I don't agree with the MN feminists. AIBU?

[jennyvstheworld]

I consider myself an active proponent of equality of opportunity and a stern critic of discrimination... and yet I find that I can't identify with many of the viewpoints I encounter on the MN feminism page (and often say so). AIBU?

Coming back to the underage sex case in Ireland, later articles showed that the reason the boy's appeal was thrown out was because the girl denied that she had consented. He was not prosecuted for consensual sex that was deemed non-consensual purely on a legal definition. He was prosecuted because the girl accused him - a stranger she didn't know BTW - of rape and buggery. The law was used to protect her from having to undergo cross examination.

Thanks, Victor.

That throws different light on it, sunshine.

Is it considered rape if a women has sex with an underage boy?

I thought it was also considered rape if a man was penetrated anally by a women?

I don't think anyone is saying rape isn't a terrible crime, StayFrosty.

Interesting links if anyone wants facts.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13661407

www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23937001-jury-finds-female-drama-teacher-guilty-of-grooming-vulnerable-teenage-girl.do

This isn't the feminist section so I expect this sort of equal reporting will be acceptable.

We can all agree that rape is wrong and that more needs to be done to get convictions.

Can't we discuss both? They're separate issues, surely? I'd not heard about this law in Eire. It does seem slightly mad. Being interested in it doesn't mean I don't care that the criminal justice system in this country is woefully inept at prosecuting rapists. It's just not what was being discussed

Sorry, x-post. We're obviously discussing different things.

I think that is a good idea SF. Chickens (and I'm not picking on you - just you made an interesting point) has already said some of her views have come from TV series. Media perception skews the view for people, away from the reality of situations sometimes. I remember watching some of those American crime shows one week a few months ago. 3 of them (in one week this is) had scenarios where a women was raped. ALL of them ended up having the woman lying about it. This type of thing is why people think women lie about rape all the time - because that is the message they are given all over the place.

It is good to show real life examples of how women are really treated when it comes to sexual assaults/rape etc.

Er.....OG....we were discussing both. We had just been discussing if and how women can be charged with rape.

I don't know how familiar you are with the feminism board, chickens (or anyone else that might be reading), so please excuse me if I'm patronising you, but StayFrosty's posts sum up a lot of the problems over there. Rape is a terrible crime, legally only committed by men, and everything points to the fact that men who rape are more likely to be unprosecuted than prosecuted. It's really very clear-cut.

Every time the issue of rape comes up the debate always, BUT ALWAYS, goes the way of 'but what about THIS, and you can't say all sex is rape (no-one ever does), and you all hate men (we don't)', usually in order to criticise feminists for concentrating on the very clear-cut problem right in front of our eyes. Sometimes (and this is particularly awful) it has happened on threads where the OP is a victim.

It isn't a question of not agreeing - not agreeing is part of life's rich tapestry, etc, etc - it's the fact that the issue of rape is a central part of feminist activism, and while this discussion about whether men can be raped isn't irrelevant as such (because we surely all agree that it's an awful crime worthy of heavy penalties) it is women and girls to whom this is happening and they aren't getting justice for it.

SAF that was it - it really horrified me - can't find it though!

Stayfrosty wasn't discussing that BBQ.

If she wanted facts I have given them to her.

Er....ok?

organic I've not yet seen any feminists denying the existence of male DV victims. Indeed, most feminists are very supportive of the victims. If men's rights groups are genuinely interested in this area why aren't they actively campaigning for more refuge centres for victims instead of claiming that women make up DV claims to prevent men from seeing their children?

BTW, you missed the salient points in that article. All DV stats have increased. Women's stats have doubled in the last five years, but men's have nearly doubled too. From 28,000 to 55,000 (as opposed to a leap from 2,000 to 4,000 for women). Men remain overwhelmingly the perpetrators.

Likewise, since when has any feminist claimed that women are never guilty of child sex offences? That would be stupid. None of it takes away from the fact that men are again overwhelmingly more likely to commit sex crimes against children than women. Adult female sexual abusers account for only a tiny proportion of recorded sexual offences. Criminal Statistics for England and Wales (Home Office, 1997) indicate that between approximately 50 and 100 females were cautioned for sexual offences in each of 1995 and 1996 (as compared with approximately 2,200 men in each year), with similar numbers of women found guilty in Court of a sexual offence as compared with approximately 4,500 men per year.

I'm obviously missing something then. Because I was responding mainly to Maryz post about the Romeo and Juliet law. And as I have sons, and not daughters, my interest was piqued. I didn't think we were discussing the low conviction rates for actual rapists, more the potential for an underage boy who has consentual sex with his underage partner to be branded a rapist. Which surely doesn't help anyone. In fact, it probably bolsters the 'rape doesn't really happen' mentality, and makes it harder for victims to get convictions. But I accept that these were hypotheticals, as the case sunshine linked to shows that the girl did not consent. Still, the hypothetical seems ridiculous. Although I suppose some common sense would be used when applying any law.

I agree, men can be sexually assualted, but i should imagine this is a rare occurrence.

I mean, look at organicgardner's post. I can't speak for the whole board but I've never seen anything to suggest that anyone who posts there would condone DV against men or seek to excuse a conviction purely because the defendant is a woman. Yet this is the implication threaded throughout organicgardner's post. I don't apologise for the focus being on women - women suffer disproportionately from rape and DV, and disproportionately it is men committing these acts of violence. And it's not a few women more - it's thousands.

I wholly support Mankind and everything that they do but I am a feminist, fighting in a political movement that seeks to right the injustices done to women. Me supporting women does not mean that I don't support Mankind, or would seek to undermine what they do. Yet that is exactly what organicgardner implies.

It's really tiring to fight this day in, day out.

VG Agreed - while I'm happy to debate (and acknowledge) women do bad horrible things (increase in DV by women, aiding & abetting rape etc) those examples always seemed to be put forward as some form of trump card - Look here feminists, women can be just as evil as men so stop your whining.

Hear hear to both StayFrosty and VictorG's posts.

It's seems that some people want to accuse feminists of sexism if we don't cite a crime perpetrated by a woman on a man to 'balance out' every reference to crimes perpetrated by men against women, especially rape. At best those people are in denial, at worst they are deliberately obfuscating the issue (and thereby minimizing the suffering of the victims of this crime). I wonder why?