Does victim anonymity mean rape is less visible in the media?

[Lemonthyme]

Something has been on my mind for a long time.

As a rape victim, nobody has heard my story. I was raped by someone who was prolific enough the story made the national press. I was offered (as were the other victims) the opportunity to do a piece for the likes of "Take a Break" etc. I didn't. I couldn't imagine it would be written sympathetically. But if, say, The Guardian had approached me, I'd have considered it if I could stay anonymous.

But that's the problem. The very necessary and justified automatic anonymity victims get mean it's less newsworthy for a publication to write about the experience of women in rape. It's less common to see a story from the woman's perspective unless, bravely, she's waved anonymity.

Then there's the fact that it is so common that unless the perpetrator is a celebrity, even serial rapists don't make the news that often.

I wonder sometimes if that's why more people aren't as angry as (I think) they should be. That they simply don't realise how ubiquitous rape is. Because it's not on their front pages every day.

I don't know how to fix it while continuing to protect victims.

This is something I’ve felt for a while - the rule on anonymity made sense when a woman who known not to be a virgin was considered “ruined”, or a man whose wife had had sex with someone else, even through rape, would be considered to have been humiliated by other men. Rape was “a fate worse than death” because a woman’s value was based on her “purity”.

Thankfully we no longer live in those times and I do think that the shockingly low conviction rate for rape cases is related to a feeling that some people, especially men, have that the rape accuser is unfairly protected because their identity is kept secret.

In reality, the Pelicot trial showed the opposite: the lawyers for the accused tried to bully Gisèle Pelicot but the fact that it was being reported in the media (against the wishes of the accused!) meant that this too was reported and there was a public outcry so they had to stop their personal attacks on the victim.

I’ve come to think anonymity has at least as many downsides for the victim as advantages.

All true and because of this, the (rare) false accusation stories are published and get column inches. Then there's an availability bias, i.e. I see stories of false accusations, I don't see stories of rape, therefore believing false accusations are more common.

It's likely I will have a choice to make when the man who attacked me applies for open prison (could be this year). I intend to fight it but know I'm likely to be unsuccessful unless I use the media. I have no idea if that's going to be the right plan.

The decision to go public must be incredibly tough and I wouldn’t criticise anyone for not doing so, but I think anonymity clearly helps the accused as well.

OTOH once someone has let their identity be released, there’s no going back, and I suspect that there are also nasty people out there. Can you contact some of the U.K. rape victims who have gone public for their experience? I’m thinking of that Scottish woman who was raped at university by a fellow student whose father, a doctor, was horrible to her. Though I suspect he could have been even worse if his identity hadn’t also become public. The media reporting on what he did could (maybe?) have acted as a limit to what he dared do to her?

ETA: she’s Ellie Wilson and the rapist’s father is Andrew McFarlane - he’s been convicted of stalking her. It would be worth considering whether the media reporting helped protect her somewhat on the end or whether it just attracted other crazies or woman haters.

I think you are underestimating just how often rape victims are not believed in their wider community due to people minimising, denying harm.

The case of Conor McGregor for example the absolutely horrific things written about the victim because people knew who she was because it was a civil case.

True - that’s kind of what I’m wondering. But I think Conor McGregor’s fame made people unwilling to see him as a rapist. The two rugby players from NI benefited from a similar effect - and their victim remained anonymous.

If the rapist isn’t already liked/famous there’s a different dynamic.

But yes it’s not an easy decision to make. Once the victim’s identity is known, there’s no going back from that. But the fact that there’s already been a conviction must make a difference, surely?

I'm not underestimating that. (Where in my post did it say I was?)

I’m not sure it makes much of a difference people stand by rapists all of the time. People are very loyal to family members, friends and disbelieve rape victims as a matter of course. Women are getting more educated on trusting victims but it is still massively a work in progress.

One of the victims of the man who attacked me originally stood by him (she was his girlfriend) until they found videos on his phone of what he'd been doing when she was unconscious.

I don't think people want to believe the worst in people they know and have trusted as then it would change their opinion of themselves.

I know of someone who had been to prison for rape. I know this because the conversation was around how disgusting it is he’s locked up due to the horrible woman’s lies.

ive been raped. I know that man is guilty if he went to prison ffs. Mine admitted it but the police didn’t think it was enough evidence to proceed.

I don’t know if anonymity has any impact. Those who believe men will still have that predisposition and those of us who know the truth of the stats will believe the victims.

I do agree it’s not a shameful thing anymore not to be pure. I don’t think that’s why most people keep it private. I only don’t talk about mine because my children are court ordered to see him. Once they are adults I will tell them he’s a rapist without shame. I don’t care about my anonymity but my children don’t need my name in the media if it had ever been newsworthy. Which it wasn’t because it’s sooo common

Oh absolutely. But the people close to the perpetrator will do that anyway, even if the victim is anonymous to the general public, and I think when the victim waives her anonymity, there is more sympathy to her so that the usual bullying tactics used against her may at least get some backlash from the public. I think that happened in the Gisèle Pelicot case, and I think it helped Ellie Wilson in that the rapist’s father was a powerful man in the community, so if he’d been able to benefit from her choice to remain anonymous, it could have been more difficult for her to get him convicted for stalking her.

That said, there’s obviously the risk of attracting other weirdos and haters, so it’s a difficult decision to make all the same.

Just to be clear, I meant that now that our society no longer sees women in that way, the original reason for anonymity has been removed, and maybe it’s time to also think of the possible downsides to women of the anonymity law.

It’s not as though the laws on rape prosecution seem to work well for women at the moment, after all.

I don't think the law on anonymity is about "purity" but more around abuse. Women get rape threats just for having an opinion. So I'm glad my face and name wasn't dragged through the tabloids when it first happened and later when he was convicted. But I don't think there is enough thought (in the press at least) about trying to tell the women's stories in a sensitive way because that is lost.

Yes I understand that that is why a woman would want to keep her anonymity - but sadly those attacks are not because she was raped. They’re a consequence of being a woman. It also happens to women who are in the public eye for any reason.

So that isn’t the reason why society has that law just for rape and not for any other reason why women get stalked or abused. The reason why it’s there, historically, is the one I gave.

I don’t mean that’s not a reason to want to keep anonymity though - of course it is. I do get that.

But if dropping anonymity meant the public began to hear women’s stories and voices more, and if lawyers faced some media blowback for bullying victims, as happened with Gisèle Pelicot, they would have to adapt their behaviour, then I think women would be less “broken” by the trial process, and also that the conviction rate might rise significantly from the current disastrous 1%. Because that low rate also allows people to believe that there are lots of false allegations. It’s all interconnected.

On the other hand that’s a big IF, I know that.

But since you asked the question, it’s something I’ve come to think, partly from supporting a friend through a rape trial but also generally seeing how things are reported in the media.