Can't we all just get along?

[DanishDynamite]

Sorry, Fiona, but you were not raped in the incident you describe. You were not coerced, threatened, forced or in any way made to have the intercourse that you did, by your own account.

It is hard to draw any lesson from your non-rape.

 

[Eck]

Wow, look where a thread gets to when you go away for awhile...

I'd like to comment on something from earlier.

Assuming that women lie is prejudicial regardless of context when made without any attempt to qualify or justify the statement.

The context qualifies the statement.

In this case the context was the claim by women that they wear provocative clothing to "look good".

I doubt many women would have replied to such a survey saying they wear certain clothes so men find them attractive. That's just not PC.

But please feel free to continue digging the hole you are in by posting my comment about womens' answers to a survey on choice of clothing in a thread about rape.

I actually have trouble seeing this as not in context, where so much of what's being discussed is myths and stereotypes and where they impact how we see things such as rape, or influence things such as trials.

The women as 'duplicitous liars' stereotype is incredibly common, especially outside of the issue at hand. The whole image of a manipulative, scheming gender is fodder for tv scripts, bar room jokes and great literature alike, and deeply rooted in our culture, which is why its relevant to the issue at hand.

Illustrating the point from a thread on another topic simply shows that the stereotype exists, from which we can then deal with how it impacts what we're discussing. (Which, from whatever perspective you're looking at on issues such as the possible fairness of testimony based trials, cultural bias is something that needs to be addressed and acknowledged).

 

[Eck]

It would be correct to observe that it is inconsistent with a woman who was being raped considering thoughts like: "Now that I'm being raped, let me think quickly about how I can ensure for the production of maximum forensic evidence that will ultimately secure a conviction and justice". And that question does seem to be what sometimes befuddles judges and juries. But IMO it is ridiculous to suppose that a rape victim should or could ever consider such an approach when an attack is taking place, or afterwards.

Interesting comment- especially having read Eck's description of a male-male attack, which suggests otherwise.

Just wanted to clarify, in case it might be of help to this part of the discussion, and since I may not have been clear in my original post. (A hard subject to write clearly about, emotions got in the way of my drafting it several times). My thoughts on the possibility of fighting back backfiring and casting me in the light of an aggressor were definitely after the fact. They were definitely things I pondered, and part of that was wondering if they were in the back of my mind when it happened, but there wasn't any real concious reasoning going on. Part of the reason I compared my thoughts at the time to a state of shock, was that there was precious little actually thinking going on. I simply reacted, and the reactions confused me tremendously when it came time to process everything after.

So yeah, it is a question that can easily befuddle a judge or jury, I'd assume, since its one that easily befuddled me.

And Sam, I'm glad you raised the questions you have, since they opened up some good discussions.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Sorry, Fiona, but you were not raped in the incident you describe. You were not coerced, threatened, forced or in any way made to have the intercourse that you did, by your own account.

It is hard to draw any lesson from your non-rape.

She did not consent. It was rape.

IMO it would be virtually impossible to prove it was, though.

 

[Lonewulf]

Sorry, Fiona, but you were not raped in the incident you describe. You were not coerced, threatened, forced or in any way made to have the intercourse that you did, by your own account.

It is hard to draw any lesson from your non-rape.

Wrong.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I actually have trouble seeing this as not in context, where so much of what's being discussed is myths and stereotypes and where they impact how we see things such as rape, or influence things such as trials.

That "women lie and use euphemisms" is a myth or stereotype?

Women are always washing their hair and have headaches when they say they do? Women do not wear provocative clothes to attract the attention of men?

The women as 'duplicitous liars' stereotype is incredibly common, especially outside of the issue at hand. The whole image of a manipulative, scheming gender is fodder for tv scripts, bar room jokes and great literature alike, and deeply rooted in our culture, which is why its relevant to the issue at hand.

Just as well I didn't use that (or any other) stereotype. I simply stated a fact. But it says a lot about your thoughts about women and how you think I think that you read all that into my comment.

Illustrating the point from a thread on another topic simply shows that the stereotype exists, from which we can then deal with how it impacts what we're discussing. (Which, from whatever perspective you're looking at on issues such as the possible fairness of testimony based trials, cultural bias is something that needs to be addressed and acknowledged).

I agree. Many men are idiots. But so are many women.

 

[Eck]

That "women lie and use euphemisms" is a myth or stereotype?

Women are always washing their hair and have headaches when they say they do? Women do not wear provocative clothes to attract the attention of men?

Sure some do, I think pretty much all stereotypes grow out of situations that can find support in the real world. It's the pernicious nature of these myths that they get applied as some sort of base rule. All people can be liars, or manipulative, etc. The myth is that it is some sort of special province of women. Discussed in the same thread has been the myth that all men are potential rapists, and the fears that result from that, another stereotype I think is just as evil. I could have illustrated the same points with examples drawn where people buy into that as well.

I only used the ones quoted as they were from earlier in this thread and touched on the point that I wanted to make, which is that it was fair to use the quotes to illustrate what the myth was. Perhaps I should have quoted all the way back to the original post where someone mentioned they had never heard the myth. (which may be true as well, I'd love to live in a world that free from stereotypes).

Just as well I didn't use that (or any other) stereotype. I simply stated a fact. But it says a lot about your thoughts about women and how you think I think that you read all that into my comment.

I will apologize here for some lazy drafting on my part, I didn't mean for that to seem to be directed at you, nor drawn from your comment, actually. I had on my mind the fact that the image is widespread, (hence the cultural references) and that makes it easy to play it up for our own potential biases. The use of 'scheming and manipulative' as a way to describe the myth was meant to show another phrasing of the 'duplicitous liars' which was the original presentation of the stereotype in this thread. Again, apologies for making reference to things and not making it clear enough that they were separate from the quote used.

I agree. Many men are idiots. But so are many women.

Sadly, all too true. People can sometimes be a bad thing.

 

[GreNME]

Ivor: I think that you bring a very real and present concern to bear on the issue of rape and the process of trying to extract justice for crimes while protecting personal liberties. I want to make that clear, at the very least, because I don't want you to think I'm at all unsympathetic toward the points you're trying to make-- if anything, those same points have affected my own behavior in personal and professional interactions for years (and continue to do so).

But can you agree that, as has been already pointed out, that there are both present flaws and possible improvements toward determining the probabilities of a rape having occurred? I suppose I could continue to press the point that, in a realistic scenario based on real-world occurrence(s), two people are not likely to give equally credible accounts in most cases? Far more often the event is tinged by completely different impressions and series of assumptions on both sides that color what each individual did and how they reacted, both at the time and afterward. What makes the most common occurrences of rape difficult to convict-- and essentially makes it more complicated than simply one person's word against another-- is that people behave and react according to their separate assumptions and impressions, and that two people in the same situation might have very different and even opposing views despite all of the same external (or physical) evidences.

This sort of phenomenon is a problem in more than just cases of rape, by the way. The phenomenon is practically the same as the one that affects the accuracy of eyewitness accounts: something that was at one time considered an assurance of accuracy or a mark of verifiability within a case, but over recent decades has been found increasingly to be more colored by the personal state of the eyewitness than historical precedent had previously acknowledged (in law). In the context of rape cases (as well as eyewitness accounts), the presence of social and cultural views in the person involved-- whether it's an observer, a perpetrator (of rape), or a victim (of rape or some other crimes)-- affects the perception, the action, and the reaction of the people involved. There is a science to it, but it's a softer, more heuristic one, made more difficult to draw out in places where there are multiplicities of cultural, social, and even ethnic (or religious) mores and norms affecting the attitudes of all involved. This very naturally complicates the process of divining "what really happened" in cases of rape, and it goes well beyond the simplicity of two people giving what might initially appear to be two credible (but opposing) points of view on what happened. This is the type of study that has seen a large increase for those involved in the criminal justice field, because figuring out where the legal lines that might be crossed in a situation-- especially in situations where rape is alleged-- requires an accounting of all these factors and more before an accurate depiction of what actually occurred (instead of what each party believes occurred) can be had.

The myth (or the stereotype) isn't that women lie regarding circumstances about a possible rape (and I think you already agree). It's that people have a built-in mechanisms for confirmation biases and cognitive dissonance and that these mechanisms affect both women and men. We (society as a whole) are learning more about those mechanisms and how to be aware of these mechanisms are working, and the more we learn the more we find that gray areas exist within the context of our laws. Call it intuition or fear or pessimism or whatever, but these gray areas and the repercussions of those gray areas are what cause a majority of rapes to go unreported (both by women and men), as well as leaving open the possibility for false positives to occur. That doesn't mean the whole process (of convicting rape offenders) is arbitrary, though, and it doesn't mean that the laws against rape (or law enforcement and prosecution thereof) are useless to those who aren't raped by a stranger in a dark alley or some other similar situation where very obvious physical evidence is likely to be found. It means instead that it's more difficult, more complicated, and requires more understanding and education to law enforcement, to criminal courts, and to the public in general regarding the gray areas in the first place and where the proximity of these lines-- the lines in law where an activity crosses into criminal behavior-- actually lie.

I don't think we can lay out specifically where all those lines are, though, and I kind of get the impression that you're inquiring as to the possibility of such a thing. I don't think it's possible, at least to the degree where it could be considered black-and-white in every instance. To me-- and, I might add, to the subject itself in criminal justice as far as I'm aware (as a private citizen who sometimes studies some CJ material for other reasons)-- context really is key in determining where the situational lines might be, at which point it's then up to a courtroom to decide whether it's been crossed. The unfortunate problem is that a few of the less-than-respectable views expressed in some threads here on the subject still have some prevalence in the public mindset, which adds even more complication to the matter and muddies the figurative waters even more. Whether it's the presence of double-standard, dismissive, or simply reprehensible thinking that rears its head, the reality is that those sorts of thinking do exist and do lend themselves to making already imperfect processes even more difficult and potentially painful for people involved, and further blurring the lines which we might try to determine whether they've been crossed. It's a problem because those difficulties are a given-- consider any sampling of this forum as an example jury, if you like, and you can see that it's very often a given regardless of the presence of critical thinking or intelligence in other areas or subjects. So how else could we (or our law enforcement) follow through on cases of rape but to consider all of these external and internal contextual factors that go into such an event? Could it really be considered equitable or fair if we (or our law enforcement) simply looked at all else being equal and considered only the credibility of accounts?

 

[gumboot]

I wasn't going to post on this thread, for various reasons, but I feel after reading the initial exchange between PhantomWolf and Fiona, that I should.

Since joining this forum I have learned quite a lot about foreign societies, and the thing that has struck me the most is how thoroughly different these various western nations is. A lot of the conflict and disagreement on these forums seems to stem from people arguing from the position of their own societies, and blindly assuming it's the same everywhere.

PhantomWolf is a New Zealander, and much of what he is saying about society attitudes rings true with me. Much of what the others are saying does not.

I think this is a social difference. It doesn't surprise me at all. New Zealand is probably one of the most socially advanced nations in the world. In a time when slavery was still legal in the US, we refused to join the Australian Federation because it would have meant taking the vote away from Maori. We were the first nation in the world to give women the vote. We are one of the first nations in the world to give homosexual relationships identical legal status to married couples.

New Zealand also has a phenomenal track record of success with public education campaigns to address problems. This is probably due partially to our small population. Examples include the campaign to get cyclists wearing helmets, and the anti cot-death campaign to get parents to lie babies on their back. Both of these campaigns had substantial results within a few years in preventing incidents, and compliance skyrocketed.

The relevance here is that in the last few years New Zealand has had a thorough and pervasive campaign addressing violence against women. I say violence against women, not domestic violence, because the campaign has been specifically targeted at female victims and male perpetrators. Like other campaigns, this has had an enormous impact on society - in the last calendar year reported incidents of domestic violence increased over 30%, and the increase is believe to be entirely a result of increased reporting, not increase incidents.

Keep all of that in mind when discussing these topics. It may well be that New Zealand is in a very different place, socially, to your own nation.

Now I don't want to address much of the issues that have been raised here. I've said all I want to say in the other threads, and I think my views on violence, sexual assault, and false reporting, are pretty clear.

What I want to do is address a question in the OP as to whether males have changed their behaviour due to perceptions on this issue.

I can say, unequivocally, that the answer is a big yes.

In my society, as a young male, the spectre of being falsely accused of a sexual crime looms heavy over my head. I am distinctly aware that any woman has enormous power over me because, almost without exception, she will be believed.

When I was back in high school, there was a guy in my year who have a rape allegation laid against him by a girl who went to a different school. I wasn't friends with this guy, but as happens in a school, word spread quickly, and what occurred really surprised me. This guy naturally claimed it was consensual - his version of events was the girl's father found out about the incident and she cried rape so he wasn't upset that his 16 year old was having sex.

Before any details came out, everyone in the school assumed he was a rapist - including even his quite close friends. He was completely ostracised by the school. To this day, ten years later, if his name comes up, my friends will refer to him as "the rapist".

Maybe he was a rapist. We'll never know because the charges were dropped, and neither me nor any of my friends really knew the guy, and none of us have ever even met the girl. But even at that young age, when social responsibility hasn't kicked in, the assumption was that the girl was right and the guy was wrong.

A rape accusation is a very real weapon in my society because the crime carries such a dark connotation (much worse than murder) and because it is almost always believed simply on the word of the accuser. A conviction, and even a trial, is unnecessary, because once the accusation is made you'll be condemned for the rest of your life - even by your own friends. And there is a shocking double standard here, when it comes to gender and sexual behaviour.

A few years ago, two of our friends were together, and the guy cheated on the girl with someone else. Myself and my friends were outraged, understandably, and that guy was essentially kicked out of our social circle - I haven't seen him since. Earlier this year, a similar incident happened with two other friends. The only difference were that this time the couple had a young baby, and it was the woman that did the cheating. No outrage has followed. In fact, most of my friends encouraged the guy to get back with the woman, despite the fact that he made it clear he felt betrayed and sick, and wasn't interested.

When one of us raised the fact that they weren't happy with everyone remaining friends with this cheating woman, they were told "she's still our friend, so deal with it".

Now, obviously cheating on someone is not a crime, but it's considered "wrong" behaviour, and the example illustrates how differently attitudes are towards female victims and male perpetrators as opposed to male victims and female perpetrators.

So how does the spectre of this affect my behaviour? I won't be proactive or forceful in any relations with a female, no matter what. The risk is so great if I get anything wrong, I won't move an inch unless I get very clear signals. The problem with this is of course that signals in the dating game are usually as clear as mud, so I just never make a move. Further, if anything could be seen to be affecting the girl's judgment, even clear signals would be ignored. She's been drinking (even just a little)? Maybe she doesn't mean it. She's upset about something? Maybe she doesn't mean it. Once you remove incidents with alcohol and incidents with extreme emotion, there aren't many other opportunities left for a young guy to make a romantic connection with a young girl. I have never asked a girl out. Ever. For twenty years of my life I was single and alone because of this.

Even now, in a serious long-term relationship, our intimacy suffers at times because I am always mindful of not making the first move. Even though my girlfriend will explicitly tell me she likes it when I'm more forceful - that it turns her on - I can't do it, because as soon as I start to go to that place I wonder if I'm being a rapist. I doubt any women here can even begin to understand how that feels, and perhaps most of the guys can't either. It's awful. It's horrible, soul destroying, and even just talking about it makes me exceedingly uncomfortable.

As I write this, I'm already imagining the scornful, mocking, insulting or disbelieving responses I except to receive, and all I want to do is close the window and post nothing. But if even one other guy feels how I do and is too embarrassed or uncomfortable to admit it, this post is worth it.

Society has so thoroughly hammered it into my head that men are, by default, out of control, violent, raping pigs, that I even sometimes begin to believe it about myself, despite knowing I'm the very antithesis of that description.

So yes, it does affect the way males live their lives.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

New Zealand is probably one of the most socially advanced nations in the world.

<snip>

Society has so thoroughly hammered it into my head that men are, by default, out of control, violent, raping pigs, that I even sometimes begin to believe it about myself, despite knowing I'm the very antithesis of that description.

<snip>

Sounds like it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yeah, we've all seen "Flight of the Conchords". You're years ahead of the rest of us.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

But can you agree that, as has been already pointed out, that there are both present flaws and possible improvements toward determining the probabilities of a rape having occurred?

Yes.

I suppose I could continue to press the point that, in a realistic scenario based on real-world occurrence(s), two people are not likely to give equally credible accounts in most cases?

I agree, and I think I suggested as much:

Perhaps in the real world the scenario I described above does not occur very often and there is usually some additional evidence to back up one person's account of events more than the other person's account, or one account is less plausible or consistent than the other.

So how else could we (or our law enforcement) follow through on cases of rape but to consider all of these external and internal contextual factors that go into such an event?

Did I suggest we should not? Or perhaps you are suggesting applying subjective weightings to the evidence to support a preferred conclusion? Isn’t that what we’re trying to get away from?

Could it really be considered equitable or fair if we (or our law enforcement) simply looked at all else being equal and considered only the credibility of accounts?

Well I wouldn’t use the word ‘fair’, but if all there is are the accounts of the woman and the man, what else can be consistently included in rape trials to make them more fair?

 

[Fiona]

Gumboot: I am not suggesting that there are not cultural differences but I honestly do not think that New Zealand is streets ahead of everybody else in relation to attitudes to rape. Certainly these links do not suggest it is, and the last link is quite recent research particularly into the attitudes of the police there. I have been hunting about and I do see a lot of men's groups based in your country and making quite sensationalist statements (some of which you have linked before) about how far things have got out of kilter: but you still have not given me the attrition figures for New Zealand which I asked for. Your government's statistics show that reports of rape are amongst the highest in the western world in New Zealand: perhaps this is an artefact of liberal policy: or perhaps it is not. Do you have evidence on this?

As to your own experience, it seems to me that you are also a victim of mythology and that it, too, is overblown. The papers I have read do not suggest that false allegations are more prevalent where you are: and so your fear of it seems to be unwarranted. It is the impact of these false perceptions on all of us that this thread is about: we will get along better if we stop blaming each other for things which do not actually reflect the real world. Do you not think?



http://www.awc.org.nz/userfiles/16_1173149809.pdf

http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/Interstats/rape.htm

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA83,M1

http://ludditejourno.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/false-rape-allegations-and-the-media/

http://crj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/29

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:...1+(2004),+pp.+29-59.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=uk

 

[Elizabeth I]

...It shames me.

Fiona, I just want to say, please don't feel shamed. You are not the one who should be ashamed. You are not the one who abused generously offered hospitality or assaulted a relative stranger.

People often forget that instead of two - fight or flight - the phrase should actually contain three words - fight, flight or freeze. Freezing and remaining motionless can be a survival instinct. I wonder sometimes if, in a dangerous situation, our minds don't settle on one of those possibilities almost at random.

I admire your ability to talk about it.

 

[Travis]

Even if it is rare, false accusations suck. I've recounted before on here how my little brother was put on trial for murder even though the arresting officer and prosecuting attorney knew he was innocent. I've also brought up how, recently, my neighbor falsely accused me of sleeping with his wife. But let's suppose it was the wife accusing me of rape despite the fact that I've never done more than talk to her? That would be one of heck of thing for me to get out of. A pretty housewife like her accusing an unattractive single man like me would be an open and shut case in terms of a jury believing her and disbelieving me regardless of evidence. Furthermore if we are required to get convictions in 97% of all cases then who's to say that I--someone who is ironically actually still a virgin--wouldn't be one of the 97%?

I'm not saying anyone here is actually proposing that we mandate a conviction rate but I have heard it talked about in the past. I find that road to be incredibly dangerous to liberty especially with my own history of dealing with false accusations.

 

[gtc]

As to your own experience, it seems to me that you are also a victim of mythology and that it, too, is overblown. The papers I have read do not suggest that false allegations are more prevalent where you are: and so your fear of it seems to be unwarranted. It is the impact of these false perceptions on all of us that this thread is about: we will get along better if we stop blaming each other for things which do not actually reflect the real world. Do you not think?

I don't think he his blaming you personally or women in general for his fear of false accusation of rape and yet the bit I bolded seems to suggest you feel this way. Why does his views affect you so?

It is a real fear and while it doesn't happen as often as people fear it does happen. And as gumboot has written, an allegation doesn't have to go to court for it to affect the accused's reputation for ever.

And an allegation doesn't have to be about rape to affect someone. An accusation of sexual harrasment or physical abuse could be nearly as damaging. This fear is very well founded; teachers (male and female) are very susceptible to these sorts of allegations. This is broader than the topic under discussion but I think the fear is broader than just rape.

 

[Shadowdweller]

While I realize that it is nothing more than anecdote, I have to say that my experience here in the states (specifically, Oregon) more closely resembles Francesca's assertion that (non-trauma related) fear of rape seems to affect females more than males. Neither I, any of my male friends, nor any male I've even ever heard of in the locale has ever evinced any reluctance about walking around the city at the most depopulated morning hours. On the other hand, I've heard numerous females express fear of walking alone at night specifically because of such crime. Furthermore, there is evidence of political action taken by womens' group targeting that fear. On several Oregon campuses there exist organizations devoted to giving rides to females late at night for that reason. There are no male counterparts, to my knowledge. Many anti-rape political movements seem to be composed of women and focused against assault of women. One such group I've seen demonstrating in the area is Take Back The Night.

One would think that if males were equally afraid (once again, fear NOT resulting from personal trauma) of rape that there would be a greater male participation in such groups.

 

[GreNME]

I suppose I could continue to press the point that, in a realistic scenario based on real-world occurrence(s), two people are not likely to give equally credible accounts in most cases?

I agree, and I think I suggested as much:

Perhaps in the real world the scenario I described above does not occur very often and there is usually some additional evidence to back up one person's account of events more than the other person's account, or one account is less plausible or consistent than the other.

I think you suggested the plausibility of it. I'm saying that it's not only plausible but more likely. In fact, I'm saying it's not only more likely but prevalent. The main reason I'm saying as much is because of the phenomenon I described with people allowing confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to color their 'version' of events until the situation is examined closely. In larger metropolitan areas there are whole divisions of law enforcement (in the US) specialized in approaching these types of alleged crimes and investigate them. Every year there are new seminars ^{[ex. 1, ex. 2]} and study materials ^{[ex. 1, ex. 2, ex. 3, ex. 4]} on the subject for law enforcement and related federal, state, or local positions (like medical examiners and hospital staff, the latter of which is more private-sector). One of the reasons so much new material continues to be presented (and collected ^{ex. 1, ex. 2]}) for law enforcement on the subject is because so many of the cases involve stories of varying verifiability, varying context, and various circumstances. The chances of cases with equal plausibility are about as low as open-and-shut cases, which are indeed very rare as far as law enforcement is concerned. If you like I can also pull some statistics straight from the US DoJ on rape prosecutions and convictions, but mostly what you're going to find is that rape is often perpetrated by acquaintances and that the line that was crossed is that the sex occurred without consent-- as far as the alleged plausibility or credibility of the accounts given by each side in each case would require deeper study and, I posit, a little bit of subjectivity on our parts anyway, hence my offering the numbers of prosecutions and convictions instead that have gone through criminal courts.

So how else could we (or our law enforcement) follow through on cases of rape but to consider all of these external and internal contextual factors that go into such an event?

Did I suggest we should not? Or perhaps you are suggesting applying subjective weightings to the evidence to support a preferred conclusion? Isn’t that what we’re trying to get away from?

I absolutely don't mean to suggest you don't want that. I'm suggesting that the very reason it isn't as simple as taking both accounts and trying to weigh the credibility of each alone is because of those other factors. Please check out the links if/when you have time, as a lot of it is publicly accessible. Trying to treat each case as existing in a vacuum has more possibility of subjectivity getting in the way as opposed to taking into account as many factors involved as possible, wouldn't you agree?

Could it really be considered equitable or fair if we (or our law enforcement) simply looked at all else being equal and considered only the credibility of accounts?

Well I wouldn’t use the word ‘fair’, but if all there is are the accounts of the woman and the man, what else can be consistently included in rape trials to make them more fair?

You're presenting an unrepresentative hypothetical, and that's what I'm continually trying to tell you. Please read some of the links I've given above or check out some of the links provided by others (or search on your own), and you'll see that "he said versus she said" is not representative of most criminal cases that are recorded on the subject. What I'm saying is that the scenario you keep coming back to is unrepresentative of most rape cases, and is more similar to a mystery/crime fiction or television/movie plot. More often than not, rape investigations are uncomfortable, degrading (for both parties, more the victim), embarrassing, painful, and complicated. I don't mean to be rudely insistent, but the scenario you keep coming back to just doesn't fit in with the reality of studies of rape or sexual abuse criminal studies. I don't know how else to explain that than to ask you-- if you aren't willing to take the descriptions and explanations I give-- to look at the scholarly materials that are out there for yourself.

 

[Fiona]

I don't think he his blaming you personally or women in general for his fear of false accusation of rape and yet the bit I bolded seems to suggest you feel this way. Why does his views affect you so?

Well if I have misinterpreted I am more than happy to apologise. I was reacting to the whole body of gumboots posts on this issue so far: but I may have focussed too much on the way he expressed himself: for example

I am distinctly aware that any woman has enormous power over me because, almost without exception, she will be believed.

That is just not true: the attrition rates prove it is not true. While I don't have those figures for NZ, gumboot has not provided them to show me that it is different there. The links I have provided seem to show that attitudes about women and rape are not much different in NZ so far as the justice system is concerned: and since the police and the courts are part of the wider society I have no reason to suppose that their views do not reflect their culture. As I have hunted about it has seemed to me that there is an enormous effort in that country to present false allegation as very prevalent. The media polarise this issue and those groups are a very loud voice. Just like women, men are very affected by the prevailing focus within the media and this is what I see in gumboot's posts.

A rape accusation is a very real weapon in my society

If this is not an indication of a polarised view then what am I to make of it? I do not charge that gumboot chose his words very deliberately; but in fact it is this kind of statement which leads me to the view that he is blaming women very strongly. What else can it mean?

It is a real fear and while it doesn't happen as often as people fear it does happen. And as gumboot has written, an allegation doesn't have to go to court for it to affect the accused's reputation for ever.

That is true and I do not deny it at all: I hope that has been clear throughout. However it is also true of an accusation of murder or other crimes, sometimes: and not always, in any type of case. why do you think sexual assault is different?

And an allegation doesn't have to be about rape to affect someone. An accusation of sexual harrasment or physical abuse could be nearly as damaging. This fear is very well founded; teachers (male and female) are very susceptible to these sorts of allegations. This is broader than the topic under discussion but I think the fear is broader than just rape.

This is certainly true: a false allegation of any sort is horrific and can have long lasting effects on anyone's life. So why the focus on the false allegation of rape?

I want to reiterate: I am aware of the depth of this fear, and it is damaging to us all in different ways. It happens: it does not happen any more than with other crimes and yet the risk of false accusation of other crimes does not limit people in the same way. There are a lot of vested interests in fostering fear and polarisation: it sells newspapers; it furthers political agendas only tangentially related to it; it divides and it rules. It does us no good at all. We need to try to understand what really happens and if we are to be fearful we need to be fearful of a real threat, and proportionately. And if we can do that then we can try to address real problems and maybe find better ways to deal with them.

 

[Francesca R]

You are correct to say that we cannot speak of the "typical" person with much confidence.

I do beg to differ. When I say "typical" man or woman I mean to speak of the genuine risks and fears impacting a society as a whole. I think that is what is the most relevant to our appreciation of the subject, and our assessment and/or recommendations in respect of public policy, or social norms.

I don't want to get sidetracked by what 'typical' people do. What I want is to talk about the people who are victimized by assault, fear of assault, false accusation, and fear of false accusation.

This is a strange comment--You don't want general findings to get in the way of specific ones?