The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

[DontCallMePeanut]

From The Telegraph

Sorry, my head's not in the right place to provide any critique of this at the moment, but thought this would interest the members of the feminist section. Will attempt to comment when I have a clearer head.

It's just occurred to me, at least one of the refuges I was in did a fair bit of blaming the victim for DV.

We were put on the "freedom programme". In it's thinking, correct. But still, it said, in a way, "well, it's your fault for not knowing that these are the personality traits of an abuser, it's your fault for not spotting them straight away, and now we're giving you the knowledge so that if you end up in another abusive relationship, well. It's your fault..."

Victim blaming is rife when it comes to women. I posted on a thread earlier in AIBU about a mum who's just had her children taken off her because of alcoholism. Fair enough, she's in no position to protect her child at the mo. However, they've placed the child with the father - a man who is regularly abusing the mother. Apparently the mother is unfit but the father is a paragon of virtue.

SW response? It's not about the parents, it's about the child. Ok, so how is it benefitting the child to be placed with a man who beat up his mother in front of him?

Apparently, the abuse makes the mother more responsible, because she has failed to protect. Shame we're not applying the same principles to him 'failing to protect' the child from the mother's alcoholism. Massive double standard!

Wouldn't it make more sense to support the mum to kick booze and partner so the child can at least have a chance at growing up with a non-abusive parent rather than in LA care? Instead of allowing an abusive parent to take control of a child?

FFS!

Sorry, slightly off topic, but when it comes to victims why is it than when they're women they are held up to higher standards? Why?

So, they can't find a way to support the mother instead, thus caring for the DC? :(

That said, the withdrawl from alcohol abuse can be pretty damn tedious. She'd still have needed support. But taking away her DC is more likely to push her over the edge

Apparently the line is "only the child's best interests our in our remit".

This just seems so unbelievably stupid to me. If you're talking about the child's best interests you're talking about who is going to care for that child. So who is? Place him in LA care? Woeful outcomes. With an abusive father? Yeah right, that's going to work out well.

But if the mother can kick alcohol and keep the partner away then surely she could make a good parent? There's no question mark about her parenting in any other way. And given that being placed with a sober loving parent is OBVIOUSLY better than being in 'care' or with an abuser, why on earth can't they see that the best outcome for the child in this case is to support the mother. It is SO short-sighted.

I can't work out why I am so angry about this. Apart from the DV connection, there are no parallels here with my own life. I post on DV threads all the time without becoming emotional, but this has really, really got to me.

Sorry Don'tCallMePeanut, that sounds more like 'common sense' or getting people to take some responsibility for their choices than victim blaming. Or are domestic violence refuges part of the patriarchal media rape apologist network?

And I agree totally that most rapes don't involve sexy clothes or being drunk - so why was this Amnesty report so concerned with those two situations?

Again, even if people don't say say 'a woman is partially responsible for being raped' (and we don't know if the same people would say a person is 'partially responsible' for being the victim of another crime, avoiding any imperfect comparisons) - the super-important fact, if you really care about rape victims getting justice, is that when these cases come to court there is a 50% conviction rate. The important thing is getting more to trial.

MarySue - I suppose it depends on how it's phrased (regarding Peanut's post on advice from DV workers).

I know that I needed to learn those lessons. I was woefully ignorant about abuse and if I'd known what I know now when I met my DC's father, I wouldn't have touched him with a barge pole. Learning how to protect yourself is always a good thing.

However, none of that takes away from the fact that it is the abuser's fault that he is abusive. A victim doesn't 'ask' for it or put herself deliberately in harm's way.

I'm all for educating women and empowering them to avoid these sorts of situations. But that does make it victim blaming UNLESS it is also accompanied by severe penalties for committing abuse/rape and a culture where it is expected that these acts will result in prosecution. At the moment, as you rightly say, they are not.

OK, MarySue, I'll add this.

This was happening at the same time ex-P was going through a court case. For assaulting me, whilst I had DS in my arms, he received a six month suspended sentence. Despite everything I was told about DV in there, about how he'd been giving off warning signs all along (and in my head that translated as and you were all too stupid to see them or similar), the courts excused his behaviour due to a lack of a job and being an alcoholic. He was given 150 hours community service, during which time, my family managed to convince me I'd blown things out of proportion and the sentence reflected that, and, oh... shouldn't I be thinking of DS, who deserved having a proper family. I ended up going back. (Yes, my fault, I know). But, ex-P had his community service reduced by 30 hours, I believe it was, because he agreed to do a free maths and english course. He was put through alcohol management, and gave everyone aroound us the message that it was the alcohol which was the problem. As a victim of DV, you have conflicting messages coming at you from everywhere.

I did have mmore to add, but my head's gone stupid again, and I've forgotten it. Sorry.

this argument really annoys me, its not about rape it is about a person lying, the two crimes are not connected, but women unless then have received a beating too are so often under suspicion. would you question someone if they told you there were mugged

the daily mail gave more print space to women who cry rape than cases where the men were found guilty, now considering conviction is less than 10% adn the number of reported rapes was 13000 in 2009 that figure is disgustingly low

all rape claims have to be dealt with without suspicion, very very few are false claims. but this shoudl not effect the way we view or rape victims are treated at all.

Oh peanut I'm sorry. It totally invalidates your feelings doesn't it. My XP tried to strangle me. Got a caution.

Again, the figures (for 2006, from The Observer) are that 5.5% of reported rapes end in a conviction. And only 9% of reported serious woundings, including stabbing, end in a conviction. There will be no debating consent in a serious wounding, I imagine that though some women will be affected, most victims and perpetrators of serious wounding are men. So no sexism, no 'serious wounding myths' that we need to educate the public about... presumably much better evidence of the crime - yet 91% don't end in a conviction. Compared to 94.5% of rape reports not ending in a conviction. It just doesn't seem like the reason that more rapes don't end in a conviction is a widespread 'blame the victim' mentality.

Don't be silly. There has been much debate over the extent of injuries to which people can lawfully consent, see R v Brown for example.

Again the mainstream
think it is a problem

It's ok, Sunshine. :) I'm mostly over it. I just have days where it all seems to come flooding back, but I'm getting there.

Alice, it varies from paper to paper. Different papers have different ideologies, and different. Just search the word "rape" on the Daily Fail. More of the articles are about women "lying" about rape, than rapists being convicted. The more stories like this peddled in a predominant newspaper, the worse the effects, and the more individuals we have spouting off about women lying.

Going on the first page of search results alone, the Daily Fail has 7 stories about women "lying" about rape. The Guardian has none. The Daily Fail regularly promotes victim blaming, or even stories aboout women who've "lied" about rape. I'm not sure how many people read the Daily Fail on a daily basis, but it's enough to do a serious disservice to those trying to dispel rape myths, and the myth that women would lie about rape, given the chance.

MitchiestInge, sorry I don't know what you mean.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-conviction-rate-figures-misleading.html

"Persistent claims that only six per cent of rapes end in conviction was seen as a useful "campaigning tool " by some but was "extremely unhelpful", warned Baroness Stern, the cross-bench peer who carried out a six month review in to tackling rape.

She said it has dominated the debate "without explanation, analysis and context" to the "detriment of public understanding" over the rape issues.

She said the figure, which compares the number of convictions against total reports to the police, is based on calculations not used for any other offence.

Once a rape case reaches the courts, almost 60 per cent of defendants are convicted ? a rate higher than some other violent attacks. "

Is it not the case that misleading people about the low rate of report to conviction may put off many women from reporting? Telling them there is a widespread culture of disbelief will make them think 'what's the point?' Isn't it very important that women are told 'In court you will probably get a conviction. Report, get a good solicitor and do everything you can to make sure the police get all the evidence they might need.'

Somebody saying, as in this thread, 'the majority believe that false allegations are more common than rape itself ' is both a wildy incorrect fantasy and NOT helpful to anyone who has been raped who is wondering if it's even worth going to the police.

Peanut - confused by your bit addressed to me. I agree with what you're saying. Those links show reports that counter the argument that none of this matters and we're barking up the wrong tree.

I xposted with MitchiestInge if that helps

You said "There will be no debating consent in a serious wounding" which is silly, as there has been plenty of debate for example in the Crown against Brown case (90 something, early 90s).

I agree with Baroness Stern and have made that point on these boards before - people confuse attrition with acquittal or other failure to convict I think. Lucky there are people like you campaigning so passionately on behalf of everyone affected by these offences. What do you think should be done about the attrition rate?

I don't know... I think I've confused myself, too...

Peanut - in the uk the most popular newspapers are, in order: The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Guardian. The most popular online newspaper is the Daily Mail.

Oh I thought you meant R(ihanna) vs (Chris) Brown... I was like wtf? But still, if there was debate there, for the vast majority of serious wounding cases there won't be debate on consent. 'He ASKED me stab him your honour!' is not going to happen .

Sorry again, attrition rate?

Oh and the Daily Mail is indeed the most misogynist paper in the country, no doubt.

Ahh, thank you, sunshine. I knew Daily Fail would be relatively high up.

I don't know, MS. I don't pay any attention to the Sun etc. But wouldn't those with the page 3 models, porn adverts and sex lines be pretty close? They're pretty misogynistic to me.

Somebody may have already referred to this already (I haven't read the whole thread) but here's what Joanna Bourke says about false rape allegations vs convictions in The Guardian CIF:

In fact, false accusations are very rare. The most reliable statistics come from a major UK Home Office research project from 2000-03. Initially, the researchers concluded that 9% of reported rape accusations were false. However, on closer analysis, this percentage dropped dramatically. They found that many of the cases listed as "no evidence of assault" were the result of someone other than the victim making the accusation. In other words, a policeman or passerby might see a woman distressed or drunk, with her clothes ripped, and report it as a suspected rape. When the woman was able to provide an account for what happened, it proved that no rape had taken place. Once such cases had been eliminated from the study, only 3% of allegations should have been categorised as false.

Contrary to the notion that men are at risk of being falsely accused of rape, it is much more common for actual rapists to get away with their actions. Only 6% of offences reported to the police result in a conviction on the full charge of rape. Between half and four-fifths of sexual assaults are never even reported to the authorities in the first place.

Figures for false allegations of rape are apparently no higher than they are for false allegations made about any other crime.
And the vast majority of rapists get away with it, as Joanna mentions above.

So statistically, if it's a "his word against hers" scenario, then the victim is far more likely to be telling the truth.

I expect the point's been made many times, but clearly from some of the comments that have been made on this thread, it needs to be made yet again.