Rapey lyrics, Thicke and the dangers of oversimplifying

So, I hate pretty much everything about Robin Thicke's song and video, Blurred Lines. What feminist doesn't, right? I don't need to go into everything that's creepy, douchebaggy and borderline rapey about the song and video, because plenty of writers have already helpfully outlined it for me. I don't even need to bother satirising its tired, predictable retro-sexism and insidious endorsement of rape myths, because plenty of humourists have already created their own parody videos, and freakin' hilarious they are too. However, when I read this article, which draws links between the song lyrics and the words of actual rapists, I began to wonder if the Thicke-bashing has gotten a little out of hand.

 

Not that the twatty-sunglassed one doesn't deserve every term of abuse in the book every time he purrs 'I know you want it/But you're a good girl' and endorses the concept of 'blurred lines' that every vile git who claims women all mean 'yes' when they say 'no' uses to justify their misogynistic behaviour. But, I get a little uncomfortable when I read the following - "women, according to Blurred Lines, want to be treated badly.

Nothing like your last guy, he too square for you.
He don’t smack your ass and pull your hair like that.

In this misogynistic fantasy, a woman doesn’t want a “square” who’ll treat her like a human being and with respect. She would rather be degraded and abused for a man’s gratification and amusement."

Yes, I bridle at the notion that it's 'square' not to want to have rough sex - I've written extensively about how being 'vanilla' should not be a source of shame, mockery or used as evidence that you are somehow less sexually 'cool' than people who like it ker-razy in the bedroom. Shaming men who don't want to play rough with their female partners definitely seems to be part of a toxic cult of masculinity that defines manhood only in relation to violence. However, I object to the notion that a guy smacking a woman's backside and pulling her hair equals 'degradation and abuse'. I object to the notion that this could only be done 'for a man's gratification and amusement'. I object to the assumption that this is necessarily non-consensual. I object, overall, to the idea that rough sex is something that is degrading, only ever initiated by men, and only ever forced, non-consensually on female 'victims'. (And yes, I've written about that).

Now, I'd rather spend eternity chewing on broken glass than ever consider sex with a douchebag in Ray-bans who comes on to me by saying 'You're an animal, baby it's in your nature', but that doesn't mean that every single word that said douchebag sings must necessarily be sick, wrong and misogynistic. I also feel that to equate Thicke's lyrics with words that rape victims actually had to hear during their assault (even if some victims were happy to collaborate in this article) is to trivialise their ordeal somewhat. It's also just a bit meaningless. If I say 'I know you want it' next time I temptingly offer a spoonful of ice cream to a friend seated next to me at a restaurant table, am I also guilty of perpetuating rape culture? If one of my roller derby teammates calls me a 'good girl' when I finally get a skating move right after the 74th attempt, is that simply bolstering the 'Madonna/whore' divide? I'm being facetious of course, and I know that what happens in life and what happens in sex can't necessarily be conflated (I know also, of course, that rape is not 'sex'). But Thicke's video isn't sex, either. It's media. Dumbass, lowest-common-denominator media at that. It's three men and three scantily-clad women twatting around in a studio. And whatever terrible things we feel it may reflect or encourage in our society, it's not the worst, or the only perpetrator.

Just off the top of my head, I can straight away think of probably ten different lyrics from popular songs that contain potentially shitty attitudes to women. How's about "Turn around bitch, I got a use for you" from Guns n' Roses It's So Easy? Or the same band's Used to Love Her, subtitled But I Had to Kill Her? We could argue about whether the fact the latter song was apparently written not about a woman, but Axl Rose's pet dog, negates the fact it sounds like an endorsement for murdering your spouse, for as long as we can argue about whether the 'ass-smacking' in Thicke's lyrics is consensual or forced, and I guess we might not get very far. But if, like the author of the Sociological Images article seems to be saying, we're not going to give artists the benefit of the doubt, then I guess I'd better start deleting all my G n' R MP3s. By this logic, I guess we'd better ban Britney Spears' I Was Born To Make You Happy too, not just because it's a godawful song, but because of the female subservience that its title and lyrics are advocating. We should probably also go after Alice Cooper's big-haired, chains n' whips-themed 80s classic, Poison, for the lines "I wanna hurt you just to hear you screaming my name". And maybe we should also take to task Wham's Edge of Heaven for the moment where young George Michael trills, "I would strap you up, but don't worry baby - you know I wouldn't hurt you unless you wanted me to" although at least the violence there is premised on consent and desire.

Which makes me think, where do we draw the lines (and not fuckin' blurred lines, either)? If we're going to cite any song with remotely rapey lyrics as intricately bound up with the traumas of real live women who have been assaulted, it's going to be a very long and sickening journey. Jason DeRulo made the charts in 2010 with a song that contained the lyrics "You'll be screaming 'no'''. Not long after, Dizzee Rascal rapped "I'm not forceful but I'm still hardcore/You're gonna give me everything I ask for". And if we assume that the line "I'm gonna give you something to tear your ass in two" must necessarily refer to 'violent, non-consensual sodomy', then we're gonna have to retrospectively condemn pretty little Pharrell Williams for promising to 'tear your ass up', 10 years ago in his duet with Jay-Z 'Frontin'. Personally, I think this assumption says more about the author's determination to wring every last drop of rapey-ness out of Blurred Lines than it does the actual song. Taken in the context of all the other rapey lyrics, I can see why one would assign this meaning to that particular line, but I don't think the lyric refers to anal rape any more than I think the line 'Burn this woman down' in the film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest means that McMurphy is actually encouraging Billy Bibbit to set fire to his sexual partner.

 

It sometimes feels like feminists are required to take one of two very simplistic sides when it comes to sexist media - either condemning it utterly, as the SI article does, or jumping to its defence and claming that said media can somehow be twisted to be 'empowering', however much evidence there is to the contrary. I don't want to do either. I want to encourage people to see the utter pile of bollocks that is Robin Thicke, his songs and his videos, in a wider context. I don't think it's helpful or wise to employ the shock tactics of placing rape victims' real-life trauma alongside silly lyrics from a shitty song that is one shitty song amongst millions that will be infecting the airwaves this week. I also don't think it's helpful to anyone, male or female, who enjoys consensual BDSM and is tired of what they enjoy being immediately labelled abuse.

 

Pop culture is powerful, insidious and can influence us all in ways we may never be fully aware of. But like a short skirt or a flirtatious smile, it doesn't cause rape, and neither does a stupid hashtag or a douchebag in sunglasses.

Violence, vengeance and punishment

"I am so full of hate that I'm scaring myself. Is there a word to describe wanting to kill people who are already dead? Because that's what's in my heart...I want to kill the killers, and I just can't believe that this would be a sin.

 

...I guess my question to You is whether or not You get to torture those evil bastards who did the killings, or if it's purely the devil's job and You subcontract it out. Is there any way I can help torture them from down here on earth? Just give me a sign and I'm in."

 

Douglas Coupland, "Hey Nostradamus!"

 

On hearing that the four men found guilty of raping and murdering a female student in Delhi last December have been sentenced to death, it's inevitable that some of our most uncharitable thoughts will seep in. It's hard not to think "GOOD." It's hard not to think "Yes, let them suffer like she did." It's hard not to think "Good riddance to bad rubbish." And many more, less printable, more sadistic thoughts. When the world is so infected with such savagery, I think it's a natural response to feel glad when fitting punishments are finally meted out to those who perpetrate acts that far too often go undetected and unaddressed.

 

I had similar thoughts when I heard that Ariel Castro, the man convicted of kidnapping, imprisoning and repeatedly raping three young women for over 10 years, had killed himself while in prison. Good riddance. There's another unsalveagable human being that society no longer has to deal with. No one's tax dollars have to be wasted keeping him alive. He's gone. Great. His victims might finally feel free.

 

But I know in my heart that these attitudes, while understandable, are far too simplistic to deal with the nuances of these cases, and of the surrounding society that allowed them to happen. Castro's death does not negate his victim's torment, and may even exacerbate it - Gina Dejesus, Michelle Knight and Amanda Berry have to live the rest of their lives with the memory of their decade-long ordeal. By comparison, Castro has got off easy. It also does not negate the fact that three women were let down so badly by a justice system which allowed them to disappear off the map for 10 years, and that theirs is by no means an isolated case. We are all well too aware of the names Jaycee Dugard, Natascha Kampusch and Elisabeth Fritzl. Whenever we hear about these cases, our media bandies around words like 'monster', 'horrific' and 'torment', as if to imply these stories are so unique and terrible that they're almost the stuff of fiction. We're meant to think that these things are so awful that they're almost unreal. But that's the twist - they are very real. And our societies keep letting them happen over, and over again.

 

And therein lies the uncomfortable truth of the Delhi case. For all the 'strong messages' that the death sentence on the four rapists are meant to send, it won't be strong enough. In a country where a rape is reported every 21 minutes, and thousands more attacks go unreported due to victim-blaming attitudes and social stigma, one landmark trial isn't going to change the landscape overnight. Yes, it's positive that as a result of the protests and outcry over India's shameful record on sexual violence, more victims are coming forward. Yes, it's positive that men are taking to the streets as well as women, and are condemning their fellow men who perpetrate, excuse and justify sexual violence (something that still needs to happen much, much more often in the West too). But killing the killers is, as several commentators have pointed out, a quick fix. A placatory gesture towards an understandably baying mob. Will this death sentence make the next rapist stop and consider his actions? I doubt it. What has to be stopped is the society that creates that rapist in the first place. And if we in the supposedly 'advanced' West - where we pay lip service to female autonomy and yet every adult woman can still tell you a story of being harassed, molested or assaulted in the street, at home or at work - can't stop creating men who think women need to be 'put in their place', then what hope for the developing world, where religion, patriarchy and poverty combine to keep women in a perpetual state of subordination and fear? 

 

I think a lot of it has to do with our inability to decide what 'punishment' should really mean. If it's about cold blooded vengeance, then the appropriate response would surely be to subject the rapists to hours of torture, penetrating their orifices with an iron bar and beating them until their innards are hanging out of their bodies. An eye for an eye, right? But in the name of 'civilisation', the proposed response is merely to hang them. So to what end? To make them suffer? One broken neck and presumably their suffering is over, unless you believe in an afterlife. To remove them from society? Prison serves that purpose, albeit at public expense. There can certainly be no argument that the death penalty is going to 'rehabilitate' the rapists, and as I've suggested above, I don't see it reforming any other miscreants out there either.

 

Regardless of any of these ethical debates, a lot of people - including the victim's family - remain very satisfied with the sentence, and still want the perpetrators dead. I can understand that. I can feel it myself, to an extent. But what I won't pretend is that killing is an answer to anything. Castro's suicide, the four rapists' hanging (if it does come to pass), mean very little in a society where thousands of other abusers of women are just waiting to take their place. Somewhere in India, a woman is being raped, beaten or murdered. So is a woman in Europe, in America, in Africa, anywhere on an atlas you'd care to stick a pin. What solace will the ridding of four rapists from this planet bring those women?

Victim-blaming: It's not just for civilians

So, the latest outcry over the blaming of rape victims for their abuse has, rightly, focused on Judge Nigel Peters' decision to give a man who sexually abused a 13 year-old girl a suspended sentence on the grounds that the victim was 'sexually predatory'.

 

Where to start despairing over this story is anyone's guess, as there are so many aspects of the story that make you want to drop your forehead onto your desk with considerable force. How about the fact that 'The girl was accused in court of "egging her abuser on" and was described as "looking older" than her thirteen years, something the judge said he would consider in Wilson’s favour"?  Or the fact that the abuser's barrister said, in his defence “There was sexual activity but it was not of Mr Wilson's doing. You might say it was forced upon him despite being older and stronger than her”?

 

I mean, just take a minute to read that last quote. The sexual activity was not of the abuser's doing. It was forced upon him. Would we ever read about another crime being defended in such an audacious, logically fallacious, victim-blaming fashion? The little old lady forced her handbag on the mugger. The victim forced his Vauxhall Omega on the car thief. The perpetrator of grievous bodily harm may have shoved a broken bottle in his victim's face, but it was not of his doing. How can we still listen to this shit? And how in God's name can anyone get away with standing up in court and still SAYING THIS SHIT?!

 

Well, maybe they haven't totally gotten away with it. Barrister Robert Colover has been barred from taking on sexual offence cases while the Director of Public Prosecutions conducts an investigation into the case and Colover's conduct. Quite right, but talk about shutting the stable door after the sex offender has walked free. Furthermore, how much can we really lay the blame at the feet of a barrister - whose job it is to defend his client by whatever legal means he can, which sadly still includes completely besmirching the victim's reputation - when he employed tactics that he thought would work in his client's favour, and was proved right by the supposedly neutral paragon of justice, the judge himself?

 

Judge Nigel Peters made the utterly contradictory statement that he would take the victim's allegedly deceptive appearance and the fact she was ''predatory" and "egging you on" into account when sentencing, then said “That is no defence when dealing with children but I am prepared to impose a suspension.”  Uh, sure. So if it's no defence, WHY MENTION IT? And why give a sentence that implies you think it surely IS a defence, a defence strong enough to put a child abuser back on the streets?

 

As a result of the objections to his words and sentencing, Judge Peters increased the suspended sentence from 8 months to 12 months, which seems only to add insult to injury. However, the DPP is conducting a separate review and so the sentence may yet change again - although in terms of exposing our legal system as the kind of misogynistic hellhole that we foolishly thought might have improved since Helena Kennedy wrote about the horrendous victim-blaming she witnessed during her time as a QC in the 80s and 90s, the damage is done.

 

All that said, I'm glad that there at least is an outcry, and that it's not just the public objecting, but key members of the British legal system too. Keir Starmer, who has also been instrumental in exposing the pitifully low rape conviction rate and calling for major improvements in the way rape complaints are handled, has not wasted time in addressing this utterly f-ed up case. Another judge, when sentencing a child abuser a few days later, made a point of saying that the responsibility for abuse always lies with the adult, regardless of the child's behaviour. I'm glad to see this, because cases like these don't always get this degree of attention.

 

I spent a great deal of time and energy during the first months of 2013 trying to get people similarly outraged about Judge Niclas Parry's comments that a rape victim 'let herself down badly' by drinking and taking drugs on the night of her attack. It was a real slog to a) spread word about the petition and get people to sign, and b) get a response from the Judge in the face of the constant obfuscation that the people surrounding him practised.

 

After two utterly unhelpful responses from the listing manager of Mold Crown Court, I lodged a complaint with the Office for Judicial Complaints. I received an equally unhelpful response from the OJC, which said:

"I have considered the issues raised in your complaint and I conclude that they relate to HHJ Parry own views and opinion of the people before him. This does not amount to misconduct. It is for this reason that I cannot take your complaint any further. "

 

In light of the recent focus on Nigel Peters, I do wonder how the OJC can say that judges using the platform of a courtroom to propagate their victim-blaming opinions does not amount to misconduct. While I recognise that the two cases are very different, both in terms of offence and outcome (Judge Parry did rightly impose a 6 year sentence on the rapist in this case), the pitiful sentence given to Neil Wilson doesn't seem to be the main issue here. The objection is, and to my mind rightly so, the victim-blaming words of barrister Robert Colover and the way in which Judge Nigel Peters seemed to agree with, reinforce, and ultimately free the abuser of a 13 year-old girl based on the view that a molested child can in any way be 'asking for it'.

 

So why are Peters and Colover being put under the microscope while Parry got away with it? If we are really going to change anything about the utterly rotten state of British justice when it comes to its treatment of rape victims, why aren't we taking ALL the misogynistic lawyers and judges to task - and making sure they can never insult victims like this again? Words have power. They create culture, they spread lies, they perpetuate myths. So long as people continue to believe raped women 'let themselves down badly' and 13 year-old girls 'force' adult men to fuck them - and the comments page of any news story about the latter will reveal that terrifyingly, too many people DO believe this - we can't deny that we need to start addressing not just what judges do, but what they say too.

 

Update on the petition asking Judge Niclas Parry to retract his victim-blaming comments

--- Addition 06.02.2013 - In response to Judge Parry's refusal to apologise or even acknowledge that his comments were wrong and offensive, I have emailed the Office for Judicial Complaints to lodge a complaint about his conduct. ---

As you may or may not be aware, last month I started a petition in response to this news story. In the petition, I asked Judge Niclas Parry to retract and apologise for his comments to a rape victim that she had 'let herself down badly'. Here's the text of the email I sent to Judge Parry, drawing his attention to the petition:

"I am writing to ask you to publicly apologise for, and retract your comments to the rape victim of Anthony Parry that she 'let herself down badly' (reported December 14 2012, BBC News). To focus on the behaviour of the victim whilst sentencing a guilty rapist sends out the message that rape is partially the victim's fault. This is particularly concerning in light of the recent Home Office report which found that rape conviction rates remain pitifully low, and that many victims are afraid to report rape because they fear them will be blamed.

Disbelieving or victim-blaming attitues from members of the criminal justice system have regularly been cited as a factor in discouraging rape victims from coming forward, so it is particularly disappointing that an influential figure such as yourself felt the need to imply that women are to blame for being raped if they have been drinking. This will only contribute to a culture where victims remain afraid to come forward and rapists continue to go unpunished.

Your words also go directly against one of the main premises of the Sexual Offences Bill 2003, as described in the Stern Report 2010 - namely that "sex without consent is always rape and all other factors about a person making a complaint of rape are irrelevant to that central fact". (The Stern Review 2010, Page 14)
Apologise for and retract your victim-blaming comments to this woman, and instead use your power as a member of the judiciary to send out an unequivocal message that rape is always 100% the rapist's fault.Sincerely etc"

After having to chase Mold Crown Court twice to obtain a response from Judge Parry, I received the following reply on Jan 29 from the court Listing Manager Jane Williams.

"His Honour Judge Parry would wish to thank you for your message and for the very valid points that you raise regarding the trying of cases such as these.

He would also wish to explain why this is a case where the need for any apology would not arise but to explain also that that is only due to the circumstances of the particular case in question.

The reference to the Complainant was in face specifically made by His Honour because the Complainant herself had stated that she somehow feared that her behaviour might be seen as contributory and to emphasise to her and everyone else that, in fact, in his Honour's view, quite the contrary was true and that in fact the Complainant's condition was actually an aggravating feature which the Judge considered made the offence even worse and so merited a higher sentence.

For your information only, and hopefully to assist further, the Judge was in fact sent a letter from the Complainant's family thanking him personally for the manner in which he had dealt with the Complainant who had felt supported by him, and because of that, more able to pursue her complaint. The Judge was also thanked for what was considered by them to be an appropriate sentence.

Regards etc"

I responded the same day:

"Thank you for replying on behalf of His Honour Judge Parry.

I am somewhat confused by His Honour's explanation for the comments he made. I do not understand how, by saying the Complainant had 'let herself down badly', His Honour was reassuring the Complainant that her behaviour was not a contributing factor to being raped. He is quoted as saying (to the accused Anthony Parry) 'She consumed far too much alcohol and took drugs but she also had the misfortune of meeting you.' His Honour's use of the word 'also' implies that it was both the fact the Complainant had been drinking, and the fact she met Anthony Parry, which led to her being raped. When of course it was only the latter, and to publicly imply otherwise does all rape victims a massive disservice.

If I have misunderstood or missed out a vital part of the court transcript I would appreciate clarification, but nowhere in Judge Parry's remarks can I find the implication he is reassuring the victim that her behaviour was not partly to blame - in fact, I find the complete opposite.

 While I appreciate that the Complainant may have found Judge Parry supportive and thanked him for the way he dealt with the case, this does not detract from the fact he made a public statement which focused on the victim's (legally irrelevant) behaviour, implied that the woman had failed herself in some way, and potentially deterred future rape victims from coming forward.

Therefore, I would appreciate further clarification on why His Honour does not think his comments merit an apology."

On 30th Jan I received this reply:

"His Honour has received your reply. He has provided the explanation and you will appreciate that he would not normally engage in correspondence regarding individual cases. He has done so on this occasion in an attempt to assist in the understanding of the administration of justice. You will no doubt ensure that all with whom you say you shared your views will be afforded the curtesy of being provided with the full picture.

The only additional assistance His Honour feels he can offer relates you your comment that a complainant's behaviour is legally irrelevant. In fact it is His Honour's view that this is not correct, it can be highly legally relevant because it can amount to an aggravating feature in a case which can increase a sentence as was the case in this particular example".

I replied:

"Thank you for your response. I will certainly be sharing His Honour's views with the 600+ people who signed the petition. However, I remain unconvinced by his explanation. Nowhere in his comments does His Honour say that the victim's drunkenness was an aggravating factor in him deciding to pass a higher sentence. If that were the case, he might have said something along the lines of, 'The victim had drunk alcohol and took drugs. I consider Anthony Parry's decision to take advantage of her state an aggravating factor therefore I am passing a higher sentence'. Instead he said '[The victim] let herself down badly. She drank far too much alcohol and took drugs. However, she also had the misfortune of meeting you', which I read as a pejorative and irrelevant reference to the victim's behaviour.

Unless His Honour can clarify how his comments were intended to support, rather than criticise, the victim, I will be continuing with the petition."

So far, I haven't had a response but I can't say I'm optimistic about what it will contain if I do get one. As far as I can see, Judge Parry is basically trying to say his comments meant the exact opposite of what they appeared to mean, and also trying to use the fact that the victim thanked him for his support as evidence that he is not a victim-blamer. I'm not buying it.

However, I'm not sure how to press forward with this in a constructive way. I can keep gathering signatures, but if the response will merely be the same kind of stonewalling, is this the best way of addressing this issue, or should I try another tack?

I'd really appreciate any feedback or suggestions.

Some sensible words on victim-blaming 'rape avoidance advice'

These comments were in response to Barbara Ellen's Guardian article on 'safety in numbers', which was in turn a response to Joanna Lumley's comments that girls can escape rape by not wearing the 'wrong clothes', getting drunk or looking 'like trash'.

"'Take care of yourself' as general advice is fine.

'Take care of yourself' as specific advice for dealing with rape is misleading and problematic. It implies that you can greatly lessen the chances of being raped by not making yourself 'vulnerable', so that the victim is left to feel that they were stupid, that they failed to take some precautionary measure.

Since (and I am getting tired of saying this) most rapes do not occur out in some dingy alley but in the warmth and safety of someone's house, and are carried out by someone known to the victim, it beggars belief that the constant advice from celebrities and politicians is to behave differently in some completely alternative situation, as if this is the scenario in which women are most vulnerable. The stats do not support it - if anything, you're most vulnerable at home with men you trust. And what can anyone reasonably do in that situation?

"Watch your drink" would be sensible advice. "Don't wear high heels" is just stupid.

--JT Stone

How many threads full of smug men telling women how to behave do we need, Guardian? Thank you Joanna Lumley, thank you Barbara Ellen, thank you every other tired, tired bore who think that this week its their turn to tell women to 'be more careful' and 'don't get raped'. Because it's not like most women don't spend their lives trying to balance living like 'normal' people (aka men) while looking over their shoulder all the time in case some man takes it into his head to subject them to sexual assault.

I'm still waiting for the Guardian article that covers basic material such as the ways that rapists deliberately use all this 'be more careful' crap to cover up their crimes, discredit their victims and play juries. Because that's what happens. Think about the rapists, Barbara Ellen, and stop with the boring, boring victim-blaming."

--Coffeetable

"Now women (and men) are faced with two choices. Restrict their life in a completely unfeasible way to avoid hypothetical risks - every time you get in a car you face possible death in an accident - or accept that risk is part of life and if you're unlucky enough to draw the short straw, well that is just bad luck.
It is impossible to keep yourself safe from rape, unless you lock yourself in a rapist proof box. "

--Pollystyrene

To all rape-deniers and victim-blamers....

...you're probably thinking 'I need read no further, that title surely doesn't apply to me!'. You're probably thinking 'I know rape is a serious and heinous crime, and the rapist is always the one to blame for it!'. You're probably thinking that I'm only talking to obvious misogynists, ones who walk around with a bell around their necks and a T-shirt saying 'Bitch asked for it' to warn right-thinking men and women away from their vileness. But have a gander at this morning's Independent, and then consider your reactions.

If your only thought is 'This is fucking SHAMEFUL evidence of how our society doesn't take sexual violence seriously, and needs to be rectified', then yep, you can stop reading now.

But if you had any of the following thoughts, then stay with me - I need to talk to you.

1) The conviction rate can't be that low for no reason. Some of those women must be lying.

2) If they didn't report it, then how can we know it really happened?

3) False rape reporting ruins so many men's lives, why aren't we talking about that?

4) Men get raped too, why aren't we talking about that?

5)Rape is awful and all, but the rate would be lower if women stopped dressing provocatively/drinking so much/walking alone late at night.

6) A lot of so-called 'rapes' are just a case of women regretting sex the next day. 

7)I'm not a rapist/most guys aren't rapists/it's unfair to men to focus on an evil minority who rape women.

And I know you folks, who think these things, are out there. Because you tweet at me every time I express despair over another police victim-blaming campaign, protesting that telling women not to drink/walk alone is surely 'just sensible advice'. You post comments on my piece about a judge telling a rape victim she 'let herself down badly', suggesting that it's fair to focus on rape victim's behaviour because we would do the same to someone who had their laptop stolen. You are the people who cannot let any discussion of rape go by without feeling the need to blame victims, shift the blame away from perpetrators, and derail discussions with your determination not to focus on the terrible crime that men commit against women all over the world, every day.

And maybe you do it because you flat-out hate women, in which case there's probably nothing I can do for you. If you believe women are evil, lying bitches who get what they deserve, that feminism and protesting against rape is some massive conspiracy to harm men and tip society in women's favour, then please jog on. Nothing for you here.

But I'm willing to believe that not everyone who parrots rape myths is an out-and-out misogynist. I think some are probably woefully uninformed, which is not a difficult thing to be considering how sexist swathes of our media are. Many people are unaware that only 9% of rapes are committed by strangers, and 54% by boyfriends, partners or husbands. Many people are unaware that it's the rapist who is more likely to have consumed alcohol than the victim. Many people are unaware that rape has no higher 'false reporting' rate than any other crime - or that there have been multiple cases of women jailed for false reports only to be later cleared as it was discovered they were telling the truth. Many people are unaware that the reasons many cases don't get to court are not because they are not strong cases, but rather due to police mishandling evidence, failing to properly investigate, treating victims with hostility/disbelief and pressuring victims to drop cases. I hold on to some hope, however insanely optimistic, that with some education, some confronting of real facts accompanied by a willingness to listen to real women's stories, some of the people who make excuses for rapists might actually start to wake up.

And I can understand why people don't want to confront the reality of rape, because it's bloody upsetting. It's easier to imagine that not walking down a dark alley is all a woman has to do to protect herself from rape, when the truth is that the only way women could truly 'avoid rape' is to sever all relationships with men and move to an uninhabited island. It's easier to blame rape on clothes and alcohol than it is to accept that it's much more commonly committed by husbands, boyfriends, ex-partners, friends and acquaintances than it is by strangers. And I'm by no means suggesting it's only men who persist in dodging the issue - I see women doing it all the time too. And I think I know why - because to acknowledge that simply being female is the only 'contributing factor' to rape would be to acknowledge our huge vulnerability as women. Statistically, the loved men in our lives are the ones most likely to turn on us and rape us. We are far less likely at risk from the stranger in the nightclub or the weird-looking guy we pass on the pavement. And it makes us feel like shit to have to acknowledge that, so instead we blame other women for their actions, imply that 'it wasn't really rape' and in so doing try to fool ourselves that 'It couldn't happen to me, because I would have done X Y and Z'.

But we've all got to acknowledge it - men and women - if we're ever going to change anything. Otherwise the vicious cycle will continue. Society, the judiciary and police will continue to be hostile towards rape victims, they will hide in silence and shame, and our conviction rate will remain shamefully low.

So do me a favour, all those who've ever made an excuse for rapists, who've ever said 'Rape is obviously terrible BUT...', who've ever met statistics about rape with hostility, scepticism or disbelief. Try and educate yourself. Do some reading. Think long and hard. Think about the women in your life you care about. Consider how comfortable they'd feel confessing to you that they'd been raped if they knew your first question was going to be 'Are you sure it was rape?' or 'How much had you been drinking?'. Consider how, if they're already aware of your attitude, there may well be women in your life who've long been hiding the fact they've been raped from you.

And take a long hard look at yourself, then make a change.

Recommended reading

The Stern Review - Baroness Stern
Common Myths About Rape - Rape Crisis
Statistics on Rape Reporting/Conviction Rates and Common Rape Myths - Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit
Shocking Low Conviction Rates Revealed - Independent
40 Years of Rape Crisis - Guardian
Women Are Not Wallets - Sian Norris
'Don't Be That Guy' Campaign Sees Rape Reports Fall by 10% - The Globe and Mail

Latest Posts By Me

A review of Hillary Jordan's excellent When She Woke - a feminist dystopian novel envisioning the US if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned - for Bitch.

A piece for Women's Views on News about North Wales judge Niclas Parry, who told a rape victim she 'let herself down badly' - even as he was sentencing her GUILTY attacker.

Latest Posts By Me

One for the Ms Magazine Blog, on why the UK cabinet reshuffle is bad news for abortion rights.

And one for Women's Views On News, on the landmark conviction of a Colombian army officer found guilty of rape and murder.

What I'm Reading

Apologies for lack of recent posts - I've been having a lovely time working for BBC College of Production whose podcast on Women In Comedy, recorded live at the Edinburgh Fringe, is well worth a listen. While I was there I did this guest blog post for BBC Comedy.

Here's some writing by other people I've enjoyed:

Excellent post on the Pervocracy about how ridiculous and insulting it is to both men and women to perpetuate the myth of uncontrollable male sexuality.

A different take on hook-up culture at over at Ms. magazine, which manages to move beyond simplistic 'it's great'/'you're going to hell' arguments.

Fantastically true and honest piece [TRIGGER WARNING] by Laurie Penny on why we need to abandon the idea that rapists are monsters lurking in alleys and can't possibly be the 'nice guys' who we interact with every day.

Victim-blaming - a new low

While feminists have sadly become all-too-used to the victim-blaming and shaming enacted upon women who are brave enough to speak out about sexual assault, the extension of this tactic to sexually abused children represents a new low point in our culture's unwillingness to blame the perpetrators of sexual violence. Following on from the horrendous attempts to blame an 11 year-old for her own gang rape, some of those by supposedly respectable media outlets, a report on child sexual exploitation in the UK has uncovered horrendous attitudes towards the victims, from both carers and police.

The Times today reports that "girls aged from 13 to 15, groomed and used for sex by men, are viewed as making a 'lifestyle choice'". These are terrifying words, but are sadly reflective of beliefs held by far too many in a culture which holds, at best, utterly confused views on women and sexuality, and at worst, dangerous beliefs that uphold a rape culture. It's not that great a leap, in a nation where a survey found 1/3 of respondents considered flirting or 'sexy clothing' as making a woman partially responsible for being raped, from blaming women to blaming children. Especially female children.

This is not to detract from the male children who suffer abuse and exploitation. But the way in which girls are still held responsible for the abuse that happens to them is peculiar to their sex. Male victims of abuse are not likely to be "dismissed as promiscuous "slags"", as the Times report their female counterparts are. I can't think of any cases of male sexual abuse I have read where a boy is described as having 'consented' to sex with an older male, or where this is cited as a mitigating factor in defending the abuser. I can't think of any cases where a boy's clothing, behaviour or previous sexual behaviour is used as justification for an adult man having sex with him. But if even the New York Times is happy to report on child rape as if it is something an 11 year-old girl can 'consent' to, then there's clearly a serious asymmetry in the way we treat the abuse of girls.

And that's because society still just doesn't know how to deal with women and sex. Society is totally unwilling to award women any sexual agency unless it is to blame us for bringing sexual assault upon ourselves. Women aren't expected to like or want sex on any terms except those entirely dedicated to pleasing men, and any woman who is a sexual being in her own right is viewed with suspicion. As soon as sexual violence comes into the picture though, suddenly the script flips. She knew what she was doing. She wanted it. She chose to wear that dress. The rapist's behaviour is still far too regularly absent from our culture's examination of rape - why else do newspapers always report rape in the passive voice - 'A woman was raped' - rather than putting the perpetrator in the picture and telling us the truth, that 'A man raped a woman'?

And now our treatment of adult women is coming back to bite our children as well, as vulnerable girls - many of them victims of multiple abuses - are treated as complicit in their own abuse by the very employees of the state paid to protect them. They are dismissed as "white trash"  (a police officer's description of a victim), as deserving of abuse, and if they have already been victimised, they are too often labelled damaged goods deserving of further exploitation. This is the shame of a society that still cannot accept who is truly responsible for sexual violence - men who continue to go largely unpunished - and is a failing for which everyone who has ever espoused a rape myth holds responsibility.

Degrees of sexism - my university adventures in feminism

After reading this excellent post by Cherry Morris for The F Word about how universities, far from being the enlightened, sexism-free seats of learning you might expect, are often rife with anti-feminist attitudes, I started thinking about my own time at university. I went to a high-ranking modern university, which I partially chose out of instinct that a newer university would be free of the shackles of traditions which seem to ensure centuries-old unis remain nepotistic moneyed old boys' clubs. I was there from 2002 to 2005, and had a great time. It's fair to say that, although my feminist leanings had been in place since I was in single digits, university did 'raise my consciousness' and cemented the feminist beliefs that were already dormant within me. Having access to a vast library where I could go at any time and pick up books written by academics dissecting the issues of porn, prostitution, rape, body image, work and countless more was amazing, and I could often be found amongst Sociology shelves filling my brain for fun, even though my degree wasn't even in Sociology! I did take elective courses from the Sociology department since I found my chosen subject - Philosophy - less than fulfilling, and taught entirely in a style that I thought I'd escaped by not going to Oxbridge. My course seemed to consist of being taught to regurgitate what old white men thought about the world, and little else. Apart from one week on Carol Gilligan's Ethics of Care (which could be argued is about the least feminist text in the world, labelling women 'naturally nurturing' and suggesting ethical theories based on our tendency to hug small children), there was no feminist philosophy, or even female philosophers. In fact there was no philosophy that didn't come straight out of the white western world, and usually from the mouths of those who studied at Oxford or Cambridge. But I digress.

Like Cherry Morris, I found myself differentiated from my female peers fairly quickly. The wave of familiarity that hits me when Cherry writes "I disliked it when my bum was pinched in a 'playful' manner, while other girls simply squealed and flapped" is something of a relief - to know that I wasn't the only one amazed at the casual sexism that went unchallenged amongst (allegedly) the brightest minds in the country. Although no one was audacious enough to physically harass me, my peers clearly enjoyed seeing my enraged reaction on showing me, say, an email forward of "100 things women are incapable of doing" and accusing me of being 'OTT' when I went apoplectic at a point on the list that said "Understand why flirting leads to violence". Boys laughed and pulled cute puppy-dog faces when I shouted at them for telling me jokes such as (genuine example) "What do you say to a woman with two black eyes?" "Nothing you haven't told her twice already". I usually felt completely alone in challenging such vile misogyny, especially during my first year when I lived in halls of residence with only 8 other girls and 17 boys. It wasn't that I minded being in the minority; more that I was dismayed that none of my alleged 'sisters' were willing to fight the good fight with me. Instead I got long-suffering eye rolls, patronising smiles, and arm-pats that said '"Oh dear, Chas has gone 'all intense' again".

I did have at least one friend I considered as strident as me, and when I lived with her and another smart, savvy female friend in our second and third years, I felt more cushioned from the provocations of casual sexism from over-privileged boys, and the disappointing acquiescence of blinkered girls. However, it was hard not to feel alone and discouraged in caring about feminism. The on-campus newsagent assaulted your eyes with Nuts, Zoo et all manner of sexist crap the moment you walked in to buy a paper, and it was only in my 3rd year at uni that I saw this challenged by an emerging anti-sexism group. Boys and girls in our hall of residence regularly referred to a female acquaintance as a 'streetwalker' because on nights out she wore a lot of make-up and thigh-high boots. Attitudes towards sexual violence were frighteningly pedestrian - when a foreign student was raped and beaten so badly she was hospitalised during our first year, the onus was on girls to surrender their independence, and men to 'look after them'. Cue a rash of 'white knights' offering to walk girls home after nights out, blissfully unaware that the men most likely to attack a woman are the ones she lives with and knows best.

I remember having bitter rows with a well-meaning male friend who, if I dared to leave a nightclub alone, would chase after me and insist on walking me home. When I put forward the theory that statistically, he and the boys I lived with were far more likely to rape me than any stranger lurking behind a bush, he became deeply aggressive. I remember having to explain to a male sociology PhD student how all men benefit from the threat of rape as a form of social control, even those who consider themselves 'the good guys' for not raping anyone, because it keeps all women in a state of fear and hence beholden to men for 'protection'. In his 5-plus years studying sociology, this sensitive, thoughtful, well-educated man genuinely hadn't come across this theory once. I found that very telling, both about the teaching priorities of his department, but also about the culture of our university - you just weren't encouraged to think about or question sexism, and you were often loudly shouted down when you attempted to.

I still think about the student who was raped, and how it later transpired that another student had been assaulted on the same pathway a week earlier, yet the university had 'covered up' this story. The campus newspaper rightly made a stink about how in prioritising its reputation, the university had effectively let another assault happen when publicising the first attack would probably have meant all girls avoided that pathway like the plague, and saved that second student from a horrific and brutal rape. However, I felt like this only dealt with such a tiny fragment of the problem. I felt the usual outrage at the suggestion that it is down to women to adjust our behaviour to avoid rape, and wondered why no one else ever questioned or kicked against this. Why were my fellow students happy to be treated like children, pets or invalids, herded around at night by protective males as if our freedom was a mere indulgence, and only to be granted us in daylight? Furthermore, what would highlighting the site of one rape as a danger zone really achieve? What was to stop the rapist reappearing on a different path, in the student union, in halls of residence? I wondered how many unreported attacks had occurred not in the stereotypical setting of a darkened alley, but in students' own rooms, where statistics tell us rapes are far more likely to take place?

It wasn't all shite - the anti-sexism society that started in 2004 when I was in my last year at university is still going strong there. Since I graduated in 2005 I've seen a resurgence of interest in feminism from young women, and a visit to Feministing.com or The F Word confirms that I'm not the only woman in her 20s to give a shit any more. Activism in the form of Reclaim The Night/Million Women Rise marches, the Feminism In London conventions, the growth of feminist networks up and down the country, and the countless feminist voices in the blogosphere, is greatly heartening to a 27 year-old who was once a 19 year-old wondering if she was the only one. Still, that's not to say students today are likely to have it much easier - I would not want to be navigating the world of sexual politics amongst boys who are likely to have drawn their sex education from porn, and girls who have been taught to be as apolitical and ruthlessly individualistic as possible. But university can teach you so much that's not in the course materials - and sometimes the main thing you end up learning is what you don't want to be.

***Update added 15.10.2015. The campus rape I mention earlier took place in 2003. A man was arrested and charged with the crime in December 2014, although there have been no further updates on the case since.***

I'm appalled that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a woman who has spent a great deal of time admirably taking to task Islamic fundamentalism and its shitty treatment of women, seems to be adopting the exact mindsets of those who believe sexual violence is - at least partly - the fault of the victim. But that's exactly what she seems to have done in her article in Monday's Independent, "How does dressing like a 'slut' help protect women?". It's the kind of knee-jerk victim-blaming and rape apologist tactics that I'd expect to find in The Daily Mail, and is therefore especially worrying when you consider that it's actually from a supposedly enlightened, liberal woman. Firstly, Alibhai-Brown lazily stereotypes and wilfully misunderstands the concept of Slutwalk, declaring that it consisted of women "dressed to pull...in uplifted bras, thongs, Playboy outfits", ignoring those who marched in jeans and jumpers, or those who held up signs saying that the latter is exactly what they were wearing when they were raped, and posing the question "...did I deserve it?". If you believe Alibhai-Brown, the answer goes something along the lines of "less than those naive tarts who wore miniskirts".

It's disconcerting to see an intelligent woman buy so thoroughly into the victim-blaming trend by not only equating 'provocative' dress with invitation to rape, but even going so far as to defend the Toronto policeman who inadvertently triggered the whole Slutwalk phenomenon with his comments. "Surely he was only saying women need to be sharp and savvy?". Um, no Yasmin. He wasn't saying that at all. He was perpetuating several gross, offensive and repeatedly disproved myths, those being that:

1) Rapists are not really responsible for their actions

2) Rape is just really sexual desire that gets out of control

3) Rape is only committed by strangers in dark alleys who leap upon scantily-clad women.

I've written about why those three statements don't stand up to scrutiny so much that I can barely be bothered to repeat myself, but it seems that the message still isn't getting through. How can Alibhai-Brown acknowledge that "women in burkas...are still as likely to be victims as the flesh-flashing demonstrators" in one breath, then go on to lay the blame for sexual violence solely at the feet of those very 'flesh flashers', in the next? How can she believe that rape is caused by the "flesh-baring daily dress...sex mime" if it happens just as much TO WOMEN WHO COVER EVERY INCH OF THEIR FLESH!?!?

She tries to dodge criticism by playing the class and race card, claiming that Slutwalk is the premise of pampered middle class ignoramuses with nothing better to do than patronise 'true' victims, and speculating that "there weren't many women on the march who have endured domestic rape or have been trafficked." Well Yasmin, how would any of us be able to find that out, considering one of the main problems surrounding rape is how its victims are forced into silence and shame by attitudes not dissimilar to your own? Bafflingly, she then brings in a story of an African cleaner being sexually abused by her British employer, as if to imply that Slutwalk is somehow an insult to 'real' rape victims, who presumably have to be poor, downtrodden, and definitely not wearing anything sexy, to qualify.

Although Alibhai-Brown claims to understand that rape is a heinous crime whether committed by Gaddafi's henchmen in Libya, "by soldiers in the Congo, [or] by civilian blokes in the home and on the streets", her words elsewhere in the article directly contradict this. In fact, it's less an article than an incoherent mish-mash of grotesque stereotypes and unsupported statements such as "there is more evidence that drunkenness among young women (and their revealing clothing in some cases) make them vulnerable to sexual assault". I'd really like to see the 'evidence' that supports that massively loaded statement - and I'd also like to hear what Alibhai-Brown thinks makes toddlers and grandmothers vulnerable to sexual assault, seeing as she seems to believe that rape victims are somehow guilty of collusion in their assault.

As I've said a wearisome number of times before, the blaming of a scrap of material or a glimpse of thigh for a man forcing his penis into a woman's vagina, anus or mouth, is not just bizarre and offensive because of what it says about women. It's also because of what it says about men. A-B seems content to believe that the modern world and all its provocative accoutrement has resulted in a society where "even more men seem to defile babies and toddlers, their own teenager children and partners, and violate innocent females, the elderly included" (ah. So there are SOME 'innocent' victims, are there Yasmin? How old, young or covered by cloth does one have to be to qualify exactly?). Her thinking seems to be that, as hemlines have shortened, men's brains have short-circuited, and rape and violence have increased because these middle class bitches just won't keep their cleavages covered. Wow. If men really are as basically-wired and easily provoked to violate a woman as Alibhai-Brown seems to think, isn't there a fairly strong argument for institutionalising, electronically tagging, blinding or at least castrating the lot of them?

But funnily enough, I'm not someone who wants to do that. I do believe the majority of men to be intelligent, logical and in possession of reason, and strangely enough, as a Slutwalker's placard pointed out, not compelled to commit rape by mere items of clothing (or lack thereof). Rape is entirely caused by the decision of vile, sadistic individuals, who are not just 'overly horny' or 'a bit too rough in the bedroom' or 'unable to control themselves'. Quite the opposite - they are calculating, cruel and determined to inflict pain and humiliation on a woman, and know that forcibly penetrating her body is an effective way to do it. No one rapes just because they got too aroused at the sight of an expanse of uncovered leg. They do it for the same reason they would defecate on a person - to shame, subordinate and silence them.

So Yasmin, please adopt some silence of your own until you can abandon your scarily right-wing woman-hating attitude, and consider that perhaps there is some truth to the statement that "rape predates miniskirts". None of us are naive enough to believe, or propagate the belief, that the world is safe for women. That was never the point of Slutwalk. The point was to say that the world SHOULD be safe for women, and no one should ever stop trying to make it that way, and a world in which rape is excused and accepted is a world which can never be excused and never be accepted. My last words to Yasmin, and your charming (interestingly all male) supporters who followed your article with letters to the Independent proclaiming that "The feelings aroused in men are something over which they have no control" and "If those women...don't want to be mistaken for prostitutes, they shouldn't wear the uniform" (because it's fine to rape prostitutes, isn't it chaps?) can only be another slogan from a Slutwalk placard: 100% OF RAPES ARE CAUSED BY RAPISTS.

ARRRRRRRRRRRGGHHHHH

Just when you thought things might be getting better, shit like this comes along to remind you that the powers that be remain utterly ignorant, and dangerously misguided, about pretty much anything to do with rape, sexual assault, or women's bodily autonomy in general.

I thought there might be some kind of turning point when I noticed the reporting over the sexual assault allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn wasn't the usual fest of victim-blaming misogyny that rape cases usually descend straight into. For once, the media seemed to be focusing on the behaviour of the accused, rather than the accuser, and suggesting that perhaps it's the (alleged) rapist's sexual history we should be examining when considering an allegation, rather than trying to undermine an already traumatised victim by trawling through their past and making them out to be a slut. Whilst headlines like 'PERV' aren't helping anyone, and not exactly upholding the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thang, I'd be lying if I said it wasn't refreshing to see that instead of 'WHAT A LYING WHORE', which is what rape victims have had to put with since time immemorial.

But today Kenneth Clarke, the British 'Justice' Secretary, has caused my faith to plummet right back through the floor, with his proposal to halve convicted rapists' sentences if they plead guilty, and his comments by way of explanation that: "[Rape] includes date rape and 17 year-olds having intercourse. Serious rape, I don't think many judges give five years for a forcible rape, frankly, the tariff is longer for that and a serious rape where there's violence and an unwilling woman, the tariff's much longer than that."

I can't even begin to unravel the tangle of misunderstandings, misconceptions, and frankly outright falsehoods contained in this sentence. But let me take a few pot shots. Firstly, I'd be happy to see the phrase 'date rape' banished from the face of the earth forevermore. It's one of the most despicable, dishonest, misleading terms I've ever come across, precisely because of the implication it carries that there are 'different types' of rape, and therefore some must be worse than others. Like the term 'domestic violence', it gives this type of assault on women a cosy little niche of its own, lessening the impact of the words 'rape' and 'violence' by adding a qualifier to them, ergo 'Oh, she was raped, but it was only date rape, so not as bad'. Also, what the fuck exactly is date rape? Does it only count if you went for dinner and drinks beforehand? Or does there have to be a movie and dancing too? Basically, it's used to cover pretty much all forms of acquaintance rape, which is the most worrying part of the trend, because acquaintance rape is the most common kind, the most underreported, and the hardest kind of rape to obtain a conviction for. So, um, can someone explain to me why people feel the need to erode the seriousness of this crime even more?

Sure, people are gonna come back with the usual shite about 'Oh, if two drunk students fall into bed together and neither can remember what happened, that's not as bad as someone being dragged into a dark alley at knifepoint'. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't - I wouldn't know, being fortunate enough not to have ever had either happen to me. However, what most people forget is that the 'dark alley at knifepoint' scenario is RARE. Fucking rare. In the 2003 survey of thousands of women, conducted by the Home Office with a view to amending the Sexual Offences law, it was found that only 8% of rape victims reported being attacked by a complete stranger. EIGHT PER CENT. That leaves 92% of those cases as technical 'date rapes', or at least 'acquaintance rapes', because they were committed by male friends, neighbours, colleagues, family members and - in 45% of cases, by husbands or male partners. Are we really expected to agree that the 8% who were horribly violated by a stranger, suffered a more serious assault, than the 45% who were raped by the men they loved and presumably trusted the most, or the 37% who were attacked by men they thought they were safe with, in their own houses, workplaces or social spaces?

By conflating 'date rape' with statutory rape Clarke muddies the waters even more. No, of course statutory rape isn't always the same. It certainly can be - it can involve force, coercion, and a massive inequality of power. The law is there to protect children - if you fuck a 9 year-old, it doesn't matter if she was 'willing'. She's 9, and you're a rapist. Go straight to jail, do not pass Go. However, the oft-trotted out example of a 15 year old and a 16 year old having consensual sex? Yeah, OK, it's not the same, and few police in their right mind would waste their time seeking a prosecution. But to put that latter case in the same category of your husband, boyfriend, friend, neighbour, colleague or the guy in the local paper shop turning on you and violating your body in the most horrendous, degrading way possible? It's just fucking madness. And it's terrifying that any member of our government is making that comparison, let alone daring to do so publicly.

I can only hope that Clarke's words come from ignorance rather than true misogyny - sadly, I think in a lot of people's cases, and yes a lot of them do happen to be male, the ignorance comes from being in a position of total inexperience. If you've never lived your life under the threat of rape, you might not bother to try and understand the issues at work. I hope many men will prove me wrong by speaking out in the wake of Clarke's vile assertions, and yes I know women can be evil victim-blamers as well, although I think their mindset comes from a different, more understandable place (the 'it'll never happen to me' camp). But whether Clarke's just an ignorant old dickhead, or a foul misogynist, is not the issue. The issue is what he said, and what those words demonstrated about his attitude to women, rape and justice. He does not speak for us. He does not uphold justice for us. Therefore he has to go. NOW.

Finally, some anti-rape campaigns aimed at men...

...one by my own local constabulary, Thames Valley Police, and one by Lambeth Council.
Are the police and local authorities finally listening to feminists? I'm wary of getting too excited, but it seems like some common sense is finally starting to permeate. More campaigns like this please.

Watching The Wright Stuff is rarely a good idea...

...but when you're killing time at home it's bound to appear on your TV screen sooner or later. How I've watched it so much without melting into a rage-induced puddle, or at least phoning in to scream abuse at Matthew Wright for his constant ill-concealed misogyny, I'm not sure, but the occasional word of sense that is spoken by the panel or callers is probably all that restrains me. On various occasions I've seen this 'host' portray women as money-grubbing, superficial, ignorant bitches who deserve what they get if their husband cheats on them while they're pregnant because they must've 'driven him away' (yes I was watching a recent discussion of Coleen and Wayne Rooney, and Wright's constant attempts to goad callers into saying that pregnant women are responsible for their husband's infidelity was damn sickening). Today he was harping on the subject of 'No Right To Get Shirty If Things Get Flirty', or rather the question of whether women have any reasonable expectation of, oooh, I dunno, RESPECT, if they DARE to wear revealing clothes.

What was concerning was not that anyone dared to come right out and say 'Yes, if you wear a short skirt, you get what you deserve and you deserve what you get, ho', but more the utterly confused thinking of the host and panel on the issue. They were all keen to get in the disclaimer that 'no one deserves to be raped' and OBVIOUSLY Judge Pickles (judge who was famous in 80s for telling rape victims they 'asked for it') was wrong, but then they all kinda pissed over the good those words achieved, by going on to say that women 'must shoulder some of the responsibility' if men leer, shout or otherwise treat them like crap for showing some cleavage. Matthew Wright and the two female panelists all said that 'I do believe that ideally women should have the right to wear whatever they want, but that's not the world we live in'. Yeah, I guess I believe that black people have the right not to be called wogs, and that gay people have the right not to have their heads kicked in, but that's not the world we live in, so we should all just roll over and submit to the hatred and ignorance infecting our society, right? For fuck's sake. Was there ever a lazier, more analysis-dodging excuse for vile behaviour than 'Oh, that's just the way it's always been, you'll never change things, so just shut the fuck up and submit'? And yet at the moment that seems to be our answer to everything - why prostitution, rape, violence against women and every shitty tributary of those behaviours will never go away. It's always been like that - so don't even bother trying to change it, sista.

What was also noticeably absent from the discussion (and is soooo often absent from any discussion of male ill-treatment of women) was the behaviour of men. No one, at any point, raised the notion of where cat-calls, leering, sleazing and groping actually COME FROM. No one made any suggestion that the blame and responsibility for these behaviours lie SOLELY with their MALE PERPETRATORS. And frighteningly, no one saw the connection between saying 'women shoulder some of the responsibility' for these acts, and blaming women for sexual violence. There IS a connection. I'm not saying that every knuckle-dragging missing link who shouts 'Nice tits' on a night out is a rapist, but the fact is, such a person is exhibiting a lack of respect, empathy and consideration for women that sows the seeds for sexual violence. Such a man may never do anything more than shout or leer, but nonetheless he is seated on a spectrum of systematic disrespect for women's bodily autonomy, which starts with the supposedly 'harmless' acts of verbal street abuse, and ends in rape. Thinking it's OK to yell sexualised insults at someone because they are dressed in any kind of way stems from thinking that a) everything women do is for male attention, and dammit, they should be grateful for whatever they get, and b) women's bodies are not really their own, they're for public consumption and therefore, why show it off if you don't want me to scream filth about it, sugar?

Matthew Wright was very close to the crux of the issue when he made the point that blaming women for verbal sexual abuse makes as much sense as 'covering them all up with burkas', but sadly failed to go further and explain why. Burka or mini-skirt, hijab or high heels, the very fact we focus constantly on what WOMEN are wearing, shows that we still see women as being the 'gatekeepers' of sexual activity, and men as the aggressors. No one would ever seriously make the argument that a man wearing tight jeans is 'asking for' a woman or a gay man to grab his backside, because what men wear, where men go, how men act, is never up for analysis. Why else would the alcohol consumption of the victims in rape trials be so disproportionately focused on, when it's actually the rapist who is far more likely to have consumed alcohol? Because, as our society currently operates, men hold no responsibility for their behaviour - it all falls to women.

Forget for a moment how horrendous this is for women, I think it's also disturbing just what a vile picture of men this assumption paints. As the current thinking goes, men are mentally retarded, lacking in all self-control or self-awareness, naturally violent, sexually obsessed, and incapable of seeing a woman in a short skirt (because Christ knows, no one's ever seen one of those before, and GOD are they a provocative sight when we've probably all seen enough internet nudity to last us a lifetime) without behaving in ways that would embarrass an ape. Pretty much all the men I know would be heftily insulted by this depiction, and would rather die than ever publicly sleaze on a woman. Yet we're all taught to accept that This Is How Men Are, and it's really quite a fucking sad indictment of what lows our society is sinking to.

I could rant for days about this kind of shit, but I think the fantastic Tairrie B put it better than I could when she demanded a world where women have
"the right to dress sexy when and where I want
Without being harrassed for it
Or being told that I asked for it"

If we're willing to wake the fuck up and stop making excuses of the kind I witnessed this morning, we'll come a lot closer to achieving it.

Anonymity, Rape and the Law

I can't say I'm optimistic about the new Conservative-dominated coalition government in terms of making positive steps forward for women. With a 'Minister for Equality' who has repeatedly voted against equality legislation, and who has no interest in banning Page 3 (hmm, wouldn't have anything to do with the fact the Conservatives are funded by the Murdoch empire, would it now?!), it seems that they're happy to rely on the old trick of putting someone with XX chromosomes at the forefront and thinking that will be enough to satisfy us gullible females. Just because someone's got a vagina doesn't make them pro-woman. Just look at the new female president of Costa Rica - anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-emergency contraception. Does make you wonder why, if these women really do believe that wimmin should be reproducing without choice or consent, they're not at home, barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen sink themselves.

Anyway, this post wasn't actually intended (just) to bitch about the predictable shortcomings of politicians when it comes to protecting women's rights, but it was to deal with the deeply controversial new proposal revealed this week, namely the move to grant anonymity to those accused of rape. Feminists are in up arms, labelling this move a form of rape apologism, supporting the idea that men need to be 'protected' from the evil allegation-flinging of women, and further spreading the vile myth that many rapes are reported falsely (when in fact it's reckoned that there are fewer fraudulent rape claims than there are false car insurance claims). I've already been invited to sign a petition demanding that the government drop the proposal, yet I find myself hovering over the dotted line. I feel extremely torn on this issue. On the one hand, I agree that this move could be disastrous in terms of preventing victims of serial rapists coming forward; the case of serial rapist taxi-driver John Worboys is a recent case that springs to mind. However, the fact that rape victims need encouraging to 'come forward' in the first place says it all about how confident women feel with the current system - it's typical of the culture of rape apology that so many of Worboys' victims simply went home, said nothing, and lived with the horror of what had happened to them. Going to the police was not an option because they didn't think they would be believed. First police need to be trained and educated in believing victims, treating them as human beings and credible witnesses, and evaluating alleged rapists' behaviour and past actions to establish patterns. Once that's achieved, I don't think it would matter so much if alleged rapists weren't named, as police could still appeal for information from anyone who was attacked by 'a taxi-driver based in South London, grey hair, early 50s', and so strengthen a case without being accused of wrecking anyone's reputation.

There remains the problem of why just rape? Why not anonymity for murder suspects, alleged drug dealers, paedophiles, terrorists and so on? Is it wise to assign such gravitas to the effect of a rape accusation on a man's life whilst ignoring the effects of being accused of other heinous crimes? It does seem to carry with it the troubling implication that this crime in particular needs anonymity for its accused because this crime in particular is the subject of so many false accusations. This is not a helpful or realistic view of the 94% of rape cases in which the accused walks free - many of these cases implode long before a 'not guilty' verdict is ever reached, due to police mishandling evidence, judicial hostility to the victim, and victims being pressured/encouraged to drop their case on the basis that 'it's your word against his, you won't be believed'. What does a 'not guilty' verdict even mean in a culture where a woman who sustained genital and anal injuries consistent with a violent rape was disbelieved in court because she was wearing skinny jeans, which apparently can't be removed 'without consent'? It's certainly not the immediate admission of female dishonesty that the conservative media would have us believe it is - rather, it's a reflection of a grossly flawed judiciary and ignorant, biased surrounding society, which assumes female dissembling and male innocence before anyone even enters the courtroom. Do we really need another piece of legislation to back up the idea that 'men need protecting from lying bitches'?

However, the one possible benefit of this legislation is the flipside of that argument; if a law were brought in to make males accused of rape anonymous, then their accusers can no longer have the above distasteful piece of misogyny flung at them. It would no longer be possible to 'ruin' a man by making a rape accusation (because we all know those are so easy to make, and so fun to sustain) against him, therefore the argument that women 'cry rape' just to get revenge on men will no longer have any weight. There'll be no more sensationalist articles in The Daily Mail focusing on Steve, 35, from Leeds, whose existence was RUINED by the allegations of some evil slut, and has lost his job, been forced to move, had to change his name etc etc because of the 'stigma' applied to him. (And yes, to be falsely accused of anything would be horrendous, and our predatory media play a great part in encouraging public hounding and vigilante behaviour which would be enough to drive anyone to suicide. But there's absolutely no evidence to show that there are any more false accusations about rape than there are about any other crime, so an outcry specific to accused rapists is totally unjustified.) There could even be a shift of focus, from the tiny percentage of men affected by the 'horror' of a false accusation, to the huge percentage of women affected by the horror of a genuine rape. I'm probably dreaming - the right-wing media will surely find something else to harangue traumatised women about. But I can't be unequivocal about condemning this legislation - whilst it troubles me in many aspects, I think there could just be a silver lining - even if it's one totally unintended by its patriarchy-loving policymakers.

No good can come of watching the Virgin TV channel...

...but hey, sometimes a girl gets bored late at night and flicks over. And what do Virgin like to show at night? Programmes all about sex, loosely disguised in the form of documentaries. I knew I was probably heading for trouble selecting 'Why Men Watch Porn', but it wasn't as horrific as it could have been. The attitude was pretty predictable, starting from the perspective that porn is fine and groovy, with no discussion of its potential to harm women, and that consuming it is 'just something normal guys do'. It was even mildly interesting to watch the results of a study involving men of different age groups rating their interest in different types of porn - and somewhat heartening to see men from all the age groups stating their lack of interest in using it. The reaction of the men's (female) partners to what the study 'revealed' about their sexual tastes was a bit tiresome - the women seemed happy to make excuses for male consumption of porn viz arguments that 'men are just wired differently', that women can distract themselves with 'a bath or a book' or that when we 'get the horn', we're capable of waiting for satisfaction, whereas men have to be satisfied Right Now, Dammit. I thought the women's words were evidence of just how internalised the modern stance on porn has become, that being: it's fine, men need it, we couldn't possibly understand because we're women, there's no point trying to argue against it. I also wondered if any of these women had ever 'had the horn' to the point where a bath or a book just wouldn't do it, and only a date with Ms Right Hand would suffice - cos I know have!

What was probably most dismaying though, was the final throwaway 'stat', which was that 32% of men surveyed thought porn reduced sex crime. That's an argument I get reeeal tired of hearing, simply because it seems to rely on a fatal misunderstanding of what sex crime is, and why it's committed. However, it means acknowledging that the opposition to that argument (that porn increases sex crime), also comes from barking up the wrong tree, which is anathema to some anti-porn feminists. I just think that this simplistic view of male sexuality needs to be dispensed with. If you're sadistic and fucked up enough that you're actually considering raping someone, I doubt that any alternative form of outlet is going to be enough. Rape isn't just about 'needing to have sex really badly' (and please, can we stop saying prostitution is justified because it somehow 'stops rape'? Newsflash - prostitution and rape still continue side by side) or wanting to do something so kinky that no woman would put up with it. Wanting sex and not always getting it is part of life - normal men and women can put up with that. They may masturbate, use porn, or just distract themselves, but to suggest that people rape because they're just too randy, is to fatally misunderstand what rape is about. It's not about sex, or sexual release, or satisfaction. It's about power, humiliation, domination, and controlling another person's body. If that is what you truly desire, then watching porn isn't going to stop you from wanting to go out and get it. Unfortunately, I think too many people 'normalise' rapists as 'regular guys who just got carried away because damn women won't put out all the time'. As if there's never been a rapist who was already in a sexual relationship with a wife or a girlfriend, or who had access to stacks of porn, or who used prostitutes, and went out and raped anyway.

However, as I said, this means also acknowledging the limitations of porn when it comes to influencing men's sexual behaviour. Now, it's important not to make blanket statements about this. When I say I don't think porn causes rape, that's not to say I think it has no impact whatsoever on the sexual landscape. But, as I said above, since rape has very little to do with sex, it stands to reason that its connection with on-screen depictions of sex, will only ever be fleeting. Yes, a violent porn film might give you an idea of how to violate someone, but it's not going to make you go out and do it. The impulse for sexual violence needs to be there already. Porn doesn't turn ordinary men into rapists - it doesn't have the power. It may give men who are already raping or considering rape, some methods for terrorising their victims, but that's where the connection ends. However, that's not to say I don't see the connection with porn and rape culture - one where rape isn't taken seriously because our porned society has numbed us to sexual violence. If we're all exposed to, or able to easily access, porn that sends out the message that women love to be beaten and raped, then our understanding of rape as a crime is going to be affected - even if it's just subconsciously. How many times have we heard rapists defended on the basis that 'she just liked it rough, your honour'? Only this week five men were acquitted of the rape of a woman on the basis that she had had fantasies about group sex, clearly sending out the message that if a woman has a kinky fantasy, she should be prepared to enact it with any man, at all times, and has no right to say no. Something's clearly fucked up - but it's not porn causing the rapes directly. It's a society so numbed to sexual violence, partly by increasingly violent porn, that's allowing rapists to go free, and sending out the message to would-be rapists that they'll always get away with it.

I wouldn't call myself an anti-porn feminist though. I don't believe that repression of human sexuality is ever going to lead to anything good. I think that porn can be produced responsibly, and that porn which depicts violence/coercion can be framed in the language of choice and consent, as BDSM porn always has been. It's the mainstream porn which steals the acts of BDSM porn, whilst leaving out the crucial aspects of consent (and failing to emphasise, as many BDSM sites do, that the actors are just that, actors playing a part and that This Is Not Reality) which I believe does the most harm. It's how to keep the good and dispense with the swathes of bad which is troubling. It was also telling on the programme that many men described a scene of anal sex - which would have been viewed as shocking and explicit a few decades ago - as 'quite tame'. It seems that the more extreme porn is produced, the more bored we get. Perhaps this is a worrying sign of how people will go to further and further extremes to get satisfaction, or perhaps it's a heartening sign that people recognised porn's limitations and will start to turn away from it, maybe even back to real people and having real sexual relationships. I think we are all capable of learning, and the depiction of men as so deeply influenced by porn that they're unable to shake off its 'conditioning' is more than a tad insulting. In the early days of our relationship, my partner admitted to me that the porn he viewed in his younger days made him think that women's genitalia 'worked a lot easier than it really does'. Ha ha, no shit, I remember thinking, and I didn't feel ashamed or guilty about my complex, hard-to-please body, but rather pleased that he had encountered a real woman and learned a lesson.