Random men speaking to you

[enimmead]

I'm sure men don't randomly speak to other men in the street. Strangers. So why the hell do they feel they have to speak to random women. I don't think it's got anything to do with chatting up.

Yesterday, I saw a 20 something bloke with his mates slip in front of me on the ice. As I got out, he said "Hi love, did you see that!!!" I'm could be his mum bit older than him. Why speak to me? I just smiled but I bet he wouldn't' have said anything if I'd been male.

Just walking down the street, other side of the road bloke smiles and says "Hi love". No idea who he was.

Do blokes do this to other random blokes?

[MoaneyMcmoanmoan]

I'm wondering what motivates you... A man arguing rape stats on the feminist section of Mumsnet...

And it's Festivia for ffs. Not Festiva.

[runningforthebusinheels]

I really hate it when men talk about rape and say stuff like:

"or is it a convenient way to still make out that men are the complete problem."

In cases of rape, FamilyGuy, the perpetrator is the whole problem. As in the UK you cannot commit rape unless you have a penis - then yes men are the problem when it comes to rape.

And no, feminists are not responsible for low conviction or reporting rates.

However, rape myths that are endemic in society and on juries are.

[FamilyGuy22]

MoaneyMcmoanmoan

Indeed, apologies to Festivia for the repeated typos

Why do you have to question concern about rape and the significance of statistics? Is rape a concern only for women? Is crime not a concern for everyone or is it simply limited to those that it victimises? Does having a wife and daughters mean that I shouldn't be knowledgable about their chances of taking a case to court; should they be victims?

Men are also raped by other men and can be raped by women too.

[FestiviaBlueberry]

Some men are determined to argue that women are part of the problem.

Particularly feminist women.

[FestiviaBlueberry]

But you are not "knowledgeable" about your female loved-ones taking a case to court, FamilyGuy.

You are wilfully clinging to the idea that if they reported a rape to the police, they'd have a 58% chance of seeing their rapist found guilty.

That is NOT correct. They have a 6% chance of seeing their rapist convicted, because the most likely event would be that the CPS would not recommend their case for prosecution. If they are one of the lucky minority who do have their cases proceed to court, then they have a 58% chance of seeing their rapist conviction.

I think you need to be clear in your own mind about this, so that you don't misinform people from a laudable wish to reassure them.

[FamilyGuy22]

FestiviaBlueberry (cut and paste to get it right )

No, I am not willfulling clinging on to anything. Just that actually reporting it to the police will result in a better chance of conviction than staying silent (which is the current status quo).

Whether it goes to court is another matter but simply saying that only 6% (or 12% if you believe the Guardian article) does women no favours at all. What needs to be done is to encourage women to actually report the crime. Banding about 6% does nothing to assist or remedy this problem (as the Mumsnet survey clearly found).

[FestiviaBlueberry]

More women would report if the conditions were conducive to that.

Prosecuting women like Gail Sherwood for perverting the course of justice instead of investigating her rape claims, would help.

[FestiviaBlueberry]

I don't know why you refer to "bandying about" the 6%.

It's just a fact.

Saying it's unhelpful, doesn't change it.

What would be more helpful, is to change our culture so that the 6% figure becomes out of date and irrelevant.

[FamilyGuy22]

It isn't a fact at all. You need to understand that stats are open to interpretation. As the following report highlights:

although it is interesting to note that in 2008 the solicitor general was using the figure of around 6% for rape convictions. However, the Guardian will continue to use the figure of 13% as the benchmark, which is much closer to the 14% recommended by the Stern report.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/21/open-door-fair-fact-rape

So are the Guardian and Baroness Stern being optimistic or pessimistic? Either way you cannot imply that 6% is fact because there is disagreement between the solicitor general and Baroness Stern.

The difference between 6% and 14% is significant. To me banding this figure about is unhelpful because it does not paint the bigger picture. It's almost like telling women they're beaten before they've even begun. If you want to kill someone's confidence then this is a good way to do it.

[FamilyGuy22]

And sorry to bleat on but in relation to the 6% figure you insist on using even Baroness Stern is against the use of it:

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.

and

But Lady Stern today demanded the figure no longer be used.

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

She goes on to say:

It is clear to us that the way the six per cent conviction rate figures has been able to dominate the public discourse on rape, without explanation, analysis and context, is extremely unhelpful.

There is anecdotal evidence that it may well have discouraged some victims from reporting.

Some have found it helpful as a campaigning tool in arguing for an improvement in the way rape cases are dealt with.

Others found it misleading and deeply unhelpful in building confidence in victims and increasing the number of cases reported to the police that could possibly go forward to a prosecution.

So I would agree, a cultural change does need to happen and it should start here.

[runningforthebusinheels]

From the Stern Report:

• "The way the conviction rate figure for rape is calculated is unusual.
  Conviction rates are not published or even measured in this way for
  any other crime so it is very difficult to make a comparison. The use of
  the term ?conviction rate? is in itself unusual. ?Conviction rate? usually
  describes the percentage of all the cases brought to court that end with
  the defendant being convicted. When dealing with rape the term has
  come to be used in a different way and describes the percentage of all
  the cases recorded by the police as a rape that end up with someone
  being convicted of rape. The figure arrived at is usually around six per
  cent. Some studies show that a further six per cent are convicted of
  another offence, usually a less serious sexual offence, but still convicted,
  so the conviction rate by this method of analysis is 12 per cent." -
  
  So, yes, I can see why some people argue that it is a little misleading to say rape has a conviction rate of 6%. The conviction rate of rape cases that get to court is 58%. Nobody is disputing that, but I do feel that the 'get to court' should be emphasised.
  
  So, the Stern report advises against the use of the 6% (or the 12% figure) as it is 'unhelpful' - and (anecdotally) may be cited as reasons that women are reticent to report rape.
  
  However, it does not say that the 6% (or 12%) is not a true or valid figure. It is a figure, as Festivia says, extrapolated from the number of reports of rape and the number of convictions. So it is a valid figure when thinking about the big picture - when thinking about how reports of rape are treated.
  
  Let's not forget that it is estimated nine out of ten rapes are not reported. Not a figure to be proud of in a civilised society. I don't think the use 6% figure, or feminists are to blame, personally. Or certainly not as much as incidents like this. are to blame, anyway.
  
  So, as Festivia says if a woman makes a report of rape to the police thinking she has a 58% chance of a conviction, then she is being woefully mislead.

[FestiviaBlueberry]

LOL at someone who thinks all the blame for rape shouldn't be laid at men's door, telling us where the cultural shift should start.

You can't say that the 6% figure has been bandied around without context or debate though, can you?

Every time it comes up on MN, the same discussion is had - the same contexualisations, the same clarifications - no-one can say that it's just a bald figure here - it's constantly being examined, re-examined and contexualised. And as such it stands, along with the 12-14% and the 58%. Baroness Stern acknowledged its use as a campaigning tool. Though campaigning tools have their shelf-life, obv. (No means no is my candidate, but that's another thread.)

Also I am sceptical about this crap about telling rape victims to report, without putting in place the conditions to make their reports worth making. I'm all in favour of more victims reporting, but not if they're going to get charged with perverting the course of justice because the police and CPS know that getting a jury to believe a woman made a false allegation of rape, is easier than getting one to believe a man raped a woman. Makes the clear-up rate look a lot better.

[FamilyGuy22]

runningforthebusinheels

So, as Festivia says if a woman makes a report of rape to the police thinking she has a 58% chance of a conviction, then she is being woefully mislead.

You have misinterpreted it IMHO and I mentioned it previously. As ever, using stats needs to be done with care and if you are going to use them then you need to ensure you include the relevant caveats and supplementary information.

Anyway, if the Baroness believes 12% of the total reported cases result in conviction and 58% of cases that go to cout result in conviction then that means roughly 21% of all reported cases actually go to court i.e (12/58) x 100 = 21%

10% of these, according to the Baroness are fake claims and 10% of these victims are men. Naturally some of these cases make it to court so if we assume 5% of each don't then my very crude calculations suggest that 70% of reports by women do not make it to court. Depressing indeed.

However, the question I would then ask is what percentage of these are:

Due to police discarding cases which they believe will not achieve targets.
Due to police being unprofessional/disinterested in the victim.
Due to the victim providing insufficient evidence.
Due to the police knowing that a case will be too difficult to judge.
Due to the police being unable to capture/arrest the rapist.

I'm sure there are any number of things I've missed that could be added to the list.

The point is that saying only 6% of those reported result in conviction does not tell the whole story. It is not good enough just to band it about IMHO without considering some additional factors.

If 9 out of 10 rapes are not even reported then something needs to be done to increase this number and I don't think telling women that the odds are heavily stacked against them is going to encourage that.

[runningforthebusinheels]

Firstly, the 6% is accurate when we are talking about rape. The figure rises to 12% when the cases which reduced the charge of rape to a 'lesser' charge like indecent/sexual assault. So you are right, you do have to be very careful you do have to include the relevant caveats and supplementary information.

Secondly, whydo you remove the 10% of men from the equation? I would not wish to exclude the victims of male violence just because they are male.

Lastly - yes your calculations are crude and I'm not sure I agree with the one in ten false accusation statistic. The home office statistics I have seen for false reports of rape are between 3 - 8%. This is similar to false reports of other crimes. Sometimes the figures for false accusation due to mistaken identity are included - this can swell the figure and cause it to be misrepresented, because the rape did happen, but the victim mis-identified the perpetrator.

So I'm a tad dubious about your 'crude' (to use your term) statistics - but at least you acknowledge that you find your own figure "depressing indeed."

You keep saying the 6% doesn't tell the whole story - but neither does the 58%.

[runningforthebusinheels]

LOL at someone who thinks all the blame for rape shouldn't be laid at men's door, telling us where the cultural shift should start.

Oh, and this. ^

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

FamilyGuy: Is rape a concern only for women? Is crime not a concern for everyone or is it simply limited to those that it victimises? Does having a wife and daughters mean that I shouldn't be knowledgable about their chances of taking a case to court; should they be victims?

If, god forbid, your daughters ever do suffer sexual assault then don't count on them ever telling you, or even their mother. I never told either of my parents about my 2 (utterly unconnected) experiences of sexual assault (rape & attempted rape, both times by people I knew and trusted). No friends know either, (except a couple of very old Uni friends in the case of the attempted rape as I confided in them at the time). My DH is the only person who knows the whole story and I certainly never came close to reporting them. The reason I didn't report, and hardly told anyone? I blamed myself, could not really bring myself to believe that a loved and trusted man had done that to me. It was nothing to do with the "6%" I can tell you.

There was a thread on here a while ago which asked how many women had suffered sexual assault in their lifetime. A shocking number of posters replied "yes" and described horrific stories of rape/child abuse/coercion into underage sex and low level sexual assault. Low level sexual assault = having you arse or boobs groped on the tube/in a bar/at work/at school, as just an example, and going by posters on here, is a fairly common occurrence. There were posters who said they had never suffered any sexual assault - always good to hear (as I have a 4yr old daughter).

Then, there were the posters who came on and said "I was all ready to say "no" but now I remember xyz and I never really thought of it as sexual assault at the time, but..."

So, FG, before you start quibbling over whether the 6, 12, or 58% figures should be used, why not think about the number of women who will be raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime? Why not consider, for a moment, that the "1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime" could well be an underestimate since some women choose not to tell anyone.

You say you have read the Stern Report? Why would the biggest thing you take away from it would be about the "6%" figure? There is so much more in that report - about the treatment of rape victims by police and juries, domestic violence and vulnerable young adults (both male and female), about Sexual Assault Referral Centres, the role of the police in having highly trained staff able to deal with rape victims and the fact that policies and procedures for the dealing with rape victims are in place, but not always acted on/adhered to.

[runningforthebusinheels]

"So, FG, before you start quibbling over whether the 6, 12, or 58% figures should be used, why not think about the number of women who will be raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime? Why not consider, for a moment, that the "1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime" could well be an underestimate since some women choose not to tell anyone."

Yes. FamilyGuy, you mention your wife and daughters upthread.

I wonder why posters on here (because you are not alone FamilyGuy) choose to minimise, and deflect away from, male violence against women and men rather than actually wanting to address it as a very real threat to their wives/daughters? I can understand that it is an uncomfortable truth to have to bear, but I still find it strange.

FamilyGuy - the rights your daughters enjoy now - the vote, equal pay, maternity rights, the right not to be raped by her husband - are all due to feminism. Why would you badmouth something so beneficial to your wives and daughters?

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

Edward Chapman raped a woman and was convicted. This does men no favours at all.

[FestiviaBlueberry]

And Jimmy Savile raped loads of girls but managed to use his power to shut them all up so they couldn't complain.

He really did men no favours at all.

[inde]

I am appalled by rape statistics. I also am often ashamed of what males get up to. Regarding the last two points though if you were saying such and such a case does black people no favours at all or another case doesn't do Moslems any favours you would quite rightly be called racist.
I should also point out that this thread has gone from the op talking about a probably embarrassed young lad talking to a stranger to the most appalling cases of rape. I think if you did a survey amongst women probably most would say that the case in the op was OK they most certainly wouldn't say rape was OK.

[inde]

I meant the last two posts.

[runningforthebusinheels]

Inde That's kind of the point. It was in response to this comment by FamilyGuy:

FamilyGuy22 Thu 03-Jan-13 16:31:47
...Sadly there are cases like Rosie Dodd, who was jailed for falsely accusing 3 men of raping her. This does women no favours at all.

[inde]

Inde That's kind of the point.



Sorry!

I completely see the point they were making now.

[FestiviaBlueberry]

Dur Inde, that's kind of the point we were making.

Jeremy Clarkson does men no favours at all. David Cameron does men no favours at all. Justin Bieber does men no favours at all.

[FestiviaBlueberry]

oops, sorry inde, cross-posted