feminism shouldn't just be about rape

[tvmum1976]

controversial topic. I've written a blog about it and wonder what people think?

Hi Sybil,
Thanks for your detailed and interesting post- I don't take your comments as patronising (unless you would like me to...) and appreciate your reading the blog and engaging with it. I take on board your suggestion about making it more targeted, however, I write and make docs for a living and use the blog as a way of writing what I want to write about, rather than what commissioning editors want to commission (which is hardly ever anything of a feminist bent)- it's really for me more than anything, though it's nice to get readers. It's not really meant to be a feminist blog per se- more of a general thoughts on the news type thing.

I do slightly object to your comment that because you disagree with me about this particular issue, that is because I haven't really thought about it.

I take on board what you say about possible misrepresentation of the LFN. I'm sure their work is broader than the programme suggested. However, as someone who does this for a living, I know that there is only so far something can be misrepresented in a documentary- emphasis can be shifted, but real gravitas can't be taken away with clever editing. I do think it is significant that as a feminist in London, with several friends in the same position, none of us had ever heard of this group at all, apart from the Reclaim the NIght marches, which are pretty high profile. Perhaps I am ill informed, but I would say that I am no more ill informed than most- I read several papers a day etc etc. I think it has at least something to do with the fact that they are not punching through strongly enough with their message except on the subject of rape.

I agree with you that the press is incredibly selective about reporting of feminism, something that I have struggled with in the past trying to get stuff commissioned on the subject. And the tone of the reporting, as I said in my blog often amounts to outright ridicule.

On the main issue- the low conviction rate for rape is a complex topic, and I believe has more to do with the very high burden of proof for criminal cases (beyond reasonable doubt) which is exceptionally hard to meet in crimes with no witnesses and no evidence as such.

I don't believe that violence against women is systematic, or can be attributed simply to the fact that 'men hate women' as suggested by another poster. The issues are far more complex than that. I believe there is definitely an association with inequality in general in society and violence against women, which is why I feel that the feminist message should be one primarily of strength rather than weakness.

Phew, that was long. sorry. It's an interesting debate, and would like to hear more about the feminist activism that you have been involved in.

can you respond to my post now please?

hi booy- really sorry- yes, am thinking about my response, but have to cook dinner for my husband :-) - clearly feminism is alive and well in our house. will get back to you soonest.

I see where you are coming from OP but you may have presented it somewhat clumsily.

I think rape gets more headlines and more copy because even though it only happens to a minority of women for those women it can be an enormous life changing effect of partiarchy. (Not to mention the knock on effect of fear amongst women in general)

It is also more obvious than say the gender pay gap. ie most women know they've been raped but most victims of unequal pay are unaware of it personally affecting them. It also isn't a crime, and crime is more sensational and news and gossipworthy than non-crime.

"no it is gender motivated. i.e; based on the fact that the victim is female. that makes it a feminist issue. are you saying you don't think sexism is the same as racism or homophobia? beating someone up becasue tehy are female is as bad as beating someone up because they are gay. an attcker might not say "it was cause she's a women" but listen to their language when they abuse women "slut" "bitch" "slag" etc. none of those words are used to describe men."

Hi Booy. Interesting point. I think in many ways sexism is more complex than racism or homophobia. Homophobia is (without wanting to sound crass or minimising at all) a 'one issue' prejudice. People bash people because they are gay and they believe that is wrong or unnatural or whatever. Racism takes more forms obviously, but is also about 'otherness' and hating what you don't know. Men and women live together and interact constantly, on thousands of issues big and small on a daily basis, and so sexism, is by its nature a more complex and messy thing. The other difference is that it is impossible to remove the 'sex' from sexism, and to suggest that sexual urges are not a motivator for rape wouldn't make sense. That is why I think that the 'rape is just the same as racist/homophobic attacks' line of thought is an oversimplification which is not particularly helpful in understanding why rape happens, and how best to prevent it.

As I said in another post, there is obviously a correlation between unequal societies and violence against women, but this is not a direct causation- the relationship between the two is far more complicated I believe, which is why I think a 'march against rape' is likely to be ineffectual.

None of this is to say that I don't think violence against women is a feminist issue. My point is more that I think it is a shame that it takes such a prominent position in the feminist movement.

Pen
Errr, exactly. That's why is is more "systematic"; it is so much part of the system that it doesn't even warrant special attention, is not even seen to be "violence with a stated intent" by someone who self-identifies as a feminist.

I think we are confusing systematic with systemic. Violence against women is definitely the latter, but I would argue not the former...

tv: Probably.

:o

the low conviction rate for rape is a complex topic, and I believe has more to do with the very high burden of proof for criminal cases (beyond reasonable doubt) which is exceptionally hard to meet in crimes with no witnesses and no evidence as such.

Hi tvmum you raise some interesting points and as another blogger - who does focus on the issue of rape (although that's not the sole preserve of my feminism, by any means) - I wanted to take issue with the statement above.

Describing rapes as crimes with no witnesses and no evidence as such is inaccurate for two reasons:

1. There is a always a witness in a rape: it is the victim. The problem is that most people, including those in law and order and the legal system are conditioned not to believe the victim. A rape victim's witness account is seen as far less reliable than, say a victim of street robbery, who is usually automatically believed.
2. There is often forensic evidence (if the rape is reported quickly) and/or evidence of additional violence in the form of cuts and bruises (or worse) etc. on the victim's body. The forensic evidence - the presence of the perpetrator's semen, for example - may be regarded as unimportant because of the tendency mentioned above to disbelieve the victim, especially if the rapist claims she consented to sex.

What you say is the "low conviction rate" for rape actually refers to the "attrition rate" - the number of cases that are reported that result in a conviction. The main problem is that most cases don't make it to court, usually because the victim decides for various reasons she doesn't want to go through with it.

Once a rape case does get to court, the conviction rate is 58%.
However, once you remove guilty pleas from the stats, that rate is much lower. And there the "beyond reasonable doubt" aspect of a criminal trial is indeed a problem because commonly held misconceptions about rape and the general tendency to blame the victim for her ordeal mean jurors mistakenly believe a victim's manner of dress, her behaviour, state of mind etc. cast "reasonable doubt" on her version of events. So the rapist gets off because the jury, encouraged by the defence barrister (and sometimes the judge) tends to privilege his story over his victim's.

For the record, rape is one of the fundamental issues in feminism (yes, possibly the fundamental issue, although I would argue that motherhood is another essential issue for the movement) because it encapsulates so many aspects of patriarchal and misogynistic attitudes and is used - whether consciously or not - as a tool to oppress women.

PS good luck pitching feminist ideas for docs, tvmum. I used to work in the industry myself, so I know what you're up against.

Hi Inmaculada,
thanks for your post re. rape conviction rates. interesting stuff. was just talking to a journalist who covers rape cases the other day, who told me how shocked she was generally at the 'blaming' attitudes peddled in court. Would love to read your blog. could you post a link?

interesting also that you describe rape as a 'tool' to oppress women. Do you think it is as calculated/systematic as that implies? I can't help feeling that it is the other way round- ie in unequal societies rape is more prevalent, as respect and legal protection for women is lower. Just a thought.

really? This doesn't mesh with the research I've read about rape.

Assuming you don't think evopsych rambles and hypotheses are actual research.

??? Don't know what you mean here, sorry. Would like to know more...

hi Prince,
can you post some links to the research you mention? thanks[

thanks v much.
It's an interesting point, but certainly not an uncontested view- there is research on both sides of this debate.

iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm

I also personally don't believe the notion that rape has nothing to do with sex. Rape is clearly about power, but I think to deny the sexual component is a mistake which leads to an incomplete understanding of the phenomenon. Experts did this with paedophilia, claiming that it was purely motivated by power, but recent programmes for paedophiles are taking into account the obvious sexual element to it. Being honest about this makes it easier to treat and rehabilitate.

Quite frankly I'm amazed that you live in London and haven't encountered the LFN. They have a fairly high profile. Your assertion that your feminist friends haven't heard of them either speaks to me of a fairly insular group. Do you never attend any of the protests that have been proliferating since the Tories got in? You can usually find a LFN member there to chat to. I have no affiliation to them by the way, but I do find them approachable and interesting.

fair enough about the LFN. From various peoples' comments they are obviously doing a lot more than had been apparent to me. Although I still maintain that their message is failing to punch through to the mainstream. I am definitely a feminist, although not involved in much feminist activism and hadn't heard of them. I talked to a range of friends about it, all of whom would consider themselves feminists, all of whom are pretty well informed, a few of whom are journalists (which certainly isn't a qualification for being well informed, obviously, but does require people to keep up with the news and have a rough sense of things that are going on) and none of them had either- possibly a fairly insular group, but I would certainly argue no more so than most. So I am glad that the LFN are so well regarded by women who know more about the feminist scene than I clearly do, fully support their work and hope that their message comes through more to the mainstream in the future.

oh, and men can obviously be victims of rape too, lets not forget.

Oh heaven forbid we should forget that. Feminists must always remember men, isn't that the purpose of the movement?

Who's forgetting men are victims of rape, tv? Does it need to be mentioned so often, is what I'd like to know?