14 year old girl raped in broad daylight

frogsoup Thanks for your post, I was struggling to articulate this. If I find this attack particularly shocking, its not because I have accepted rape as the right of men, or the fault of women.
Its shocking in the sense of when you are thinking about daytime in the park, you aren't thinking about the risk of rape. If I go to the zoo I dont factor in the risk of being mauled by lions.

The difference between relative and absolute risks are hard to get your head around when the subject is as emotive as 'rape' or 'terror'.
IME many people do not understand that difference.

Rape or any sexual violence against women is far to common place and far too 'accepted' by many. One would hope that it might become less and less acceptable, even at a very low level like wolf-whistling or insistent pestering.

(sorry, in case that wasn't clear, I mean that the risk of dying in a car accident is many times greater than the infinitesimally tiny chance of dying in a terrorist attack on a plane, so by switching from one form of transport to the other, you up your overall chance of dying.)

I was responding to the suggestion that it was wrong to be more shocked at a rape happening to a young teenager in broad daylight in a public place, than about one happening late at night or in private, and that this was 'the logic of the patriarchy'.

It is not the logic of the patriarchy, it is the logic of relative risks. It's also the difference between dramatic, newsworthy events and more hidden ones - after 9/11 many people stopped using planes, and some of them ended up dying in car accidents as a result. Not logical, but how human minds process risk.

A young man is unquestionably more likely to get beaten up on a Friday night in a town centre than on a tuesday afternoon, but nobody suggests that young men should not go to town on Friday nights

I don't think anyone whether on here or in the reporting has said that. The report shows that rapes can happen anywhere.

Also, I never quite get why referring to relative risk of attack is necessarily seen as suggesting that the victim should not have been in that place at that time, or had any responsibility their ordeal. A young man is unquestionably more likely to get beaten up on a Friday night in a town centre than on a tuesday afternoon, but nobody suggests that young men should not go to town on Friday nights. Likewise, a woman is probably more likely to get raped at 1am in a secluded alleyway than in the middle of the day on a commonly-used route. That doesn't mean that she doesn't have the right to be in either place. But the latter is more shocking because, as people have said, it is more audacious. And ultimately, perhaps it does hit home more not just because the victim is vulnerable, but because she was doing something which we assume was pretty much risk-free. We all walk through parks in the daytime without a care in the world. Late at night we are more aware of the risks. Just like we are more aware of pickpockets in the middle of Leicester Square than in Littlechurch-on-the-Wold. But to repeat, that is NOT to say that we don't have the right to go out alone at night - I do it myself - and NOT to say that any blame attaches in any case.

My outrage and shock is that a man would be audacious enough to attack a woman somewhere there was a high chance of him being seen and caught in the act

I agree. The "in broad daylight" aspect relates to that. He took a chance where it was a probability he would be seen.

My outrage and shock is related to the fact that no one intervened, that literally no space is safe not even a public space in the middle of the day

There is nothing to suggest there was a failure of intervention. The location is described as secluded.

Self defence lessons protected me from an attempted rape at age 19.

I was interviewed by police and Dame Janet Smith as part of operation Yew tree 4 years ago and was genuinely shocked when I realised that, upon reflection, In all likelihood I escaped a predator because of 6 PE lessons 4 years previous. Dame Janet repeatedly asked why I had lain on the floor and screamed - why didn't I just go with him? It was because I was told never to let myself be taken into a private place with any one who I suspected might be a predator.

We weren't taught to fight, we were taught to, and practised screaming, crumpling to the floor and 'being floppy' so you can't easily be carried away, to bite anything possible (again practising). It sounds ridiculous but it was quite fun at the time and it worked when I needed it, and felt second nature.

I have taught both my kids the same techniques.

This wouldn't help anyone attacked outdoors/away from other people but it is useful in some circumstances.

I do think that the fact it was so brazen, and the fact that it was a rape of such a young girl, is particularly disturbing/distressing. My eldest dd will be 13 at Christmas. The thought that something like this could happen to her twists my insides into a knot. No-one is disputing that all rape is horrendous, but the rape of a young girl/child is the absolute worst.

Aren't we generally more upset when horrific things happen to children rather than adults though? I think of my daughters facing this kind of risk as they start to become independent and of course it hits home more than if it had happened to a 50 year old. Not that that isn't horrific too, obviously, but it's the added layer of vulnerability.

Maybe we should let women (and only women) carry guns?

I totally understand what you mean NoLoveofMine

You make sense.

My gripe is that when it comes to prosecution of rape, which is just as horrific as the actual rape itself.

Raped in broad daylight at the age of 14? As the perpetrator, if caught, you are likely to get a prison sentence. BUT, this isn't confirmed. What was she wearing, why was she on her own at 14? Don't these young women know how much they attractive? Any fucking excuse!

It was even suggested by a judge, that a 12 year old girl was complicit in her rape because she looked older. He was 21. Sorry, Guardian link.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/17/man-who-pleaded-guilty-of-raping-12-year-old-freed-by-glasgow-high-court

Poor kid

Dobby

Yes, I got what you meant - no worries.

I have posted this before and I stand by it: feminism is a broad church IMO and IME and that is one of its strengths. I don't think we should allow ourselves to be divided by age or experience or by what particular 'flavour' of feminism we feel most comfortable with.
Feminism is about the empowerment of women and if that were achieved IMO it would benefit all.

I find it particularly shocking because of the audacity and won't apologise for that. It speaks to me of the lack of consequences of his previous actions, the security he had or felt he had to escalate into what would be classified as a high risk environment for an offender and of the innate power he believed himself to have. Brazen, and how do you become so brazen in flouting the law? Because the rewards are higher than the risks or the consequences are negligible compared to the gains.

I'm also a CSA survivor but my father never raped me where he could get caught. This is horrific, more than one thing and more than one situation can be horrific at a time. If you don't feel that brazen, audacious behaviour relates to wider societal beliefs and actions then that is absolutely your right but when your argument is that things are horrific on a grand scale to then berate someone for using a case currently in mainstream media as a focal point for wider discussion of that very fact seems misplaced. Some factors make any crimes more shocking because they highlight failures that have allowed such deviation from what we consider acceptable. That is not related to any 'value' or lack of of the victim. In this case if it transpired that he had escalated to this point due to a failure to be adequately punished previously (either not facing justice at all, being acquitted of one or more previous attacks or facing very light sentencing with inadequate rehabilitation or post release monitoring) that would add to the shocking value of the case, not to the worth of the victim, and not because I find it surprising but because it so clearly indicates the level of importance we place on violent men harming women and children both institutionally and societally.
And actually yes, I do find it a little bit more sad when I read these things about children and that is because I am an adult woman who, while largely content with her life, sometimes wonders if I am the person I could have been had my childhood been different, there is something intangible taken from children and not adults that is entirely separate from any individual amount of resilience, but just because the cost is different it doesn't mean either is lesser. That is a personal view though that I don't expect other people to agree with because it comes from a very personal and biased emotional place rather than a rational one.

Pacific my comment might have come over as criticism, it wasn't meant to. More that I was shocked to realise the extent to which I was letting my own DH off the hook in that task.

This is not an either/or.

Both women have points. One has serious history. The other is v young. Neither should be judged.

retreat, I may have phrased it in an emotive way, but frankly I don't trust Dh to do that particular job particularly well .

My outrage has the following hierarchy:

• any rape
• any attack when there is a high chance of detection
• any attack on somebody young enough to deserve the protection of those older and more experienced than themselves

I think it is absolutely understandable that NoLoveOfMine would find it easy to identify with a person only a few years older than her - it makes it seem closer to home and I get that.
It does not mean that any other rape is somehow less bad or whatever.

Frankly, I am delighted to have a 17 year old actively seeing herself as a feminist. We need all the takers we can get IMO.