"If Mugging was treated the same way as rape"

[Tsoukalosy]

Sorry if someone has already posted this already, but I just saw this: This

I think it has summed it up perfectly.

Yes, I have that in my 'things to post when people are being utter twats' folder on my desktop. It's what helped DH to finally 'get' the victim blaming that goes on.

As an example of how police treat rape victims, it's very inaccurate.

As an example of how society treats rape victims, it's extraordinarily accurate. Plenty of evidence on various threads on MN right now.

Brilliant that

If other crimes or things people might be a victim of were treated the same way as rape (and how feminists would react):

Fire safety officer: "Remember, always test your smoke alarm once a month and change the battery once a year"

Feminist: "Shut up! You're victim blaming people who are victims of house fires!!!"

Police officer: "Always close and lock your doors and windows when you leave the house and keep valuables in your car out of sight from anyone who can see in"

Feminist: "Shut up! You're victim blaming people who are victims of robbery!!! We need to stop people like you giving advice and instead we should put up lots of posters telling men not to break into houses!"

Friend of feminist: "This market we're going to has a bad reputation for pickpockets, so keep an eye on your valuables"

Feminsit: "You're victim blaming everyone who has ever been pick-pocketed! Instead of victim-blaming you should instead be telling men not to pick-pocket!!!"

I think its a very poignant message what ever way you look at it, and I do think its a very effective message.

Yoff I do agree that many feminists can be extreme in their opinions and I don't agree that saying these things are victim blaming, but I do think that once a rape has happened many women are not believed or are treated harshly.

People here are saying how "brilliant" the OP's link is, but it doesn't really make any sense.

For example if someone went out and left their front door open and unlocked, and came back to find his house had been robbed then people of course might ask "why didn't you lock your door?". BUT he would still be a victim of a crime and the police would still investigate if he reported it. And if the thief was caught he would still go to court, and saying "but the door was wide open" would be no defence.

I think a lot of the time, a man's right to being considered 'innocent until proven guilty (beyond reasonable doubt)' is seen as calling a liar any woman who reports being raped.

It's a catch 22 situation. We either appear to brand women potential liars when they make a report, or we brand men guilty as soon as they are accused by automatically believing the accusation is true.

What is the best course?

The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is considered a basic and fundamental right by most people.

Also, the analogy is not very good anyways.

In both situations (rape and mugging), the victims would be treated similarly if the accused was known to them... "Your friend mugged you, you sure you didn't just lend him the money?" might be a typical response to accusing a friend of mugging.

If the accused is a stranger, then the dynamics are a bit different. People often have consensual sex with strangers (one night stands, etc), but people do not often hand over their wallet or phone to strangers.

In cases where that has visibly been a beating, then in both crimes I'm sure the victim would be believed equally as readily.

With the odd exception, the police are pretty good these days. It's public attitudes that are more akin to the analogy, particularly when the accused is admired (see the Ched Evans case).

" a man's right to being considered 'innocent until proven guilty"

Innocent until proven guilty applies to both genders and every alleged crime. It doesn't mean the accuser is a "liar" it just means there are no assumptions being made about either side before the trial has started.

"What is the best course? "

Make no assumptions about either side. Leave that to the judge and jury who will listen to evidence and testimonies.

The chances of a rape actually getting as far as court are very slim, so yes we are calling women liars all the time. Ched Evans case was one of the few where the CPS felt there was enough grounds and it wasn't going to be just as much her fault.

I am not a car, I am not a handbag, I am not a house. If you can't see the difference then you're an idiot.

"I am not a car, I am not a handbag, I am not a house."

huh? noone said you were.

If you were referring to my post then you've missed the point entirely.

Giving people advice on how to reduce their chances of becoming a victim of whatever is not "victim blaming".

Even if someone does become a victim of whatever they can still report to the police even if they did not follow said advice. And the perp can still be convicted if caught.

When you use the car/ house/ handbag analogy you are reducing women to objects. Amazing how you knew that was aimed at you despite "no one" saying it, huh.

"When you use the car/ house/ handbag analogy you are reducing women to objects."

Like I said, completely missing the point

Just in case you missed my last post:

Giving people advice on how to reduce their chances of becoming a victim of whatever is not "victim blaming".

Even if someone does become a victim of whatever they can still report to the police even if they did not follow said advice. And the perp can still be convicted if caught.

Giving people advice on how to reduce their chances of becoming a victim of whatever is not "victim blaming".

Giving people bad advice based on a flawed understanding of those chances then questioning how closely they followed the bad advice and not prosecuting on the basis of that questioning IS victim blaming, though.

I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

"and not prosecuting on the basis of that questioning"

Are you seriously saying in today's feminist society rapists are not prosecuted because excuses like "she was drunk" or "she was wearing x and y" actually work with judges and jurors??

Or, could it be more possible, cases do not end in conviction because of lack of evidence/accused has an alibi/other evidence in favour of accused or something like that?

Are you seriously saying in today's feminist society rapists are not prosecuted because excuses like "she was drunk" or "she was wearing x and y" actually work with judges and jurors??

Yes.

i.huffpost.com/gen/1940614/thumbs/o-NHS-570.jpg?6

yoffwoba...

Innocent until proven guilty does apply to both genders.

Maintaining a stance of considering the alleged perpetrator innocent until proven guilty, is not the same as saying the woman is guilty of a crime. If that were the case, then all women who allege rape would be immediately charged with perverting the course of justice or wasting police time.

To use the mugging analogy. If I told the police that my best friend mugged me, then immediately arresting me for perverting the course of justice would be what they'd do if they assumed I was lying (and therefore, committing an offence). What they'd really do, is question me about it... the circumstances, my relationship with my friend, etc. That's not the same as accusing me of lying. It's just that my friend has the right to be thought of as innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof does not, and should not, lie with the accused.

This does mean, that some people who really did commit the crimes will get off because the burden of proof is not met. But civilised societies seem to have agreed that this is preferable to innocent people being imprisoned without a fair trial and due process.

Most rapes are not even reported to the police, which means those cases cannot be tested in court in front of a judge. Some figures report that only 15% of rapes are reported.

So most rape cases fail at the very first hurdle - reporting it to the police. This situation needs to be improved as a priority by looking at the reasons why rapes are so unlikely to be reported.