Protecting victims of false rape allegations

[Shi Huangdi]

With Kobe Bryant in the news and the recent thread about the question of rape and changing consent during intercouse going on, I read an article today in the London Times that seemed relevant to this topic:

(Note, this story is much longer then the second one. It is about the ordeal of a family when a 15 year old son was falsely accused of rape)

They kissed. Months later she cried rape
By Jonathan Gornall
Sex charges against the TV presenter John Leslie have been dropped and he leaves court 'without a stain on his character'. But is that realistic? Our correspondent talks to the family of a 15-year-old boy falsely accused of rape, for whom the wounds of two months under suspicion may never heal

IT WASN’T EXACTLY a dawn raid, but the arrival of the police at 7.30am outside the imposing seven-bedroom semi in the prosperous Midlands market town couldn’t have had more impact if they had kicked down the front door.

Toby Simmons, 15, was asleep in his bedroom. Along with his brother Harry, 17, their mother Ann and her partner Paul, he had returned two days before from the family’s traditional Easter skiing trip in France. Within a week of getting home he faced his GCSEs, and had spent much of the trip revising, taking advantage of the location to practise for his French oral exam.

It was the second time that morning that the doorbell had rung. A few minutes before, Paul,the only member of the family up and about, had answered the door to the postman. This time, the first thing he registered was that a police car stood where the post van had been. On the doorstep were two officers.

“Paul took them into the drawing room,” said Ann, 46, “and came to tell me. He said they were looking for Toby.”

Her head reeling, she pulled on her dressing-gown and intercepted Toby on the landing and pulled him into the first-floor sitting room.

“All I could think was ‘What the hell has he done?’ I said, ‘Quick: you’ve got one minute. This is your opportunity to tell me so I can hear it from you, not them’.

“He just looked so surprised and scared, and said ‘Mum, I have no idea what they want’. He was telling the truth.”

Downstairs, the familiar, comforting drawing room, with its twin sofas facing across the fireplace, had suddenly become a cold, unwelcoming place, dominated by the presence of the uniformed officer. Mother and son sat on one sofa; the detective on the other. The PC stood.

Still recovering from her rude awakening, Ann listened dumbstruck as the detective spoke to Toby.

“He asked him his name, what school he went to, and had he had a girlfriend called Rachel . . . then he cautioned him. I said ‘Hang on a minute, can’t we talk about this informally?’ The detective looked at me and said no, because of the severity of the allegation.”

Then came the bombshell that detonated in the room with a physical force that was to shake the family to its foundations, cast a dark shadow over Toby’s impending GCSEs and have an untold impact on the rest of his life.

“I am arresting you for the alleged rape of . . .”

Ann stared at her son, who stared back.

“He looked like he couldn’t believe what he was hearing. I muttered something about hearing his side of the story; the detective stopped him talking and said it wasn’t the time and place. They were going to take him into custody to interview him.” They let Toby go back upstairs to finish dressing. Ann, limping from a skiing injury, followed him upstairs and won a few precious minutes alone with her son in the bathroom. Downstairs, the detective told Paul that he was noting that they had spent five minutes alone. Shaking, Ann sat on the edge of the bath. Toby, afraid and completely white, faced the ultimate teenage torture of the most intimate conversation with his mother.

“He said, ‘Mum, I was with this girl in a crowd of people and we did touch each other with our hands, but . . .’” he paused and screwed up his eyes before blurting out the sort of mortifying sexual detail that no son should ever have to share with his mother “‘. . . but I couldn’t get it up’.

“He said she’d hoiked him into the bushes. They had been within earshot of the others, a few yards away. She was trying it on with Toby. At the time he was supposedly the boyfriend of another girl his age at the same school as his supposed victim. When they came out of the bushes the group walked on, mooching from place to place, and so the evening had gone on.”

The police marched Toby to their car, but wouldn’t let Ann ride with him. She jumped into her Range Rover and followed them for ten minutes, through what was by then the rush-hour traffic, along what had suddenly become the unfamiliar streets of her home town.

This wasn’t supposed to happen. This was a resolutely middle-class, middle-England family living happily in a beautiful, four-storey, seven-bedroom Victorian house in a leafy midlands town. Ann was a convent girl, now a part-time education consultant and governor of Toby’s school; her partner Paul, a Cambridge law graduate, was a senior civil servant; Bill, Toby’s father, a successful businessman.

Sitting, numb, in the car in which the family had driven home happily from France only days before, she rang Bill. He called a family friend and arranged for a lawyer to meet them all at the police station. Because Toby was a minor, Ann had to be present as they checked him in and sign for his few possessions. Then her son, officially a prisoner, was taken to a cell. The custody sergeant gave him a bowl of cereal and Ann had two hours to think, sitting in the car as she waited for the lawyer to arrive.

“It was horrendous. This was my child and I wanted it to be me, not him, in the cell. I believed him utterly because I knew that he had told me the truth in the bathroom; he had looked so bewildered. Of the two boys, Toby is the naughty one; he’s a character, an actor, but he has this sense of morality that always gets him into trouble at school. He always owns up. When they were little, if they were kicking each other in the car or something, Harry would always deny it but Toby would always admit it.”

Desperate to help their child, Ann and Toby’s father blundered unwittingly through the etiquette of a situation they had never begun to imagine they would face.

“When the lawyer arrived we said we were happy for her to be the ‘appropriate adult’ present, but apparently that’s not allowed. We only wanted Toby to say the truth and we thought he might be embarrassed with us there. But when the detective said ‘Well, if you aren’t prepared to do it we’ll get a social worker’, we were shocked. The lawyer and Toby had a talk and decided it should be his father. The detective’s manner throughout was short and cool; he didn’t say more than he had to and showed no empathy. He seemed to be trying to create the impression that Toby had done it.” When the interview ended, Toby was released on bail, to reappear at the station five weeks later. It was the beginning of a nightmare.

Back home, mother and son struggled to find words. “I wanted him to cry and I wanted to but didn’t for his sake. I said ‘It’s all right, darling’; I just wanted to take it away from him. He put his arms around me and his head on my shoulder and said ‘Why did she say that?’ He didn’t talk about the incident then, but did that afternoon, and on the Saturday and the Sunday.

“I felt so inadequate. I said ‘Toby, you are the same person’, but I knew this was going to hang over him. How was he going to knuckle down and do his revision? It could ruin his future.” Toby was due to sit the first of ten GCSEs on June 2 with the possibility that, if the Crown prosecutors decided to proceed against him, he could be in court by the end of May. His first exam was in science, his best subject. His mother says: “He wants to be a psychologist. He is interested in how people’s minds work. This was a case study he could have done without.”

As the days of waiting stretched into weeks, pieces of the jigsaw began to fall into place. Harry, Toby’s brother, was furious, and told Ann: “It’s stupid and ridiculous. Everyone knows that girl, and who and what she is.”

On March 24, just over three weeks after the alleged Friday night rape, Toby had been attacked by three teenagers while cycling near the girl’s house. They had left him bleeding and in shock. At the time, all he had said was that it had been about a girl, but now he admitted that one of his attackers had been the girl’s brother.

Imagining that the police were interviewing all the youngsters who had been part of the group, and finding out the same things, Ann learnt that Toby’s accuser lived in social housing and had been suspended from school for being drunk and for shoplifting. According to Toby, she had told him it was all right for them to have sex as she wasn’t a virgin. She had not reported the alleged rape until after the attack on Toby.

Then, to Ann’s horror, the detective came round to the house on Saturday May 24, just three days before Toby was due back at the station, to get the addresses of his witnesses to the fateful evening. During the three weeks that Toby and his family had sweated, the police had done nothing.

“He said they were too busy, with a big fraud case and a serial rapist — they hadn’t had a chance. I grasped at straws; Toby wasn’t a priority. I thought the detective’s manner had changed, too; he was a lot more pleasant and kind of embarassed.”

But at the station on the following Tuesday, after the Bank Holiday weekend, the family’s agony was extended again. The detective told them that he needed to refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision. The CPS had been closed on the Monday, and so had had no time to consider the case. Now, if they decided to go ahead and prosecute that week, Toby would be in court just as his exams were beginning. In the end, the solicitor persuaded the police to agree to delay a CPS decision until after Toby’s exams.

“We were between a rock and a hard place. We were in shock again: the police weren’t prepared to dismiss the allegation, even though it was her word against his. Toby went quiet again. The weekend it first happened, on the Sunday up in his room he had said ‘Mum, this has ruined my life’. I said, no, it just feels like it. Now, inside, I was thinking I hope he isn’t right.” With the cloud hovering over him, Toby ploughed through his exams, unsure of how he had performed. They finished on June 17 and he braced himself for his next appearance at the police station, on June 25.

To everyone’s horror, the detective telephoned at 9am on the morning of the 25th to say the CPS hadn’t had time to look at the case; the sword would hang over Toby for another month and it now began to look as though his holiday at the beginning of August might be in doubt.

He had been due to report back to the police station last week, but just before the weekend Ann’s partner again found himself answering a knock on the front door. It was the detective again, clutching a letter for Toby. “There will be no further action taken against you in respect of this matter . . .” He apologised for the time it had taken. The family shed a few tears and hugs, but there were no celebrations.

That night Toby went into town for a leaving party for a friend. He had had a haircut and, his mother thought, looked suddenly grown-up.

“We had a big hug and I said ‘It’s all gone away’ and started to say that it didn’t matter to him; he said ‘Mum, I don’t need you to say this’.

“This has changed him. It has made him harder, made him grow up quickly. He is now very wary and aware that he must never put himself in a position where that sort of accusation can be made. In essence, it has made him untrusting, and that is very sad.

“He said to me ‘Mum, any girl could do this to you at any time, couldn’t they?’. And they could.”


All names been changed

Are men accused of rape entitled to anonymity unless convicted? E-mail debate@thetimes.co.uk

PRIME SUSPECT: HOW THE LAW TAKES ITS COURSE

UNLESS the allegation is historical or has been made by a known serial complainant, a man accused of rape is nearly always arrested and taken to a police station. There, he will be booked in by the custody officer and will probably spend some time in a cell before being interviewed. If the rape is alleged to have taken place recently, various forensic evidence will be sought. Intimate samples — pubic hair, saliva, DNA from a mouth scrape and/or a penile swab — can not be obtained by force, but an adverse inference will be taken from a refusal to consent.

Three options are then open to the police. Delayed-charge bail gives officers a chance to interview witnesses and take advice from the CPS. The accused is bailed to return to the station on a given day; the process can be repeated as often as necessary — there is no statutory time limit. Alternatively, he may be charged immediately. This means an inevitable appearance at a magistrates’ court, for which a date is given there and then. From the magistrates’ court the case will be transferred to Crown Court for a jury trial. The third option is for the accused to accept a summons, which can arrive through the post at any time with a date for a court appearance.

Normally, the accused has little choice in the matter. In Toby’s case, however, because of the impact of the uncertainty on his impending exams, the family’s views were taken into account. “He was from a good background,” says his solicitor. “It shouldn’t make a difference, but it does.

His family are people of high social standing in the community, he was polite and the alleged offence seemed out of character. Balanced with this was the character of the accuser, who did not appear to be a credible witness.”

FALSE WITNESS: WHY DO SOME WOMEN LIE ABOUT RAPE?

Jackie Craissati
Head of the Forensic Clinical Psychology Service, Oxleas NHS Trust

Within the small minority of sexual allegations that turn out to be false, there are three categories. The first is a personality issue. Some victims have disturbed backgrounds and a dramatic gesture such as alleging rape can be a way of coping. It is too simplistic to say they are attention-seeking. They are disturbed and distressed individuals, and crave the tremendous interest, support and sympathy they know the case will generate.


A second group is where a victim has been assaulted by someone else but cannot disclose the true perpetrator. This may include children assaulted by family members who, because they are fearful of and dependent on that person, make an accusation against a teacher or boy at school instead.


The third category is where you have a difficult break-up or an acrimonious parental situation that provokes an impulsive desire to express anger and get revenge on the alleged perpetrator. The high profile of a sexual assault case makes it a particularly poignant expression of rage. It’s a profoundly unsatisfactory course of action though, and the victim can end up being badly treated and publicly humiliated. The police must therefore make the victim feel they are supported if the allegation is genuine, but have sufficient detachment to be able to decide to drop charges if they are untrue.

Another intersting article is from The Guardian, relating to a TV star who was accused of rape, was acquited of the charges, but nonetheless faced great damage to his life resulting from media publicity. As a result, some are calling for the names of rape victims to not be made public so that their names are not destroyed when their names and careers are not destroyed when rape charges are brought against them. I will attach it in a reply to this topic to prevent it being too long.

[Shi Huangdi]

The shame game

The rape inquiry against John Leslie has been dropped, but the damage to his career can never be undone

Zoe Williams
Tuesday May 20, 2003
The Guardian

Now that the rape case against John Leslie has been dropped, we can all set to wondering what he might pull out from the wreckage of his career. In all likelihood, some networks will cease all contact with the fallen star, and others will employ him out of some old-fashioned compunction, but only after the watershed. His best bet, if it's cash he's after, would be libel actions against everyone who's called him a rapist; some papers estimate a haul of £3m, even taking into account that Channel 5 (bringers of the first disgrace) always pretend not to have any money.

However he plays it, the man is potentially ruined. But it would be a mistake to suggest that this is always the case when a rape charge is made through the media and quashed by the law. Nadine Milroy-Sloan, accuser of the Hamiltons, is facing a substantial prison term when she is sentenced next month, while Neil and Christine get to go on Radio 4 and say how upset they were by the experience. Neither of them, besides, had a career to lose, unless you count Unwitting Jester for All Occasions as a career.

Now, even the most steadfast adherent to due process will smell a rat here - there can be no equivalency between these two cases, since Milroy-Sloan was a mercenary nutcase. Ulrika Jonsson, while mercenary, is held not to be a nutcase and, at least, never named Leslie. Furthermore, at the time of the scandal, a large array of minor TV personalities supposedly corroborated her story, though naturally not to the police (so passé!), and largely prefer to remain nameless. There will always be a question mark over John Leslie. Whether or not he deserves it is irrelevant, since an invisible question mark is not something you could have a black-and-white tussle over.

There is a substantial call now for those accused of sex offences to remain anonymous until proven guilty. This is an obvious precaution against trial by media and would ultimately, I think, be beneficial to both genders. Until guilt has been proven, the accused and the accuser are of equal moral standing. If one deserves anonymity, then so does the other, unless one party is demonstrably weaker. So children, for instance, might have superior rights to privacy over adults - but women over men? Why? Because we have breasts?

That said, the fault lies not only with anomalies in the law. It doesn't even lie exclusively with the people who will spin a few quid out of a serious charge, but won't take it seriously enough to press charges. It also lies with the police - the paedophile scandals at the start of the year nearly did for Pete Townshend, Matthew Kelly and Robert Del Naja (of Massive Attack) what Matthew Wright, who picked up the Jonsson allusion, did for Leslie.

This is way beyond the debate about the naming before fair trial. Del Naja was named before they even found enough evidence to get to trial (they didn't); Kelly was named before he was even charged (he wasn't); Townshend was not only named before trial (there was none), he's been put on a sex-offender register without a conviction. We might just as well be handing out criminal records to people who have criminalesque haircuts.

It crossed my mind at the time that maybe this was a money-saving device by the police, on the orders of some higher authority - if people could be ruined by newspapers alone, it would stand as a warning to all other potential offenders, without the pesky prison sentence that costs the taxpayer such a packet. In fact, this conspiracy theory is undermined by the curious ubiquity of the Newspapers-First-Law-Second method. From weathergirls, through fantasists, to the police, everyone's using it. In essence, it seeks to replace the legal system with the more nebulous device of public shaming.

This is no new notion - it is systematised with great care in Thomas More's Utopia, and struck quite a chord in an age when the law was held in very low esteem and tabloid newspapers did not yet exist. Utopia had about four laws, all of them quite weird - the vast bulk of sociable behaviour was enforced by communal pressures of contempt, disdain, reproach and disgrace. It was all very cool and democratic, but there was the obvious rider that, in order for the community to mete out shame, nothing could be conducted in private. This is spelt out plainly: "Nowhere is there any licence to waste time, nowhere any pretext to evade work - no wine shop ... no brothel anywhere, no opportunity for corruption, no lurking hole, no secret meeting place. On the contrary, being under the eyes of all, people are bound either to be performing the usual labour or to be enjoying their leisure in a fashion not without decency."

Now, this is fine for celebrities, since they have no privacy in the first place. But it basically describes totalitarianism. And we have to decide - are we happy for stars to be subject to a totalitarian regime in miniature? Are we confident that there will be no trickle-down effect? Do we have enough faith in the rule of law to allow this sideshow, which basically undermines it, to continue? No, we need to be much more rigorous about criminal allegations. They appear in court first, or they don't appear at all.

So what do you guys think on this one? Do women have too powerful a weapon on their hand being able to do great damage to men simply by making an accusation against them? Should people accused of rape, currently the crime of which there is the most false allegations, have their names concealed? Does the government need to do more to protect the accused who have not yet been convicted?

[Tingkai]

I think we should worry more about the people who spend years in jail after being convicted of a murder they did not commit.

[Japher]

I wish the public would at least not condem the accused before they are convicted.

[Boris Godunov]

I think there should be very stiff legal penalties for false accusations. If it can be shown that woman made a false accusation, she should be subject to, at the very least, massive fines and probation, and perhaps jail time.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
I wish the public would at least not condem the accused before they are convicted.

Which is why the identity of any defendent should be kept secret, period, until a conviction is found.

[Japher]

Which is why the identity of any defendent should be kept secret, period, until a conviction is found.

Yet, if Kobe is found guilty then he is now the victum of slander and defimation of character... Where is the protection in that?

The accused should be protected just as much as the victum, until proven guilty that is... You really think he is going to get a fair trial now that the media has put thier mind-control spin on it?!

[mrmitchell]

Should sue the ***** who accused him.

[Kropotkin]

Minor problem compared to how hard it actually is to sentence someone that is a rapist. Besides, if someone wants to hurt someone famous there's tons of other ways to do so. The media will bite on anything.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yet, if Kobe is found guilty then he is now the victim of slander and defimation of character... Where is the protection in that?

Kobe forfeits some of his privacy protection when he holds a press conference expressing his innocence. If he resolutely says no comment, refusing to acknowledge the media, than he ought to be protected from the media.

As for Shi's original post:

The third category is where you have a difficult break-up or an acrimonious parental situation that provokes an impulsive desire to express anger and get revenge on the alleged perpetrator.

This is probably the best argument to shield those accused of rape, because of the motivation for revenge after a breakup.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher


Yet, if Kobe is found guilty then he is now the victum of slander and defimation of character... Where is the protection in that?

The accused should be protected just as much as the victum, until proven guilty that is... You really think he is going to get a fair trial now that the media has put thier mind-control spin on it?!

Ahem, Kobe is the defendent in the process. The womna is the accuser.

[chequita guevara]

Maybe it should be like Canada, where the media is forbidden from reporting on a matter until it goes through the courts. That would, however, require a change to the Constitution, and too many conservatives would accuse us of trying to coddle criminals.

[Ben Kenobi]

too many conservatives would accuse us of trying to coddle criminals.

No, the liberal tabloids will request that the matters be opened, otherwise they will go out of business.

Seriously, you ought to be able to find bi-partisan support for something along these lines, since the pendulum has swung too far in favour of the 'victim'.

[Velociryx]

I got a great idea. Subject the false accusers to EXACTLY the same punishment the person they accused would have gotten had it been true.

That'd help limit it, yes?

-=Vel=-

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I got a great idea. Subject the false accusers to EXACTLY the same punishment the person they accused would have gotten had it been true.

A bit medieval, but it would get the job done.

Of course, there has to a line drawn between "defendant found to be innocent" and "false accusation". They aren't the same thing IMHO.

[Velociryx]

Only medieval if the punishment was to be drawing and quartering....

But yes, I quite agree....two different things. The goal is certainly NOT to deny a woman the rights to her body, but to acknowledge that she's not the only one with rights, and you can't just go 'round making accusations like that because someone pisses you off (and it happens).

-=Vel=-

[FrustratedPoet]

You also REALLY don't want to create a situation where women are afraid to accuse a man of rape (when he actually did it) because they're afraid of the consequences if he manages to beat it. That would be just as bad as the current situation.

[Velociryx]

Very true....no easy solutions to it, I fear....no matter which way you go, there's always a *chance* that someone will abuse the system.

-=Vel=-
(sometimes people just suck!)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I got a great idea. Subject the false accusers to EXACTLY the same punishment the person they accused would have gotten had it been true.

I'd like limitations to false accusations too, but this is going far over the line. That would make any unprovable-yet-real case impossible to plead without fear of spending years in prison yourself

I think a hefty fine for the false accuser would be good, as well as strictly forbidding the media to talk about a case before its conclusion.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I think there should be very stiff legal penalties for false accusations. If it can be shown that woman made a false accusation, she should be subject to, at the very least, massive fines and probation, and perhaps jail time.

how much wiggle is there between a false accusation and a not guilty verdict? ur kinda running a tight rope.

[yavoon]

since there are so many rape threads. I think the best possible thing we can do is to teach women how to deal w/ it. for too long the feminists have hijacked the agony of women and leveraged it. instead of teaching them how to recover and live normally again, we tell them how wrong it is and how they should be scarred for life.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by yavoon
since there are so many rape threads. I think the best possible thing we can do is to teach women how to deal w/ it. for too long the feminists have hijacked the agony of women and leveraged it. instead of teaching them how to recover and live normally again, we tell them how wrong it is and how they should be scarred for life.

Man, you're ignorant. Really, feminists just want women to be helpless. The hole message of the women's movement is that women can't function.

I can understand conservatives spouting ignorant lies about feminism. They're ideologicall opposed to equality for women and the end of gender oppression for men and women. But when self-described lefties do this, it just makes my blood boil. Man the conservatives did a number on this country when even their opposite accepts their lies as fact. With attitudes like this, it's no wonder the left is so male.

And for the record, it has been the women's movement that has taught women how to get on with their life. If it was left up to coservatives, we would still be refering to the survivors of rape as ruined women.

[chequita guevara]

BTW, falsely accusing someone of rape is already a felony. In fact, falsely making any accusation to the police is a felony. You can end up in prison for several years for doing this. Which, on average, is about as long as rapists tend to spend in prison.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Man, you're ignorant. Really, feminists just want women to be helpless. The hole message of the women's movement is that women can't function.

I can understand conservatives spouting ignorant lies about feminism. They're ideologicall opposed to equality for women and the end of gender oppression for men and women. But when self-described lefties do this, it just makes my blood boil. Man the conservatives did a number on this country when even their opposite accepts their lies as fact. With attitudes like this, it's no wonder the left is so male.

And for the record, it has been the women's movement that has taught women how to get on with their life. If it was left up to coservatives, we would still be refering to the survivors of rape as ruined women.

well its not an either or thing. and thats partly the problem. the feminists feel the need to run politicaly rampant over the suffering of the women in order to grind laws past huge chauvinists.

[Kuciwalker]

And for the record, it has been the women's movement that has taught women how to get on with their life. If it was left up to coservatives, we would still be refering to the survivors of rape as ruined women.

Noooo, you have found our secret agenda, all is lost....

Come on. You want to make specific accusations against people, go ahead. But to blatantly stamp an appellation on a group of people just because you disagree with them is immensely stupid and immensely offensive.

[yavoon]

the main contribution of feminism to rape is to magnify the victimization. The ends are two goals, get more women to come forward and to get stricter laws past. but to this end they build up the crime as much as humanly possible. which has the side effect of women actually are scarred for life. they've been told they have a right to be scarred, hell they've been told they SHOULD be scarred for life.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by yavoon
well its not an either or thing. and thats partly the problem. the feminists feel the need to run politicaly rampant over the suffering of the women in order to grind laws past huge chauvinists.

It is true that some feminists do this, but:

A) Feminists cannot run politically rampant. They simply do not, and have never, had that kind of clout. They couldn't even get a damned amendment saying they were equal.

B) The vast majority of the feminist movement is far more concerned about the suffering of women than you or I will ever be. Why, cuz they're women. Why do you think the damn movement exists? Because they were suffering. The whole point of the movement is to relieve the suffering of women.

That comment is like saying Martin Luther King used the suffering of Black people to grind some laws past huge racists. Of course they did! Because they were suffering. If they weren't suffering, they wouldn't need the damn laws.

Nearly every feminist I know has had to put up with a lot of bullshit for merely being women. That's why they became feminists. "The personal is political."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

And for the record, it has been the women's movement that has taught women how to get on with their life. If it was left up to coservatives, we would still be refering to the survivors of rape as ruined women.

Noooo, you have found our secret agenda, all is lost....

Come on. You want to make specific accusations against people, go ahead. But to blatantly stamp an appellation on a group of people just because you disagree with them is immensely stupid and immensely offensive.

I'm old enough to remember when this was the norm, when women who were raped probably deserved it, when wifes couldn't be raped by their husbands because they owed it to their husbands. At each point along the way, it was conservatives who were screaming bloody murder against changing our perceptions of the victims and survivors of rape. Don't act like because we finally got it through your thick skuls that no woman deserves to be raped, that your side thought this all along. You're Johnny-come-latelys.

Had it been left to conservatives nothing would have changed. That's why you're called conservatives.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It is true that some feminists do this, but:

A) Feminists cannot run politically rampant. They simply do not, and have never, had that kind of clout. They couldn't even get a damned amendment saying they were equal.

B) The vast majority of the feminist movement is far more concerned about the suffering of women than you or I will ever be. Why, cuz they're women. Why do you think the damn movement exists? Because they were suffering. The whole point of the movement is to relieve the suffering of women.

That comment is like saying Martin Luther King used the suffering of Black people to grind some laws past huge racists. Of course they did! Because they were suffering. If they weren't suffering, they wouldn't need the damn laws.

Nearly every feminist I know has had to put up with a lot of bullshit for merely being women. That's why they became feminists. "The personal is political."

the majority of the feminist movement is concerned w/ empowerment. not relief of suffering. they're both good goals, but they are distinctly different.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by yavoon
the main contribution of feminism to rape is to magnify the victimization.

Bullshit! You simply do not know what you are talking about. That might be true of the tiny minority of right-wing feminists who follow Adrea Dworkin and Katherine McKinnon, but they hardly have any representation in mainstream feminism, let alone the huge numbers of left-wing feminists. Those two are so conservative their ideas about sex are practically Victorian.

Rape is a bad thing. Before feminism, it was considered an act of sex. Now it is considered violence. Before feminism, husbands couldn't technically rape their wives, prostitutes couldn't be raped, and women on dates who were raped were asking for it. Women were litterally considered ruined and their lives were "destroyed."

Look at how women in countries without feminism are treated when they are raped. They are shunned and persecuted. Some unfortunates are actually forced to marry their rapists. Otheres are thrown out of their families or even killed for "bringing shame on the family."

Do you even have a ****ing clue as to the verbal fecal matter that you are spewing?