Random men speaking to you

Well, the thread did not start off as a discussion of sexual assault. It started as a moan by one OP about men talking to her in the street in a non-sexual way when she thought they wouldn't talk to other men in the same way.

I'm slightly confused about your maths there LL.

1 in 4 women are raped or sexually assaulted and we know that rapey men tend to be repeat offenders (average number of women assaulted between 14 and 20 based on last bit of reading I did.

So that doesn't mean that 25% of men will be sexually threatening. It will be fewer than that.

That means majority of men are not sexually threatening. They just benefit from and support, the ones who are.

Or even if we happened to discussing shoplifting

Sure, Leith - if you happen to think that shoplifting is a crime comparable to sexual assault.

Leithlurker I think you're wrong to believe that some of us believe or behave as if "all men are a threat".

The point is, they're not - most men aren't a threat at all.

The problem is that we don't know which ones are and that the ones who are, are subtly and subconsciously and systemically supported by the rest of society. Society is on the side of the threateners, not the threatened. Our behaviour in the face of the threat is critiqued and analysed and pored over, while the behaviour of the threateners goes unremarked and uncritiqued. One of the valuable things we as feminists can do, is to try and tease out the subtleties and nuances of the threat and make it visible - so valuable, that as soon as we do, we are slapped down for doing it because people feel on a gut level, how threatening to the social order it is. If we all recognised what was happening every time there was a threat of male violence and every time a woman organised her life to minimise the threat of it, imagine how quickly our behaviour would change. Men would have to either give up holding that threat over us, or come right out with it in black and white and make it visible, tangible and undeniable (which is what they used to do before it became socially unacceptable to advocate violence as a means of controlling women).

FamilyGuy, my beliefs are based on evidence. 6% conviction rate, remember.

Your courtroom scenario is interesting but largely irrelevant -that sort of case very rarely makes it to court, because the CPS know they won't get a conviction. Also when it does get to court, it's not "hell on earth" for a jury to swing: they have no difficulty at all in swinging in favour of the man. The idea of him going to prison, is far more horrifying to them, than the idea of her not getting justice. The legal convention is for things to be beyond "reasonable" doubt, so it's reasonable to assume she's lying because women are weaker vessels and more likely to lie than men (according to misogynist convention). After all, she has a motive to lie about it, right? Why not make up a story about your husband or boyf whom presumably you esteem and respect (or have done) over the cornflakes, raping you. Women just do that sort of thing all the time - they're always making things up, what with their wombs and hormones making them liable to do that. Whereas men have no reason to lie about rape at all. Why on earth would he have penetrated her when she didn't want him to, I mean that never happens in any heteronormative relationship ever does it? And men are far more honest than women (because they're untroubled by hormones and icky women things like wombs which make them hysterical and prone to fits of untruthfulness) so if it ever did happen and she complained, of course he'd admit he'd done it. So you see, there's no hell on earth for any jury going on there.

Your indignation about the suit is misplaced - time after time it is shown that the way people dress in court makes a difference to the verdicts and the sentences they get (for all crimes, not just rape). In some cases, a suit is actually the wrong thing to wear, because it may prejudice a jury against you depending on the crime, but anyway that's another thread.

I don't know why you're telling me you can't walk into court thinking you're going to nail the bastard because I know that 90%+ men are guilty, I'm well aware of that. My point in banging on about the figures, is to refute your vague stuff about not knowing figures, he said she said, etc. I don't believe juries should come to default verdicts - I think that the public as a whole should be educated out of persistent rape myths (such as that women are always inventing tales of rape to make their lives more interesting) and should be educated to know that men don't have the right to penetrate women who don't want them to, even if they know them well and are in the regular habit of penetrating them consensually, so that the quality of juries is better and so that when it comes to reaching verdicts, they will not be influenced by the centuries-long weight of rape apologia that is the norm in our society.

In the same way runningforthebusinheels I am sure shop owners would love all those involved in shoplifting a crime with higher female to male participants, to be singled.

There also seems a perception that if you consider the number of defendants who are acquitted with the fact that most rapes and sexual assaults are carried out by men, that adding these two things together gives you the answer that all men are potential rapists which is where I think some of the fear or anxiety that posters like abigail have spoken about.

FamilyGuy "I guess I'll have to read up on that research "

Please do.

I don't think anyone would ever say that ALL males harm women. However, it is undoubtable that some men will harm women. The trouble with being a woman, when we're out and about in our daily lives is that we don't know which ones. It would be handy if rapists went around wearing signs, but alas.

Schrodingers Rapist

Festiva

Because juries won't convict rapists who know their victim and look respectable in a suit.

Therein lies your problem. Your beliefs are so skewed, so warped that it isn't funny. That statement is as one sided as it gets and shows just how you posess the very things you dislike about the male species. You seem so coloured by your opinions that you see fit to make huge sweeping statements like this.

Do you want to know why I have no idea about the numbers of actual rape? It's because it goes like this:

A man and woman stand up in court. They both claim to have had intercourse but the woman says it was forced. The man says it was not. Both have statements that look equally believable. She screams 'yes'. He screams 'no'. They've been together for some time and have had consenting intercourse numerous times.

I guess I'll have to read up on that research because given the above scenario I can imagine it's hell on earth for any jury to swing either way. I think you do the public a huge disservice with your insulting manner, accusing them that they won't convict a rapist because he looks good in a suit.

For the last time, I don't like guilty men walking the streets either. Given I have a family of women it makes my blood run cold. However, you seem to be looking at it from an angle where your research indicates (NOT proves) that almost all men are guilty and therefore the jury should make more default convictions.

Fortunately the law doesn't work that way (whether we like it or not). See, you have to make a decision based on the merits of each witness statement. NOT on your coloured perception of ALL rape cases. I have no doubt the research could be used to help juries to look out for key elements in testimonies etc. but you simply cannot walk into court thinking that you're going to nail the bastard becasue you know that 90+% of men are guilty.

Look, we clearly have differing views on this so lets not keep going round the same old arguments over and over. It's as futile as the original post on this insane thread.

But sincerely, thanks for the discussion

Abigail, I do understand why you feel that way, but what you are doing through this fear is believing that every single interaction with someone not of the same sex as you is a threat. That is what needs some deconstruction not that male violence is wrong.

It is unsustainable to say that ALL male's harm women. However what you and others are saying and feeling fear of is that all men are a threat. Thats a very broad brush given particular emphasis by the way that news outlets slant stories to focus on bad things happening in the world and very seldom on good things. This creates a sense of threat and fear which in my view has created division between young and old, male and female, straight and gay, disabled and able bodied.

I agree Festivia. If you'd asked me the question of whether men frightened me a couple of years ago I would have categorically said no. But having thought about it since then I do feel increased anxiety if a man approaches on a street when I am alone in comparison to a woman. I feel more intimidated walking into a room full of men than women. I would be far more likely to share a taxi with another (stranger) woman than a man I didn't know etc etc. It's all very low level and generally doesn't affect my life and the way I conduct myself. Except it does, doesn't it.

I don't think most of live in constant fear of violence from men.

I think it's much more subtle and insidious than that.

Festivia I would consider myself a feminist and I'm trying to figure out why some of the things you say are irritating me so much. I think it's the many sweeping statements about how "most women" feel when you cannot possibly know this. I don't think, for example, that you can extrapolate from rape stats that most of us live in constant fear of violence from men.

The cases which get to court are mostly the stereotype rape ones - the stranger in the dark alley.

They are not representative of most rapes, which don't get to court.

They are the "easy" ones - the ones the CPS is confident there's a good chance of conviction. They are the ones which happen in under 10% of rapes.

Most rapes have no chance of conviction.

Because juries won't convict rapists who know their victim and look respectable in a suit.

Juries are made up of the public.

It seems this has to keep being re-iterated.

Sorry for getting back late in the discussion but most rape cases don't even get to court this can be due to a number of reasons. But of the cases that do go to court most end in a conviction so I wouldn't blame juries.

" this is far cry from saying that most men leaving court are rapists. I'm sorry for being more balanced in my approach. "

You are not being more balanced in your approach. You are ignoring the maths.

We know from research, that only about 4% of rape allegations are false. That means 96% are true. That means that except for cases of mistaken identity, most men accused of rape, are in fact, rapists.

You can quibble with the figure - some put it as low as 2%, others as high as 8%, but basically it's about 4%. Half of those false allegations, do not name a perpetrator, so no man is affected those allegations.

In effect, we can reasonably say that 90%+ of men accused of rape, are guilty of it.

However, only 6% of rape allegations end up with a guilty conviction

That leaves 94% of men accused of rape, who go free.

Some of them will be the falsely accused and the wrongly identified. But most of them, will be rapists the jury was unwilling to convict.

That is not bias, that is simple maths.

Once a case gets to court, actually the chance of a conviction is higher than for most other crimes. That is because the cases which make it to court tend to be the ones with the stranger in the dark alley scenario - ie the ones everyone disapproves of, not the ones where women knew their attackers beforehand.

But most rape cases don't get to court. Because they are the ones where juries won't convict, because juries don't believe women or if they do, they think they deserve what happened to them and that a man's life does not deserve to be blighted by a spell in prison for a little bit of rape.

And in fact, most rapes are not even reported to the police (85-90%) because women don't behave the way victims are supposed to behave in that situation and they blame themselves and know they won't be believed. Many of them go into denial about having been raped in the first place and it might take them days, weeks, months or years to face up to it.

I just don't know why you keep on insisting that you don't know how many men accused of rape are guilty etc. - we do know. There has been loads of research on this and I keep quoting the figures. But still you don't know.

Festiva

I only know of Rosie and the girl that was refused a ride on the bus because they were high profile cases that were on the news. Again, you're trying to apply some sort of dubious rationale behind my knowledge of the news but it really is that innocent.

TBH I've not read any of Stearn's work but again, if you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty then you cannot charge him. Is this really so difficult to understand? You're arguing the point like I'm in favour of these people going free but this is the simple truth.

And I'm not saying that people walking free are NOT rapists. You are twisting my words. I'm simply stating that it is not right to automatically label these people as 'rapists'.

Re public opinion you should read the link again and see that your assumption is incorrect.

Abigail

Let's get this straight. Men that rape women are the lowest of the low. I know it's hard for some of you to think that a man could possibly believe that but there you go. I've said it.

A man that lies does men no favours just as a woman that lies does women no favours. Why does it have to always get twisted to suit the feminist agenda?

I'm not saying men don't lie about rape. Of course they do but this is far cry from saying that most men leaving court are rapists. I'm sorry for being more balanced in my approach.

And yes, it's perfectly reasonable to comment on any subject without specialist knowledge. This is what a public forum is about. Isn't that the essence of what gets discussed on these pages. Lots of women discussing how men think and operate when you're not actually men and have absolutely no knowledge of how we think?

Since when does not knowing anything about a subject stop certain people from commenting on it, Festivia? Honestly! I also find it slightly odd, that a woman who lies about rape does no favours to other women. Men who suffer rape seem to be absolved from those lies. This seems to further add to the myth that only women lie about rape. Men never do, oh no. They never lie about raping women for example. Why would they after all? However, those men that lie about rape don't seem to be doing a disservice to other men. In fact the opposite appears to be the case. It just reinforces the norm. The hard done by man who had consensual sex that "went wrong" or whatever. They are believed despite the overwhelming odds that they are guilty. So do you think a man who lies about a burglary only does a disservice to other men reporting burglaries?

And if they don't get convicted they aren't a rapist?? How does that work then? The act they did gets magically wiped from existence because a jury, subject to all the myths shown on this thread found them not guilty or the case didn't reach the courts or the woman didn't report it? The victims weren't in fact raped. They just imagined their trauma and injuries? A rapist is a rapist whether he is convicted or not.

Funny how you know NOTHING about the stats on false rape, but the name of ONE woman who falsely alleged rape (one of the 4% then), trips easily off your tongue.

You may know nothing about who is a rapist and who isn't, but experts in the field who have looked at research, do know - Baroness Stearn's review was the most recent in Britain, if you're interested. They know that only between 2 and 6% of rape allegations are false, they also know that there is only a conviction rate of 6% for all reported rapes, they know that between 85% and 90% of rapes are never even reported, so they know that most men who walk out of court free, are rapists. It's a simple question of maths.

Also viz public opinion not blaming women for rape - I would hazard a guess that when they're asked that question, they're thinking about the far less common

My comment regarding public opinion is significant because it means that fewer members of the jury will go to trial with preconceived ideas about the claimant.

However, whilst significant, this is different to jurors examining the evidence and finding the defendant guilty. My point is that a more balanced jury will come to a more balanced verdict, which is always a good thing.

But this is where we differ. I'm using 'defendant' as opposed to 'rapist' because we still operate an innocent until proven guilty system. You see people walking free as 'rapists'. As much as I dislike the guilty walking free and often feel the law is an ass it'd be a sorry day when we change to defendants being guilty until proven innocent.

Also, I have no idea if the majority of rape claims are true or false. Therefore I could not even say whether the majority of claims should be upheld. I have no interest in seeing more or less but that the right amount of people see justice. If that happened to be 100% of rapists going to prison then fine but if it also meant that 0% of men were charged then so be it.

I don't know who you've been talking to but I'd be horrified for any innocent person going to prison, irrespective of the crime. The difference with burglary/theft is that it's much easier to prove someone guilty e.g. by forensics, posession of stolen goods, CCTV etc.

Sadly there are cases like Rosie Dodd, who was jailed for falsely accusing 3 men of raping her. This does women no favours at all.

"It may well be true of the juries that have not decided against the defendant but suggests that public opinion (which is arguably of equal importance) is not against the victim."

I'd suggest that 90% of rapists walking free, means public opinion does actually blame women for rape.

Unless you are suggesting that juries are not representative of public opinion. Which may or may not be true, I don't know enough about that to comment.

I don't think 100% of rape allegations should end in a guilty verdict. I just think the majority should, because we know the majority of rape allegations are true. Most people disagree with me because they don't mind that much if women get raped and don't get justice, while they're horrified by the thought of innocent men going to prison for rape they didn't do. Funnily enough they're not that horrified by the thought of men going to prison for burglary, theft, etc., that they didn't do - it's only in the case of rape that they're so solicitous of innocent men. If burglars and fraudsters got off at the same rate in case they were innocent, hardly anyone would ever go to prison.

Festiva

I'm not pretending about blame but as I said before, it's extremely grey. I just did a google for 'women being blamed for rape' and it came up with these articles:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/19/blame-the-rapist

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8515592.stm

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/02/blame-rape-women-survey

Interestingly it is women that blame the victim as much, if not more than men. If the evidence from research is correct then only one third of the population think the victim is to blame too. This does not support your view that 'on the whole we get blamed' as it clearly isn't the case. It may well be true of the juries that have not decided against the defendant but suggests that public opinion (which is arguably of equal importance) is not against the victim.

As I said earlier, the current state of the law is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant raped the victim. If both were blind drunk and the woman consented to a man coming back to her place (or going to his) then it is extremely difficult to prove. Just as it is for a wife/girlfriend to claim rape against a husband/boyfriend. It's an extremely emotional situation but from a logical perspective it's a nightmare to judge against.

It sounds to me like some would rather see the stats go up than to see true justice being done. Like you'd be happier if 100% of rape cases went against the defendant but couldn't give two hoots if the wrong verdict was made.

"And please stop this 'being blamed' thing because it isn't a given that women get blamed for it, just as my example above made quite clear. Except again, you conveniently brush that sort of stuff off like it's irrelevant."

Your example is one of the fewer than 10% extreme cases for which women don't get blamed for rape. As RumbleGreen pointed out, most rapes are committed by perpetrators known to the victim. For which on the whole, we do get blamed.

You've conveniently brushed that off as if it's irrelevant.

Please stop pretending that women don't usually get blamed for the male violence to which they are subjected.

"When they don't, they are warned of the dangers. When they do, they are called paranoid." Those mixed messages are all around. You can choose to ignore your anxieties, they are generally low-level after all. Women are in fact conditioned to ignore them and heed them in the same measure. Instincts are important and these mixed messages fucks with them and as a result does put women in danger.