Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Why are people so defensive towards alleged rapists?

706 replies

PinkyofPie · 28/07/2016 15:40

If you're charged with a crime that goes to court, unless there's a reason to retain anonymity (such as it involves your child therefore naming you effectively names them) the press can name you if they wish to do so. Be it burglary, assault, theft or rape.

So why, every time a rapist is on trial, do people hop about saying "innocent until proven guilty" "they shouldn't be named they're tarred for life now" etc. But literally NO other crime.

A few days ago my local paper posted a picture on their FB newsfeed of 2 men on trial accused of raping a 18yo in the park. The above comments were there and even calls to "name and shame" the victim Shock and also "will she get sentenced if they're found not guilty". Perhaps because "not guilty" does not mean innocent and if the law worked that way even fewer women would report rape than there is now

One of the men accused also posted mocking both the trial and people who actually had sensible comments. I looked at his profile, which is public, and there's lots of people saying "good luck mate" for today (verdict) and memes about liars getting their comeuppance.

Today both men were unanimously found guilty by the jury in just 7 hours.

No comments so far on the post about their guilt.

Can anyone offer an explanation as to why people take this attitude with rape, and only rape? The poor survivor has had to read all that sympathy for them Sad

OP posts:
cadnowyllt · 03/08/2016 22:02

JoeNOTHarry

Gosh - that's incredible, the sentencing guidelines for that would have been between 12-15 years and he got a one year's suspended ?? and when you say 'mugged', do you mean a robbery ? Are you quite sure ?

JacquettaWoodville · 03/08/2016 20:59

That's terrible Harry. Your poor friend.

ChocChocPorridge · 03/08/2016 20:56

Jesus Gone, as I and plenty of others have said, that's not what I'm asking for. What I'm asking for is exactly the same as currently happens for every other crime.

I don't have to prove that I didn't give the burglar my TV, I don't have to prove that I didn't give permission for someone to hit me, I don't have to prove that I didn't give someone permission to access my bank account. They have to prove that they did beyond all reasonable doubt.

That is what I want. That rather than I have to prove that I didn't give consent beyond all reasonable doubt, but that he has to prove he did, again beyond all reasonable doubt - just as for any other crime.

I want the presumption to be that I didn't give consent, just as it is presumed that I didn't want someone nicking my ipad, or driving off in my car. It's not changing how justice or the law works, it's changing who has the onus of proof, away from the rape victim, and onto the accused rapist.

ImNotJoeMyNameIsHarry · 03/08/2016 20:38

My friend was dragged out of her home by an ex and mugged, beaten and raped by him. He got a years suspended sentence. Then the day after court. He stood outside her parents home theating her brother until she came down to talk and he dragged her away again. The police said she gave consent by walking out the door. It's discussing how little rights women seem to have in these cases.

Felascloak · 03/08/2016 20:28

feminists really believe that the accused in a rape trial should should go to jail unless they can prove they had consent.

No one said that. They said the onus should be on the offender to explain how he came to think he had consent, rather than the focus being on the actions of the victim. There is no other crime where that happens, as Lass has explained very eloquently to you.

If you don't want us to assume you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic don't post like you are Hmm

gonetoseeamanaboutadog · 03/08/2016 20:21

We believe you attempts to reverse that

Do you really think I don't understand this concept? I do. I also think it's wrong and won't, ultimately achieve what you want it to achieve.

It's ironic. I grew up in a heavily patriarchal culture. I fought it then and don't feel fettered by it now. However, when I talk to feminists, of all people, I am reminded what it is like to speak to a group of people who think that women should submit to their views and, if they refuse, will assume they're a few sandwiches short of a picnic before eventually trying to shame and abuse them into doing so. In short, if you lot had the reins of power, it would be a text-book revolution; you'd overthrow everything before restoring a mirror-image of the old society, but with yourselves in charge.

You are as incapable of perceiving a different argument without thinking 'ah, the little woman has got it wrong because she doesn't understand' as the most chauvinistic men in the country. And then, true to form, you seem to think, 'Well, if she doesn't agree with us she must be some version of morally bankrupt'.

For the final time, I do not think it is ultimately a good idea to encourage individuals to by-pass their ability to reason, regardless of the good you think you will achieve by doing so. I also, personally, think it is patronising to women to say 'We believe you,' regardless of what they are about to say next, in the full knowledge that you may not continue to believe them. 'We believe you' is full of unspoken qualifications and without these, it doesn't make sense. It's patronising and illogical. It's feminism lite. If what you mean to say is 'I have an open mind, I'm listening and I care' then say so. Don't demand that the nation promises something they cannot follow through with - unless they really have been brain-washed.

In telling the nation that they are woman-hating, chauvinistic rape apologists if they do anything but automatically 'believe' a rape narrative (some of whom will be sitting on juries where they are honour bound not to unquestioningly believe anything at all), you are not ultimately helping people to think responsibly and really move forward in their attitudes to crime against women. You are not turning out people who will be better fitted to sit on a jury in a rape trial, though they may be slightly more likely to bring in the verdict you want (and I appreciate this is all you care about) but not that likely, because it doesn't change the real obstacles of lack of evidence and innocent until proven guilty. To really be able to consider narratives with an open mind, individuals need to be more broad-minded and flexible in their thinking, not more brainwashed and dictated to.

BTW I am still waiting to hear how feminists really believe that the accused in a rape trial should should go to jail unless they can prove they had consent. WTF?? Do you even realise that expressing views like that is about as helpful to finding common ground across the genders as burning a male effigy on top of a bonfire? Is this really the way you wish to move women's issues forward in the 21st century?

You're in a bubble where everyone agrees. Like most bubbles it looks self-congratulatory, antagonistic and intellectually complacent from the outside.

Felascloak · 03/08/2016 17:42

gone Biscuit

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 03/08/2016 14:48

WFT? No, they'll think you've been burgled

Will they? If you say so.

I would prefer they treated me as a person who is reporting a burglary ; listened to me reporting the details of what was stolen; offered practical assistance and advice if my house needs to be made secure; dealt with me politely and professionally and did not tell me I was lying about being burgled or that I am to blame for being burgled by owning a large quantity of valuable jewellery and not switching my burglar alarm on.

Xenophile · 03/08/2016 14:36

(sorry Lass, I realise you're more than capable of pointing this out, but yeesh!)

Grin
Xenophile · 03/08/2016 14:35

gone

For about the 9000th time, you have to be informed that Lass IS NOT a feminist. She is however a lawyer, and probably has a far better grasp of all facets of the law and it's interpretation than you do. You are ascribing to her views she simply doesn't hold. Please stop doing this, it's incredibly rude.

ChocChocPorridge · 03/08/2016 14:26

Sigh, Gone.

Surely if you are only going on 'proof', there are going to be virtually no convictions because consent is basically intangible?

Ding Ding Ding! - yes, there are virtually no convictions, despite most of us having had some very questionable experiences, and many of us out right raped. That is because, women are not believed, we start from the assumption that it was just unwanted sex, not rape, because women lie, and because men can't be expected to know when we want to have sex.

We believe you attempts to reverse that socially, saying that actually, on balance, given our experiences, I think that you are telling the truth when you say you've been raped, not the bloke who says that you're just changing your mind in the morning.

What I would also like is the legal system to switch from a woman having to prove that she didn't give consent, to the man having to prove that she did. Both are admittedly hard, both will require juries to listed to evidence and decide, on balance, what they think is proven.

I want this because at the moment a pitifully small number of cases make it to court, and a pitiful number get rape convictions, and since I don't believe women are lying about being raped, that means there are a lot of men walking free who shouldn't be and, I think that that means we're doing something wrong in court, and trying to prove a negative strikes me as that wrong thing (since it is in so many other situations, and it's not how we prosecute other crimes - prove you didn't give that person permission to take the wallet? No, you can't? Right well, not-guilty).

I think that women shouldn't be thought of as walking orifices that have to prove they didn't want to have sex with whichever random man put their penis in them.

I think they should be thought of as people who can choose when they have sex, and that the random man needs to prove that the woman wanted to have sex with them.

Not sure how many more ways I can put that if I'm honest.

ToadsJustFellFromTheSky · 03/08/2016 13:54

I wish Mumsnet had an ignore user function.

gonetoseeamanaboutadog · 03/08/2016 13:50

make assumptions that the rape victim is lying

Which they may well not do anymore.

gonetoseeamanaboutadog · 03/08/2016 13:49

lass I have no idea what point you are trying to make with that long and involved burglary post if not to say that police make assumptions.

If you're trying to say that 'we believe you' means 'we don't automatically believe you're lying', I'm not sure why you're bothering. I know what it means and was interested in the implications of this kind of thinking in the justice system - given that feminists (with this slogan) are bent on making it unPC to question the accuracy of a rape victim in the first place.

If it takes such a long and involved post to describe what 'we believe you' really means, perhaps you should think about the authenticity of the statement to begin with. I'm sure you won't though because it's not your job to care about human beings in general, just women, and it's good for women, right...

AllMyBestFriendsAreMetalheads · 03/08/2016 13:46

"No, they'll think you've been burgled."

Women lie though don't they?

gonetoseeamanaboutadog · 03/08/2016 13:43

If I call the police and say my house has been burgled they will behave in a neutral manner and take details of the missing items. At this point they will make no assumptions.

WFT? No, they'll think you've been burgled.

gonetoseeamanaboutadog · 03/08/2016 13:42

In response to the question in your latest post, OP, I don't think for one moment that all men are aware that feminists may well define having sex with a drunk but responsive woman as rape. I imagine that many more are aware it is rape if the woman is unable to participate.

gonetoseeamanaboutadog · 03/08/2016 13:39

It does not really mean "we believe you" but "we don't disbelieve you "

You know that. No one else knows that is what they're supposed to mean when they say that. To anyone with a brain, it seems over-emotional, under-analytical - very healing, perhaps very helpful - but not just and not something you should be tearing others to pieces for not saying. Also not something that should be the starting point in a court of law.

tryingtomakesenseoflife · 02/08/2016 23:39

The explanation as per Lass's email makes sense. So it's not simply we believe you. I feel a bit stupid for getting confused. It is a powerful thing to hear.

I still get the value of the message though in terms of changing the default assumption of its a lie.

I can see now how your answers to gone make sense. I didn't entirely get the answers before.

JacquettaWoodville · 02/08/2016 23:04

I've seen the simple words "we believe you" mean so much to women on here, often whose mothers/friends/colleagues did not believe them.

I would be loath to alter the strength of that pure message of solidarity. Most of them never report, it all happened too long ago for many, but if they can gain some comfort, I will say it whenever and wherever it is needed.

JacquettaWoodville · 02/08/2016 22:59

I've never understood the fame claim. Rape complainants are kept anonymous, not famous, and the right to anonymity is rarely waived, though some brave women do, including the woman raped in a hotel after the (acquitted) defendant "went into the wrong room".

PinkyofPie · 02/08/2016 22:43

I agree Lass that WBY is perhaps unfortunate wording. It's more like "we believe you unless further investigations show otherwise." But that would be a shit slogan that not many rape victims would buy in to.

Not necessarily related to the subject of the thread but worth a mention: I mentioned in my OP that one of the defendant was commenting on said Facebook page during the trial, even posting selfies in court. Im going to admit that yesterday, after mulling this thread over, I took a look at his profile, which is all public.

It seems that he has a toddler and posted A LOT about fathers rights and "bitches not letting dads see their kids". He was rather candid and said "because of lying cunts my ex won't let me see my child". It seems after the rape allegation the mother of his child restricted access.

When anyone posts these "good mum's don't keep their kids away from their dads" kind of memes I'm always a bit Hmm and think "I'd like to hear the mum's side of the story".

Clearly the mum of his DC believed the victim, enough to keep her child away from the rapist. Perfectly understandable. She will no doubt feel she's made the right decision.

Furthermore there's lots of statuses about "lying bitches trying to ruin my life for a bit of fame". It made me wonder - did he actually believe he raped her or does he conform to rape myths that it doesn't count if she is pissed and seems up for it? I was always of the thought of the "men don't know they rape" being bullshit, men are not stupid creatures. But perhaps in some circumstances this is true? Or perhaps he's just a nasty individual trying to garner sympathy (which always worked - about 50 comments to each status saying what a bitch so-and-so is).

His mate also commented on the Facebook article yesterday. Saying "I know him and I know for a fact he's not capable of this". Which shows some people, even after a conviction, will see a victim as a liar Sad

OP posts:
JacquettaWoodville · 02/08/2016 22:38

I remember that, Xenophile. One of the reasons WBY is so necessary.

Xenophile · 02/08/2016 21:52

I don't know if you were around back then, as this was a couple of years ago Lass, but there were a couple of police officers who came and posted that basically they and their colleagues went from a point of disbelieving anyone who reported a rape, because of the myth about "so many women lie". It was a real jolt, although they may not have been who they say they were of course.

Hopefully, those people are no longer working in sexual crimes units and the general consensus is the same as your post about reporting burglary.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 02/08/2016 21:28

Oh and should say I'm not suggesting the police do not believe victims. The scenarios are just to try to explain how WAY works.