicted.
My unscientific observation is that juries tend to have more difficulty convicting in the case of rape rather than other offences. It's a serious offence to ask a jury about their deliberations so I don't know for sure why that is.
I'm not trying to dodge, it's just that it's going to make my answer even longer than it's already going to be. I'll give you my thoughts in another post if you want.
You mention assault - I'm taking it you don't mean sexual assault, but assault with fists or a weapon.
I'm not a lawyer, so someone else should correct me if I'm wrong or if there are other reasons, but IME someone might plead not guilty, saying the alleged victim or witnesses are unclear or lying. That's common to every not-guilty plea I've ever heard, regardless of the charge.
They might object to being charged with one of the more serious forms, such as wounding with intent, which I think carries about 5 or 7 years in jail, whereas they might accept they were guilty of a lesser assault charge, but the Crown Prosecution Service believes there should be a heavier charge.
That's not really relevant to rape, because we don't have gradations, but some people want there to be and there are sexual assaults that aren't rape.
Though I'd be the last person to think that the CPS and police get it right all the time, I think most ordinary people would support people being charged appropriately to the offence, rather than a bargain being struck for convenience.
It's very complicated, as are all offences. You don't usually get film and audio, and sometimes when you do, like the Lords accused this weekend of accepting money for lobbying, you might get someone saying he only said what he did to outwit the people trying to entrap him.
But you don't get people in CPS, police or judiciary saying that rape and other sexual assaults should be especially difficult offences to prosecute. The difficulty comes in with jurors, because people who don't do that for a living, routinely say rape or other sexual assaults are different to other offences, despite having no basis for this.
And to address your other point: I don't accept the concept of victim-blaming, but I am nothing if not realistic. Still, if you're doing your job right as a juror, what you think of the alleged victim or the defendant shouldn't come into it.
The only other thing I'll say now is that I've listened to a number of rape cases but never one where a masked man dragged a woman, stone cold sober or otherwise, into bushes.
Of course it happens. It just doesn't happen that often. The overwhelming majority of rapes are committed by someone you know, even for just an hour or so, which makes sense because women are so used to being told to be careful.
Yet Nick Ross thinks that's not really rape and because of attitudes like his, women I'd say had been raped also don't think they have.
It's not my place to tell them what to think, but it's not his either.
I could write to Nick Ross and tell him how I blamed myself for being raped for about twenty years as well, but I now realise that that self-blame was a result of a culture which encourages me to blame myself and that that culture is wrong to do so and needs to be changed, so that other rape victims don't do what I (and most) rape victims did for for years and blame themselves.
But I somehow don't think he'd be quoting me as justification for his rape apology, do you?
That might encourage some rape victims to put the blame where it belongs and Nick Ross wouldn't want to encourage that, would he.
Let's all ask ourselves why, shall we?
Why would a man be so desperate to shift responsibility for rape from rapists to victims?
Bumbleymummy, yes he is encouraging rape victims to blame themselves.
By quoting with approval the views of a rape victim who blames herself, he is a) encouraging her to continue to blame herself, rather than allocate the blame to where it belongs, that is with the men who raped and her and b) encouraging other rape victims to blame themselves because they read that and realise that any other response than blaming themselves, will be looked on askance.
Was it him they were talking about on Jimmy cards news thing when one of them said "and if we can't trust the views on feminism of a man who can't enter the USA for fear of being arrested for rape, who can we trust?" Or was that someone else?
"All you have to do is decide whether a crime, any crime, has been committed against someone. "
Well, yes, if something is stolen, if someone is assaulted, it may be quite easy to find evidence and convict someone. What if you don't have evidence beyond one person saying - they stole my <whatever>/hit me etc and the other person says, "no, I didn't".
My question about the victim blaming was simply because you seemed quite accepting of the idea that someone may think you were foolish for leaving your phone lying around even though that would be considered victim blaming.
As far as some of the other comments about the article go, I certainly haven't read/interpreted them in the same way. Eg, I don't think he's encouraging people to blame themselves.
Going out to prove his point oh my how low can he get
Is he trying now to say to be raped is not so bad or once again these grey areas where men have no responsible for their actions as they are so sexually charged up they lose all awareness of other peoples feelings
we as a society really need to rid this notion that men just can not help themselves when it comes to sex, that they have to have it can not function without it or if it is offered they will always take up the offer. I beleive that if we did not have this attitude the sex industry would not be what it is as society accepts that men have these needs sorry gone off on a rant
Rape victims blame themselves.
So Nick Ross uses an e-mail from a rape victim to prove it's all right to blame them and encourage them to blame themselves.
How despicable is he determined to prove he is?
Why has he got such investment in rape apology?
bumbleymummy Yes, it is victim-blaming. All you have to do is decide whether a crime, any crime, has been committed against someone. What you'd do in the victim's shoes is irrelevant.
It's so simple I don't know some people have such difficulty understanding it. Perhaps they're stupid.
I think that email from the woman raped twice in her teens is very sad.
She says she had low self-esteem at the time. I'm not sure it's so very great now - possibly being raped twice as a teenager didn't improve things for her self-esteem wise. Nick should be ashamed of himself for using such a statement to support his ill thought out and misogynistic arguments.
Just because he can find a woman from the very many who have suffered rape who questions whether her own actions have in any way contributed to her awful experiences doesn't mean he should use them to compile a rape apologist book (if that's the right phrase)
For heavens sake she says "But that was my problem and not theirs"
From his latest article
'We are supposed to say that all rape amounts to the same thing, that nothing a woman does could make her vulnerable, and it is always the mans fault.
Has he learnt nothing?? Making oneself vulnerable does not mean blame should be apportioned to the victim you fool.
For example, this email came from a woman who deeply resents the madness and the rants that drown out voices like her own: I was raped twice in my teens. Neither were traumatic experiences. I didnt feel great about myself afterwards but I put myself in situations where there would certainly have been confusion/ambiguity on the mans part. It was to do with my generally low self-esteem at the time, but that was my problem, and not theirs.
And once again he Nick Ross proves he is a victim blamer.
Hey, I'm with Jacks. I spent 30 years thinking my assault was my fault. It took councelling to realise that it wasn't. I don't think Nick is right in using that as an argument- because I think the victim's attitude is due to the shaming nature of rape. But I can see why he does...
Found the article really hard to read though. I guess every problem has an easy solution the further you are away from it. He would feel differently if someone he knew had been assaulted and he could hear them say "I just feel so stupid... should never have done that... Should have turned back..."
It's the only way to realise that the victim has had her mind F***d at the same time.
Fern Britton talks about the time she was raped and the Nick Ross book.
it is a DM link.
There isn't a pervasive assumption that most people who claim their mobile phone was nicked, are pathological liars so immoral that they would actually risk causing innocent person to be unjustly sent to prison.
Whereas people assume that about rape victims all the time
Yeah, but if you accuse someone of stealing your phone it's clear that they took your phone and their their sole defence was that they thought you wanted them to take it because you'd left it out in plain view and hadn't announced loudly in advance advance ii front of witnesses that they could'nt take it then it would be quite easy to convict them.
When it comes to property offences no one seems to have a problem with the idea that the default position is that a property owner is NOT just giving you permission to help yourself to their stuff. It's only in rape and sexual offences that there appears to be a pervasive attitude that a woman is by default up for groping/sex unless she takes the initiative to make it absolutely and forcefully clear that she isn't.
I'm really shocked at his hideous views. I hope I never see him on the BBC ever again
Great point CoalDust - though your second sentence doesn't quite read right, but we know what you mean
However I think it's fair enough to ask someone to tidy up or go on a family outing or say, visit rellies occasionally - but sure you should pay attention to the response you're getting and be prepared to negotiate and talk.
Enthusiastic consent is not a difficult concept. If one goes through life bearing in mind that anything less than enthusiastic consent is to be gained before proceeding, so much trauma would be avoided. Whether on a minor scale like a partner not wanting to clean up after themselves or go to a National Trust place for a Bank Holiday trip and therefore realising that it is not a good fit for you relationship-wise (because if you are forcing someone to do something they don't want, then that's not good) or a major scale like using someone's body for your own gratification.
It's not difficult. Why do people make out like it is?
Limitedperiod, if a jury even thought that it was foolish for you to leave your phone on the table would that be victim blaming? If you accuse someone of stealing your phone but there is no proof that they did and they say that they didn't it would be quite difficult to convict them. They wouldn't just take your word for it.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.