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?

Inde

Right, firstly the 6% has cropped up because it was a figure first used by Festivia some pages backto highlight just how bad it is for women. I was then advised by her to read the Stern report, which I did, and amongst other research found that this figure was not only misrepresented but the source, i.e. Baroness Stern has also publicly called for people to STOP using it. Why? Because it is not helpful to be banded about as a campaigning tool. Thus the debate about what Festivia has claimed to be FACT, which is nothing of the sort.

But anyway, in my futher research it would seem that even this figure is totally out of date, given the 2010 Stern report covers dates up to 2009 and we are now living in 2013. Festivia has openly stated that she would not want to use a more realistic figure unless a clear change in culture was seen. Well, blow me, if I didn't fnd the 2011 rape stats on the BBC website along with the Excel spreadsheet detailing conviction rates etc. The summary of stats were as follows:

15,940 rapes in year to March 2011
12% classed as no crime
24% of all cases lead to conviction or caution
Proportion of convictions in cases that go to court is rising - up from 58% in 2009 to 71% in 2011

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14844985

So what are we saying about a change in culture? Baroness Stern's work has clearly seen a shift in culture and the way women are being treated. If we use the 6% figure that you seem so hell bent on using then victims are 4 times more likely to see the perpetrator convicted. If a case goes to court then the defendant is also much more likely to get convicted.

So why are we still using old data to throw around in debates about the subject? If Mumsnet research has found that many women are unlikely to report a rape, due to low conviction rates then why are women, who say they have genuine concern for women, still perpetuating incorrect information?

Furthermore I would contest the fact that violence is a one way thing. From what is discussed on these pages the underlying threat to women is made out to be male dominated. The following articles are contrary to this belief.

The invisible domestic violence?against men

More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male

The inconvenient indicator here is that men are more likely to be assaulted on the street (as has been mentioned in previous pages) but also just as likely to be assaulted by their partners at home.

If we would like to talk about the term 'priviledge' then the disparity between male/female refuge places could not be starker; with 7500 vs 60 places available for women and men respectively.

So basically, rules one and two of the Female Privilege Checklist:

1. If I am assaulted by my partner violently and seek refuge then I know I have a significantly bigger change of a place in a refuge centre.

2. If I am assaulted by my partner violently then I know that the authorities will take me seriously.

2 quotes from the FamilyGuy:

FamilyGuy22 Fri 04-Jan-13 14:03:23
"And sorry to bleat on but in relation to the 6% figure....."

and then you quoted directly from the Stern Review

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

FamilyGuy22 Sat 05-Jan-13 16:00:06
"Right, firstly the 6% has cropped up because it was a figure first used by Festivia some pages backto highlight just how bad it is for women. I was then advised by her to read the Stern report, which I did, and amongst other research found that this figure was not only misrepresented but the source, i.e. Baroness Stern has also publicly called for people to STOP using it. Why? Because it is not helpful to be banded about as a campaigning tool."

You've contradicted yourself right there FamilyGuy. First you quote the Stern report correctly saying it has been described as a useful campaigning tool. Now you're saying the Review says it's not helpful as a campaigning tool. (You were right the first time btw)

As an aside, although you say you're sorry to bleat on about the 6% figure yesterday, you're obviously not that sorry, since you're still bleating on about it today. And as other posters have very eloquently pointed out to you, there are far more important things to talk about from the Stern Review than the use of the 6% figure.

Btw - the BBC article you linked to seemed to be questioning the high number of 'no crime' decisions by police forces - which although the National figure is recorded as 12%, as stated in your post, the variance between police forces is between 2 and 30%.

From the article:
But Lisa Longstaff, of Women against Rape, said the figures were insulting to victims.

"The whole practice of 'no criming' does send out a terrible message and the higher the no crime figure is in each area, the worse the message it sends out," she said.

Recording a rape allegation as 'No Crime' must be incredibly demoralising to victims - something that is obviously very close to your heart, FamilyGuy. I would have thought, as you have shown such concern over the use of the 6% figure possibly putting women off reporting, then you would also be concerned about the effect of the 'No Crime' statistics.

This thread is starting to look like an exercise in childish point scoring.

Stats can be intepreted in different ways to suit different agendas. I am uneasy with any agenda that involves sweeping judgements about an entire group of people. I have seen plenty of sweeping judgements about men on this thread and I think FamilyGuy (and others) have attempted to question these and provide a more balanced view.

I am also very uneasy about stats being used out of context to scare women into thinking they are in constant danger. To me this is dishonest and manipulative.

We can't move forward constructively as a society if one gender is at loggerheads with the other - a situation that was not helped by the original post. As Inde commented earlier, imagine the uproar if we were to substitute "black people" or "Muslims" for "men".

No stats have been used out of context. Festivia and others have been extremely clear about the stats they have used. It just seems that FamilyGuy, for his own agenda, would like to ignore or tear down women's experience and knowledge in this area.

85% of rapes do not get reported and FamilyGuy is quibbling over how many men get convicted. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Whatever stats you use there is absolutely no denying that there are a damn sight more rapists walking about than locked up. There are millions (if not billions) of women around the world who have been raped, the very great majority of whom will never see justice. But no, some man has to come on and argue about whether 6% of reported rapes getting a conviction is a valid stat to use. No concern about those women who will never get justice or who are being regularly raped as we speak. Nope, all the concern is for the men. Lovely.

And you know what you are right, TheFarSide. Men should stop being at loggerheads with women over this. They should start supporting us, believing us and most of all stop raping us.

Abigail I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make. You have just regurgitated a further mixture of statistics and emotive rhetoric, and twisted some of my words.

Be careful not to alienate women (and men) who are essentially decent and on your side.

No, Abigail is spot on.

FamilyGuy has not added a more balanced view. He has, and I quote directly here, said on this thread:

"...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."

No matter which figures you use, there are a considerably higher number of men committing rape than there are women who make false accusations and I would question the motives of someone who makes that sort of comment.

But Sabrina - someone picked out one single sentence from many, many long and generally thoughtful posts by FamilyGuy - furthermore, one sentence in which he was responding to another point, not randomly introducing a point that women make false rape claims. And I don't think he was disputing the point in your final paragraph, if that's what you're implying.

That's why this thread is pissing me off and why I keep coming back to it - the arguments about rape and violence towards women can be made without rounding on, attacking and misquoting anyone who dares questions aspects of them.

In what way is it possible to alienate someone from believing that rape is wrong and that the perpetrator is always responsible for it TheFarSide and that it would be a Good Thing if women got justice every single time they were raped and not only in a miniscule number of cases?

Do you think not expressing it nicely enough, will make decent people start believing that rape is a good idea after all?

I can see it now.

"I used to think rape was wrong, but some aggressive, strident feminist on the interweb was so annoying with her posts, that now I think men should rape women whenever possible and that it should in fact be de-criminalised and women should be put in prison for complaining about it I've been alienated, you see."

I suppose that's possible.

LOL at FamilyGuy's quotes being held up as some sort of model of balance. His posts are thoughtful and considered, while those arguing against him, presumably are strident and hysterical and entirely unreasonable.

You do realise that asserting that he is balanced while some are biased, is just another way of saying "I'm on his side not your's" don't you?

You can be on any side you want, but don't kid yourself you're some kind of arbiter. You're not, you're just not on the same side as those you're arguing with, that's all.

But nobody has been misquoted. Nobody has misquoted statistics. Nobody has been attacked.

Except that I notice FamilyGuy had a post deleted upthread - so he breached guidelines somehow. I came to this thread very late.

Last night I wrote a long post to him about sexual assault. He hasn't even acknowledged what I said - which is fine, he's not under any obligation to answer me, I know that .

But, after everything posted last night, his post this afternoon is still quibbling about the 6% figure. He then, out of nowhere, launches into a tirade about gender and domestic violence - I mean where did that come from?

I see that as jolly strange- but if you see that as 'balanced', then that's up to you. The rest of us are free to question it.

Festivia you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding what I am saying, putting words in my mouth, and generally using goading language - it's this debating style that I'm objecting to more than anything.

Sabrina, FamilyGuy's deleted post contained rape myths which the MN 'I Believe You' campaign is trying to challenge. I won't repeat them obviously. :)

So, maybe FG's opinions are not so balanced as some would like to make out.

Ah right, so you're wanting to police my tone?

Good luck with that.

I am new to feminism.

But I think it is fucking sad, yet not altogether surprising, that even the feminism board on MUMSnet is not a place for us to express our thoughts and experiences without ridiculous intervention from people determined to remain ignorant.

Give it a rest FamilyGuy. You are really just being irritating now.

Whatever the figure, whether it is 6%, 16% or 60%, it's not good enough is it?

Please read and meditate on this from AbigailAdams: "Men should stop being at loggerheads with women over this. They should start supporting us, believing us and most of all stop raping us."

That to me, is the crux of this.