Margaret Atwood

[MrsJoJo86]

What does everyone think of Margaret Atwood's recent comments on #metoo?

I'm a bit disappointed to be honest.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42708522

Due process works for women in all crimes except rape.

One could formulate an argument that due process works there as well, innocent until guilty.

The problem is the unique crime of rape and the nature of the accusation. I believe there is systematic abuse of women here too, in that they are subject to harassment about their lifestyle or previous choices, or flat out disbelieved. But the way to fix that is not to dispense with due process, it requires a cultural shift away from institutional misogyny.

Please tell me you are on drugs or have some other issue. Due process is a fundamental legal right. Everyone of any gender has every right to due process in respect of allegations against them. Anyone suggesting otherwise deserves to be on the receiving end of a few spurious allegations...

I don't think the OP is the one on drugs here. The man in question was never charged with a crime and there are no charges pending against him. Due process does not apply.

Even if you believe the students who claimed the professor sexually harassed them and created a hostile environment were lying, he broke the University's policy by having an affair with a student. He does not deny that.

So I agree, OP. It's disappointing.

Actually he got his due process. He was suspended with pay until their investigation was completed.

I think what I find hard is that if someone steals a wallet, the victim is believed, if the wallet is found on another person, if the victim identifies them, that is taken as strong evidence that the person stole it, and it's all pretty clear cut. It's still one person's word against the other, but it's assumed that the victim didn't want their wallet stolen, even though they may have previously given money to other people, or even to the person that stole the money this time. And that's just a wallet. Just money.

If a man rapes a woman, if there is clear evidence that sex happened, the woman is not believed that it was rape. For some reason, it's believed that she wouldn't give money away, but not believed that she wouldn't want someone to shove a penis in her.

This is where I think it's wrong. I think the burden of proof should be on the man to prove he had consent, not on the woman to prove she didn't give it. I think that women should be considered to be walking around not consenting to sex by default, just as they walk around not consenting to giving money away by default.

This is where I think it's wrong. I think the burden of proof should be on the man to prove he had consent, not on the woman to prove she didn't give it. I think that women should be considered to be walking around not consenting to sex by default, just as they walk around not consenting to giving money away by default

Exactly. As I say, I agree with due process in principle, but the idea that there's all these women lying about being sexually assaulted is pernicious nonsense. Atwood should no better than to perpetuate such myths. The assumption should always be that the man is guilty and it is the job of the courts to prove otherwise.

I think she’s s great writer.

I don’t expect her to have perfect feminist credentials.

I get fed up with people banging on about 'due process'. Due process was invented by men to excuse men of rape and murder.

(I'm trying to think of a polite way to put this but I'm struggling.)

That really is nonsense. The criminal justice system is riddled with misogyny and class prejudice BUT due process is intrinsic to justice. You can't have justice without it. Before it we had lynch mobs.

Which isn't to say that all of the stuff that comes before the justice process isn't extremely important (societal awareness, healthy organisational cultures, policing and investigation that upholds the law).

I haven't read the link to MA's remarks yet. I'll finish eating before I deal with it, I think

Of course convictions have to be made on the basis of evidence, but as I said the assumption should be that the man is guilty rather than the woman is lying, with the defense team tasked with proving otherwise. Why is it always men we're fretting about rather than victims???

She is correct in saying that the system of justice is not working.

No you have to have innocent until proven guilty. (Across the whole criminal justice system.)

The wrongful conviction rate (again, across the whole system) is already pushing ten per cent.

What needs changing for rape and sexual assault cases is almost everything else. Mostly at the investigation stage, but also in terms of video links in court as standard and so on.

Wtf. Believe men are guilty until proved innocent? Really? How would that even work?

I honestly don't think the legal system can solve the sexual violence epidemic. Only society can. Putting people in prison without evidence is medieval.

Our attitudes to sex and consent need to change, but unless we all strap cameras to our heads 24/7 then courts will only have two people's accounts to go on.

I get fed up with people banging on about 'due process'. Due process was invented by men to excuse men of rape and murder.

Well, not quite.

The justice system evolved during a thousand year period in which women were viewed as men's property. Therefore, it had no reason to consider intimate crime during that evolution period because intimate crime did not exist.

You are right that a thousand years of patriarchy is the reason we have a criminal justice system that is woefully inadequate in dealing with MVAWG. But you can't throw the baby out with the bath water because due process and innocent until proven guilty provide all citizens - men and women - with vital protection against the state in regard to all other crimes.

There are other areas that could be explored - refining the adversarial system in regards to intimate crime, for example.

She added: "In times of extremes, extremists win. Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated."

Yy absolutely, I agree. Do we really want a society where someone could lose their livelihood and reputation based on an allegation which has no evidence?

I agree with her. The point is that not all women are perfect, and not every accusation is a true one. That's why we have a legal system.

This is why I always felt slightly uncomfortable with "I believe you." I am incredibly angry that most rapists and abusers get away with it, and that women aren't believed. The way female victims of rape get treated in the courtroom angers and horrifies me.

But I still think you have to go through due process. Occasionally women do falsely accuse innocent men. Of course they do. We all know that women aren't saints, and that some women can be malicious or nasty or aggressive. You can't just assume that when a woman says a man has abused her that she is telling the truth. Of course she probably is telling the truth - we know how hard it is for women to come forward and make an accusation of abuse. But she isn't necessarily telling the truth. What we should do is take her accusation absolutely seriously and follow the proper legal process. What we shouldn't do is just assume the man is guilty from the outset.

I think Atwood is right.

The reason I don't like "I believe you" is that I've lost count of the times it leads to the conclusion that the burden of proof has to be lowered or even reversed.

The message I would prefer to see, backed up by training (and ultimately a change in culture) of the police, the CPS, and the courts, is "you will be treated as credible during the criminal process".

Wow. I actually find the idea that some women would be happy to throw away the right to remain innocent until proven guilty really frightening.
What about in black communities where the wrongful conviction rate is very high. It wasn’t that long ago that black men were strung from trees without trial for harrasing white women.
The legal system is not perfect it needs reform but like a pp says, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Why does it have to be that either we think the woman is lying or that the man is guilty? How about we refrain from judgment on both parties assume that the man is innocent and that the woman is telling the truth.

The point about throwing away the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty is that you'll end up with the powerful using this to their advantage against the powerless.

I want the people society views as being the "worst" to have full legal rights so that if things change and I'm suddenly disapproved of by society then I'll still have the right to a fair trial.

The objection to the 'I believe you' concept truly baffles me.

If a woman or man says 'I've been robbed,' then unless that person has form for making things up most people will say 'oh gosh that's awful! Can we help in any way?' - the idea of not believing them doesn't even come up.

But when a woman says 'I've been raped' immediately there are questions about whether she's sure, about where she was, what she was doing etc etc. The default seems to be to treat her with suspicion.

Believing someone who has said they've been wronged in some way is the default, unless the wrong is rape. Why?

Isn’t The Handmaids Tale literally about this?
There’s a theme in the book that women like Offred looked the other way when the erosions of rights started happening right at the beginning because it didn’t affect them. The Handmaids Tale is a critique of feminism as well as everything else.
That rights are there to protect you and it’s very easy for those to start slipping and something dangerous take its place.

I have no problem with the ‘I believe you’ thing, but that doesn’t mean that the man accused is automatically guilty.

Oh and anyone who thinks due process is in any way fair is really really naive.

Go and watch and rape trial and then come back and tell us all how fair it is.

Our 'due process' is built on a system that for practically the entirety of history viewed women as essentially non-human. Up to 1991, if a man raped a woman he could openly admit that and get away with it, as long as that woman was his wife. No crime committed, off you go son and use her as much as you want - she's just meat anyway.

Yeah, totally fair. Why do women believe such horseshit? Is to guard against realising the truth?

Oh and anyone who thinks due process is in any way fair is really really naive.

Due process is a principle distinct from the quality of the execution.

'I have no problem with the ‘I believe you’ thing, but that doesn’t mean that the man accused is automatically guilty.'

Of course not, and that's not how it works. If I say I was robbed and say Sarah in accounts did it, I'll be believed but there will be a process of finding out whether Sarah did it or not (even if I say I saw her do it). But why would anyone not believe me? The only reason is if they thought I was untrustworthy in some way. And it seems that when it comes to rape, women are seen as untrustworthy. Why?

I’ve seen rape trials thank you very much I know how horrendous they are.
We need a massive and complete overhaul of our culture surrounding and execution of rape trials and actually just women in general.

I don’t see how getting rid of innocent until proven guilty will help.

'Due process is a principle distinct from the quality of the execution.'

This makes no sense. Due process is a meaningless term if the execution is biased and unfair. Then it is just a biased and unfair process, nothing 'due' about it.