Not rhetorical questions.
Obviously no one here thinks that nothing can be done to increase then number of valid rape convictions. The argument comes down to what should be done. Just assuming a man is guilty, while possibly backed by statistics, is a terrible idea, but I don't think anyone is actually arguing for that.
However, is that really the point of this thread?
Well threads move on from the OP and so it is very difficult to say at this stage what the point of this one is now.
My purpose at the beginning was to try to sort out myth from reality in the hope that we would understand each other better: and perhaps be able to discuss this without the anger and distrust I saw in other threads. It was never going to be easy. So where are we now?
Just from my own perspective. At the outset the two biggest myths which I could identify were: the "real rape template" and the "false allegation". These seemed to me to be the two things which underpin a lot of the misunderstandings; and it is these which limit our freedoms. They come from our history and, as Soapy implied, the whole area is fraught because society is in transition and our behaviour has changed but our perceptions have not changed so much.
When I said they are myths, this does not in any way imply that there is not violent stranger rape and there is no false allegation. Both exist. What makes them myth is the fact that they are treated as if they are very common and they are are largely unexamined, at least in popular culture. It is my view that we teach our children these simplistic "facts" and that it damages every one of us. And it does not allow them to negotiate the world we live in. Both are a risk: but people are not very good at assessing risk at the best of times: and in this area the things we are taught, and which are reinforced through the confirmation bias in the media, make us shockingly bad at it.
There is a difference between "hazard" and "risk". Risk is about the likelihood of an event: hazard is about the size of the consequences should the event occur. I think we need to acknowledge that distinction if we are to get any further forward
For those myths I identified at the start: the risk of "stranger rape" (the "real rape template") is quite low. The problem is, as I said, that it is low partly because of the major steps women take to minimise it: the steps which deny them full use of public space and which form a background to decision making in many situations. It is impossible to assess what that risk would be like if those constraints were not present because they are pretty much universal and they are seen as "normal behaviour" and taken for granted most of the time. And the reason for that is that the "hazard" is enormous. Just this week we have reports in this country of our very own home grown serial killer: the papers are awash with this man's crimes and the front pages of the tabloids read "MONSTER". In the context of our background fear this kind of reporting is overblown: he is by any standard a "monster" but he is also a very rare creature: yet his name is in my head and will never go away. Along with the names of others like him: all of whom are serial sexual killers. You know their names too. I also know the name of at least one who killed men for similar reasons. His crimes were not especially different.And it was in the context of homosexuality. But I only know one. Perhaps I do not pay attention to others because their malice is not directed to women: but if that is the case then perhaps the men here don't either; perhaps the fact that the most famous of such people kill women or gays means it is news and interesting but not personal and "real" in the same way? Perhaps men do not think of those people when they are out and about? I suggest that most men's fears of public space are real (some guy in the pub might stab them: or they might be the victim of robbery with violence? Those are real risks and they are big hazards too) precautions you might take are sensible and warranted, but they are proportionate: they don't stop you from going out at night, for example. And that is a real difference in life experience, as Shadowdweller said. I do not say that the fear of such crime does not modify men's behaviour: but I do say that they do not have such a crippling impact: or at least that is my impression.
Women are in fact much more at risk of rape from people they know. One of the major changes in the public discourse over the last 50 years or so is the acknowledgement of that: I imagine it is not comfortable for men to hear that. It means that rapists are "us" and not a different kind of person we can distance ourselves from. As I said, when women brought this into the public arena we used phrases like "all men are potential rapists". This has made some men react very negatively, but as I said, it is not meant as I think at least some have heard it: we were talking to ourselves as well as to society: and it was part of the exploration of our own behaviour and the limits placed upon us by what Soapy called "19th century morality". But it does not mean all men are opportunistic rapists: and if that is what you hear then I can only apologise because it has never been what is meant. I cannot ignore the fact that at least some people here are in fact like that: and are clearly completely unaware of what is wrong with that type of behaviour. But it is not the majority. Our expectations of the limits of acceptable behaviour have changed radically as women have sought more freedom for a variety of reasons: but this is new and we have no certainties any more. This is not surprising: for a very long time society made arrangements which served to severely constrain women; and this was done in the name of "protection": obviously that would not have been accepted if women had not been persuaded to believe that all men were dangerous: we have had a very short time to change that perception and it is still very strong in our background thinking: or so I believe.
Now, I think that the discourse tends to suggest that all of the problems are over: that men and women have achieved equality and that we need not think about this any more. Some men do seem to believe this strongly and react very severely against what they see as unfairness in many areas: this has been touched on in another thread (about why a woman would be a feminist) and I have had conversations about "positive discrimination", amongst other things, which show that this sense of disadvantage goes far beyond the area of sexuality. (Much of that discussion is also based on myth:for another thread, perhaps) But the sense of grievance is strong and rather incoherent, at least as I have heard it talked about: and so it is in this thread.
Both men and women are apt to think that we have made a great deal of progress: and indeed I think we have. But not as much as we like to think. Some of the problems in communication here is that the issue skips about between different levels of discourse: and so I see confusion, where men who have been abused feel that their particular experience is devalued when we talk about rape as primarily a problem for women: I say again that I do not dismiss the experience of those individual men; nor do I think the crime is less serious or anything like that. But I was talking about the impact of myth: and nothing I have seen here tells me that men are truly afraid of this crime in the way that women are. That is where I started and if I should have learned differently from this thread then I am sorry to say I have not been able to hear what I have been told: I just don't see that fear. And it still seems to me to be changing the subject when it is presented as a real factor in men's behaviour: because I don't believe it is. Sorry
The fear of false allegation is real for men: I do see that and I say again I have had to work hard to understand this. It is perhaps not surprising, given what I have said, that it was not obvious to me that men limit their behaviour because of this fear: but many here say that they do. I take it that those men would not have come to my home: some have said that at least some men will not be alone with a woman because of this fear: since it is unlikely they would give that as a reason I am perhaps to be forgiven for missing this. And obviously it is not like that for many of the men here either. But it is a real fear and I think it is a myth in exactly the same way. The risk is small: but the hazard is great.
When we talk about the legal situation and present some research, the purpose is not to deny that false allegation happens: but, as with stranger rape, the idea is to show that this risk is small and that limiting our freedom on the basis of it is not good for anyone.
I think we cannot make progress while these facts are unable to be agreed. So long as we think of each other in these mythological ways we cannot begin to develop better communication and better understanding, which will allow us to maximise our freedom while keeping ourselves safe. It is no earthly good if I go about afraid of rape from every man I meet, on the basis of some underlying notion of their sexuality which my reason rejects: and it is no use either if men go around in fear of women accusing them because at some unconscious level they think we are all liars. We all know that neither of these is true. Don't we? But the myths go very deep and the hazards are great: and so I find that we defend this nonsense in quite acrimonious style at times: to the detriment of us all. It is not easy to give up our unexamined fears: they seem like knowledge because we started to develop them before we had langauge: or so I believe.
Soapy is absolutely correct in saying that earlier generations dealt with these problem in quite radical ways: and I asked someone earlier if that is what we want to go back to. We would all be safe if we had chaperones all the time: or if we were not allowed to meet socially, as is the case in some cultures now. Historically that has meant no freedom for women at all: but now I suggest that men, who are so fearful and so at risk, would have to accept the concomitant: those constraints would have to apply to them too if they are really serious. So you, gentlemen, will have to deny yourselves the night: will have to be chaperoned as much as me. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But it is what follows if we are to have any fairness in this terribly frightening world. Do you want that? Do you even want the earlier situation where only women lost those freedoms directly: but where you could only interact with us in public till your "honourable intentions" were made good? I don't. I want us to get through this confusing transition to a better place. And I think it can be done: with pain and mistakes along the way but with a great prize for all of us in view.
I do not know how we can organise social expectations to achieve the world I would like to see: that is what we need to discuss once we have made some progress in separating myth from reality. We have apparently thrown out some good rules in ditching some of the old mores: and we need to be open to that too. But I honestly do not think this is utopian: I do not think we need to say "oh it is hopeless: lets go back to what we used to know". And I do not think men and women are so very different: though we are very strongly influenced by our upbringing and it leads to many misunderstandings, as others have said.
Without reason, might I add -- you have no idea what the hell kind of "agenda" I could possibly have.
Rodney King" out of my head for hours.