Acquiescence

[AgeingGrace]

Not sure whether this counts as a feminist discussion, but I'm giving it a try. I mentioned on another thread that, after seeing last year's TV programme about black-cab rapist John Worboys, I realised he 'had' me, too. I rang the helpline and the police were brilliant - they confirmed my story and discussed the case as much as I wanted to.

Bizarrely, the discovery was actually helpful to me. I'd been struggling with "denial of abuse" issues so, for me, this single episode (which I barely remember) represented all the other half-remembered and anxiously dismissed incidents of abuse that kept me questioning myself. I now accept that I have been more seriously abused, and more often, than I can consciously recognise. This denial is part of the issue I wish to discuss.

John Worboys sexually assaulted upwards of 400 women: probably hundreds more. His method was always the same - a little story, a little drinky that was drugged. Now this is what bothers me: up to 700 of us accepted that drink.

We trust London cabbies, sometimes literally with our lives. Worboys abused that position of trust. But - still! A cab driver gives you a drink, and you don't smell anything fishy? I bet none of us would have smiled and said "cheers" if an illegal minicab driver had done it. Not a single one of us rang the police, or the taxi office, to say "Driver number XXXX has just done something weird."

We trusted hansom cab drivers - rightly so. But why did we allow this trust to override our common sense? We all registered that this was "odd" behaviour, so why didn't we just get the hell out of there and press Dial? What happened to our natural alarm bells?

Answering for myself, I have to assume I was so deeply programmed to TRUST A MAN IN A POSITION OF HONOUR that I had no self-preservation instincts to go with that. In my case, this is the factor that led to my putting up with abuse in many situations. I was also, as mentioned, extremely willing to forget, deny, tell myself I'd got it wrong, etc, etc. I can trace this directly to my parental background. Did all 400 of Worboy's passengers come from families like mine?

How did Worboys know which women to trick?

I asked the cop how come so many women had bought his story. He said he wished he knew that - as more & more evidence came to light, they found it hard to believe he was getting to first base as easily as he did.

As some of you know, I'm committed to helping women in abusive relationships re/gain a sense of their own right to respect and safety. Most of you know at least something about the dynamics of abuse. Many people are conditioned to consider themselves less important than others; it's common for a woman to count herself less than a man. But 400 Londoners, each with enough independence to be getting a cab on her own at night ...? That's a lot!

If self-abandonment and self-denial are THAT prevalent amongst women, then feminism has a far bigger problem than I ever suspected.

I'm not sure if anybody's able or willing to pick this up - it's more of an emotional/psychological angle than this board's usual. It's both personally and politically interesting to me - what do you think?

dittany wants ALL reported rapes to fall into the guilty category, without exception.

Accused just implies guilt to her.

No proof needed just a given that any accusation can and should stick.

WWIFN.

I see nothing wrong with you using the word Men to describe the male half of the race.

invision Thu 17-Feb-11 10:24:47
sakura Thu 17-Feb-11 10:23:42
what do you make of acquiescence invision?

__

Is there a particular reason why you ask me that?

---

I don't know, do you think there might be?

acquiescence is what the thread is about, it's what we're all here to talk about. I guess the question is, you've seen what we all think about it, what are your views?

I agree with everything you have said there LeninGrad. However, if 5% of all crimes are false reports, what I am saying is that I wouldn't be happy with a justice system that convicted suspects when there is no independent evidence. That applies to any crime.

WhenwillIfeelnormal you keep saying that you don't want to change the system about evidence, that you wouldn't want people found guilty with no independent evidence etc etc.

Can I ask where on the thread anyone has said that they want these things changed?

You seem to be speaking vocally against something that no-one has actually suggested.

WWIFN "if it is a situation where it is one person's word against another and there is no independent evidence, a prosecution is unlikly to succeed. Like SuchProspects said, this would seem a fairly obvious assertion."

I didn't exactly say that. I said that independent evidence makes a conviction more likely. But within our criminal justice system crimes are sometimes successfully prosecuted with the only evidence being witness testimony.

Rape though is the only crime where the credibility of the victim is considered as a matter of course. That is an extraordinary situation. And I think one of the main reasons rape is hard to prosecute. If a victim's experience doesn't sit within society's expectation of rape (which is unreasonably narrow) the police, the CPS and then the jury all immediately question whether or not she could possibly be telling the truth.

Originally, it came from this statement in one of LeninGrad's posts:

"Society needs to believe women and blame the men doing this rather than vice versa, it really is as simple as that I think."

I don't disagree with that but to put this in context, at that point the thread had moved on to discussing rape trials and the judicial system. I'd be really happy if everyone agreed with the concept of evidence having to be present to secure a conviction and assumed that was the case in fact, until I saw Dittany's questions, which is why I asked her to be clear where she stood on this.

Also SQ I'd have much preferred the discussion to have acknowledged the main thrust of my original post on this thread, which was that I think we need to take a holistic approach to challenge society's view of rape and not just men's. My subsequent posts have been about answering questions based on cut and pastes from my posts.

Yes LeninGrad that would make me happy too.

why wouldn't she be asking for it as much if it was a stranger? Because women don't "behave" like gay men or straight men, and they don't like having sex randomly, or so the thinking goes. That's the only answer I can think of. WOmen's sexual behaviour is held to different standards and on that basis alone, stranger rape is more likely to get a conviction.

or at least, people can believe that a rape happened

yes, I do see the point you're making. I think our points lie side by side rather than being at odds with each other.

WWIFN mentioned that stranger rapes are more likely to be believed and I think there are some underlying assumptions about women at play here.
A woman who is aquainted with a man is expected to be available to him for sex; but then if you carry that logic to its natural conclusion, then why should she not be available for any passing man? Why should she not be asking for it just by going on a train, or down an alleyway, or a carpark? What makes a stranger rape more believable? I think it's the way we are programmed to believe women behave.

Prolesworth, SQ mentioned that paradox as well. It is a paradox. I found this quote today and the last sentence sums it up for me:

"You know, this stuff is very thinky isnt it? I have been ruminating over it all day. I think its tough to get my head around the idea that men don?t seem to get where babies come from, and have regarded vaginas as fucksheaths, and women as castrated men for millenia. But they kind of regard women as baby factories, at the same time.

What I have come up with is this: I think they think both things are true. And there?s nothing more likely to make you batshit loony toons than believing two or more contradictory things, at the same time"

I think it often depends on the judge and the jury concerned. I have seen it work both ways.

But some of those abhorrent attitudes and flawed thinking about women's sexuality come from women too; women that write in the press, women who sit on juries too. That's why I think it's a mistake to think it is only men who need educating about rape.

I agree with SaF.

WWIFN Looking at your first post again you came straight in saying that you would be uncomfortable with the principle of innocent until proven guilty and I don't think that anyone had said that principle should be changed.

I do agree with a lot of what you say but not all of it TBH but it would be pretty dull if we did all agree!

I can imagine it working both ways.