Politics and rape

dr_manhattan · 30-12-2007 2:03pm #1

Hi there - cheerful topic I know, but basically johnnyskeleton suggested a new thread to discuss it so here we go...

"I'll gladly thrash this out in another thread if you like, but I believe it is very dangerous to politicise rape trials, and even more dangerous to make it a gender issue."

Rape, imho, is both political and a gender (depending on the gender of the victim and assailant) issue: otherwise you are conducting a dual absurdity:

1. you are telling male and femal victims of sexual terror that what happened to them is not because of their gender....? Nor indeed was their susequent treatment gender biased either (i've never heard of a male rape triasl where the victim's behaviour and choice of clothing was discussed, for example)

2. You are - while asking someone how they acted, dressed and drank before they were victimised - impinging on very basic human rights to behave as you care to, yet insisting that this "isn't politics"?

With the sheer *amount* of women who are raped every year - and men, too, seeing as you seem concerned with the 'gender issue' - how can it not be political? How can an issue that *directly* affects the entire population, that causes so much misery and is based on such specific ideas, not be political? And why is it "dangerous" to make it so?

"A criminal trial is the best means we have of finding the truth, and I think the system we have at the moment is very fair."

You think that chap flicking the cigarette at the woman he'd just raped and gotten a suspended sentence for raping is fair? You think this is an isolated incident, that seriously traumatised women and men aren't forced to share space with often cruel and psychologically torturing rapists all the time?

Look at the conviction rates. Look at the fact that if a woman gets drunk and is showing skin, she's got precious little chance of defending herself successfully against the insidious idea that she was asking to be raped?

"If you extend the logic that it is a womens' rights issue to its logical conclusion, every person acquitted of rape is a failure to vindicate those rights and not a true finding of fact by the jury"

No that's absolutely perverse to me: what you are saying is like saying that by acknowledging the fact that the IRA was a political organisation, it downgraded their murders to purely political acts and meant the process of trying terrorists became a civil rights issue... it did not. IRA bombers were tried for murder, not "rights infringement".

Rape is a civil rights issue, yes: not "womens' rights" unless it's a woman being raped. It is absolutely imperative, IMHO, in order for there to be *true* gender equality, that it is treated as such.

To declare that rape is an "individual, abhorrent act" and is outside of a political or civil rights context is to say that *all* acts of politicised violence designed to infringe peoples' civil rights: such as cross burning, carbombing, churchbombing, and physical assault are also just "individual, abhorrent acts" and are not civil rights questions but issues for the court.

When the courts are run by aging patriarch's of seriously questionable ethics who hand out suspended sentences for horrific assault, then the civil rights issue becomes polarised and quite evident: are you seriously going to say that the suspended sentences - which mean your victim has to see your grinning mug every day, walking free - are not an issue of civil rights and safety for victims, male or female?

And please - if Treora or anyone else wants to discuss the truth behind Rohypnol or supposed date rapes... that's a separate issue, start your own thread.

Nevyn · 30-12-2007 3:34pm

Saying that rape is a gender issue is such a cop out.

It's denying that men get raped and that fathers, husbands, sons, partners, boyfriends, brothers, cousins, friends and collegues ( who happen to be male ) are not effected by the rape of a person who they care for or come to care for.

I think that this is an issue that effect both genders and sexual consent or lack should always be made clear between to people.

http://www.lacaaw.org/notinvitation.html

Orion · 30-12-2007 4:40pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Rape, imho, is both political and a gender (depending on the gender of the victim and assailant) issue: otherwise you are conducting a dual absurdity:

I have no idea even after reading your post how you make rape political so I won't answer that part.

Regarding gender - it's not about that either. Assuming it's a gender issue implies that rape is about sex - it's not. It's about power. Men are raped by men and women. Women are raped by men and women. The fact that the majority of rapes are committed by men against women (no reference - just an assumption that I believe to be true) does not make it a gender issue. Ask any rape counsellor - it is a power trip - sex is just the weapon used.

dr_manhattan · 30-12-2007 5:24pm

"Saying that rape is a gender issue is such a cop out."

A cop out of what exactly?

I was seriously sexually assaulted when I was a child. Is that assault separate from the fact that I'm a man?

Everything about the act itself was predetermined by my gender: yet you are saying it wasn't a gender issue?

Male rape, IMHO, is a male issue. Female rape is a female issue. Thus rape is an issue of gender, because it is separated by gender.

"It's denying that men get raped and that fathers, husbands, sons, partners, boyfriends, brothers, cousins, friends"

No it certainly is not: it is, however, separating two very different crimes from each other. Just like male domestic abuse, male rape is a separate and distinct crime which uses a whole different set of social tools as weapons.

However they share factors: and imho, my ability to know that if someone tries to rape me again, i can prosecute them and know i'll win, is a matter of my civil rights to the same protection under law asw everyone else.

Therefore it is a political issue, and a gender issue. There is no point in me joining a support group for female sexual assault survivors, because our *genders* mean our needs are different.

Thus, in a way I could say that *not* treating rape as a gender issue is a "cop out" of dealing with the real harm done by the crime.

"and collegues ( who happen to be male ) are not effected by the rape of a person who they care for or come to care for."

Okay now that's just way off piste: here's an example -

I have done work for certain gender based support groups that will not - as a man - have me at their meetings. This does not mean they are saying I don't or cannot care about their pain, this means that - under the circumstances of really traumatised women who need to feel safe, and the expediencies of limited resources and overwhelming problems - my presence is a potential problem to their goals.

In short, I don't see that as an issue. I am not being marginalised I am simply not helpful at certain stages.

And if you cannot see why gender becomes a *massive* issue for therapy then... well i'm surprised as you seem to have compassion and common sense.

As for Macros42:

"I have no idea even after reading your post how you make rape political so I won't answer that part."

what parts don't you understand?

Nevyn · 31-12-2007 3:00pm

Please learn to use the [noparse]

X wrote:

blah

[/noparse] tags your posts are very hard to understand other wise.

dr_manhattan · 31-12-2007 3:12pm

"Please learn to use the

X wrote:

blah

tags your posts are very hard to understand other wise."

It's simple:

The stuff other people say is in quotes, the stuff I say isn't. You seem to have managed to understand the first post...?

There are 4 quotes in my last post. They are in quotes. If that's a problem I apologise but I am typing one handed and I am just not going to use tags, they're messy and annoying.

Should I now complain about the 8 anti rape images you posted in your post with on explanation or validation? I could be on dialup, y'know...

don't be so prissy: post back or don't.

Nevyn · 31-12-2007 3:22pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

The stuff other people say is in quotes, the stuff I say isn't. You seem to have managed to understand the first post...?

There are 4 quotes in my last post. They are in quotes. If that's a problem I apologise but I am typing one handed and I am just not going to use tags, they're messy and annoying.

You have not atributed them to who said them which is bad forum.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Should I now complain about the 8 anti rape images you posted in your post with on explanation or validation? I could be on dialup, y'know...

And ? so what if you are if that is the case then use the option to turn of sigs and pictures in your cp and go whine on the Ireland off line forum.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

don't be so prissy: post back or don't.

I was civil, you are not, post reported for personal abuse.

dr_manhattan · 31-12-2007 3:26pm

"I was civil, you are not, post reported for personal abuse."

thanks for your input.

zenith · 31-12-2007 3:49pm

If that's personal abuse, it's certainly on the milder end of the scale. Warning to dr_manhattan, no ban.

Let's try to contribute to the sum total of human knowledge through, well, reasoned discourse, eh, everybody?

WindSock · 31-12-2007 4:30pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

There are 4 quotes in my last post. They are in quotes. If that's a problem I apologise but I am typing one handed and I am just not going to use tags, they're messy and annoying.

Sorry for keeping it off topic, I was actually going to PM you, but seeing as it's already bought up...

I do enjoy reading what you have to say dr_manhattan, but I agree with Thaedydal on this one. It makes it harder for me to follow what you are saying when it's not quoted in a box.
I would imagine it is harder to type ", than [] with one hand as you need the shift for the ". It's easier again for you (and us) to use the multi-quote system too.
Just my 2 cents worth. Not a dig, just a suggestion

dr_manhattan · 31-12-2007 4:51pm

ach, just one reply then on this, a side issue:

"I would imagine it is harder to type ", than [] with one hand as you need the shift for the " "

1. It's more about habit than anything - it takes me long enough without adding square brackets, the poster's name, etc. etc. - after all, quotes are just quotes. Type 2 of them and paste in the middle, return above and below.

2. I consider the post or quote to be the only important thing. I dislike this BB practise of tagging who said what, because imho it's about ideas not people. When I reply to someone, I am replying to what they say, not them. "bad forum" or not.

3. it's ironic that all the responses complained about are quotes from Thaedydal - and it's interesting that she has more time to make an issue with me than with what I say.

4. I've used phpbb's for years, and you guys are the first to raise it as an issue. I'm sorry but it's not gonna change in a hurry especially not with only one arm; I also work with usability on the web, and think about it: *every* news website uses simple quotes - not boxouts - to distinguish between spoken and reported word.

If people can read bbc.co.uk then they can read me.

Sorry to be an illegible prick but I've enough on my plate to be quite honest.

dr_manhattan · 31-12-2007 5:01pm

and btw - re-read this thread

I have gotten two replies which have consisted of simplistic generalisations with no back up, and since then it's been a litany of grammar pedantry and moderator issues.

Some people in here can't spell, cannot distinguish between "their" and "they're" - i choose to ignore this and debate their ideas.

The thread is about rape and politics. Please discuss either. Please qualify your opinions better than saying "that's a cop out" and "I don't understand"

Now, once again: if I am black, and the criminal justice system will not protect me from the KKK, then it is a political issue of my civil rights.

Ditto, if i am female, and the criminal justice system will not protect me from sexual assault, then it is a political issue of my civil rights.

The motivation of the KKK or a rapist is *irrelevant* to the politics.

The protection of a womans' civil rights is the issue. And that's politics.

Anyone care to discuss, or did I put a full stop in the wrong place?

WindSock · 31-12-2007 5:24pm

2. I consider the post or quote to be the only important thing. I dislike this BB practise of tagging who said what, because imho it's about ideas not people. When I reply to someone, I am replying to what they say, not them. "bad forum" or not.

I don't mind who the quote comes from, really. It's just harder for me to follow when it's in bedded in a "
and as for typos and spelling mistakes, I understand these happen, some people are dyslexic and mistakes can be made, but everyone tries to type in order to make their posts easier to read. I find it nit-picking when spelling mistakes are highlighted, As mistakes happen.

I also work with usability on the web, and think about it: *every* news website uses simple quotes - not boxouts - to distinguish between spoken and reported word.

News is different from discussion. News isn't based on other peoples opinions.

Now I'm sorry but I haven't got enough facts or experiences myself to contribute properly to the topic of this thread. I am only just letting you know about the

[/ quote] and the multi quote + thing, as I thought you may not have been aware of it.

Lemming · 31-12-2007 5:39pm

I'm curious as to how dr_manhattan can both gender-assocaite and politicise rape.

First of all, as others have already pointed out, rape is not gender-associated. Both sexes can, have, and unfortunately still can be physical victims of rape. And as others have also said it is not only the actual victims themselves who are affected by rape. Anbody who has close contact with the victim - family, friends, workmates perhaps - is affected.

Secondly - the act of rape has nothing to do with politics. It is about one thing. Power. It is a social statement made by the attacker against the victim (and society at a larger level) by saying "I can do what I want to you, when I want and you are powerless to stop me doing it".

Your commentary regarding the courts is again nothing to do with politics, and instead an issue concerning the judiciary and how out of touch many of them would appear to be with the real-world. Or perhaps a lack (or failure) of evidence gathering on the part of law-enforcement.

Orion · 31-12-2007 8:16pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

aDitto, if i am female, and the criminal justice system will not protect me from sexual assault, then it is a political issue of my civil rights.

The protection of a womans' civil rights is the issue. And that's politics.

It's still not a political issue. As Lemming has said that the justice system is judicial and apolitical.

The protection of women's civil rights is political (at least as much as it's judicial and sociological) and those protections are there in as much as they can be. Rape has been made illegal and punishable but the legislature. But it is there that the political involvement ends; albeit that they can amend those laws to increase or decrease the punishment. But nobody can protect everybody all the time. Laws and punishments are there as a deterrent but deterrents don't always work. Unless you're suggesting (and I'm not suggesting that you're suggesting) that all men are chaperoned to protect women's civil rights then how else do you envisage the political apparatus protecting them further?

I do agree that the judiciary needs to show some sort of consistency in sentencing - even a cursory glance at the home news section of the daily paper will show inconsistent sentencing for many offences including rape but that is still a judicial issue not a political one. The only way that I can see for politics to get involved is to introduce mandatory sentencing and that is not something I agree with as it removes the objectivity of the judiciary and would do little to reduce the incidence of rape based on statistics from other states that use mandatory sentencing.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

4. I've used phpbb's for years,

Welcome to vBulletin

dr_manhattan · 01-01-2008 3:57pm

I think I've made my points three times in this thread, yet nobody's addressing the argument, just reiterating "rape is not a political issue it's a judicial one"

so, one more time:

"Your commentary regarding the courts is again nothing to do with politics, and instead an issue concerning the judiciary and how out of touch many of them would appear to be with the real-world. Or perhaps a lack (or failure) of evidence gathering on the part of law-enforcement"

As it was during the Emmet Till case in Alabama during the civil rights movement.

So you are saying that the right of black people not to be assaulted by racists is not a political issue?

Cos it's exactly the same thing: racists act individually, based on their own reasons, and they attack people based on their own ideas.

"Rape has been made illegal and punishable but the legislature"

So has physical assault and intimidation: racism is just these two things.

However it is also a political issue.

So what's the difference please?

dr_manhattan · 01-01-2008 4:13pm

And to deal with the gender issue:

"First of all, as others have already pointed out, rape is not gender-associated. Both sexes can, have, and unfortunately still can be physical victims of rape."

Why is everyone constantly pointing this out to me when I've already said I've been sexually assaulted? I'm a bloke, btw.

Is there some need that I'm not clear on to remind me of the obvious?

1. Male rape is a completely different crime to female rape: it is socially, physically, and psychologically a completely different crime. To say "both sexes can be physical victims of rape" is simply smoothing over what the crime actually means to a man, and to a woiman.

2. Rape - the physical crime and the impact of the crime - is different depending on your gender. No man will be grilled in court about wearing a revealing top or giving "the wrong messages" nor will most women be "expected" to be able to fight off assailants (though sometimes they will...)

3. If rape is genderless, why shouldn't I join a woman's rape support group? Are they sexually discriminating against me?

The fact is, I sense a lot of denial in peoples' will to just keep repeating "it's not a gender issue" and "it's not a political issue" but not engage with any of the arguments.

If rape is genderless, then why are support groups sexually segregated?

If rape is genderless, then why is *every* womens' group concerned with rape, but no mens' groups that I know of except actual support agencies?

So, without repeating the above statements, I would like to know how:

1. Rape is never politics but intimidation and assault can be?

2. Rape is not about gender but your experience will be totally different if you are male than if you are female?

3. Rape is neither political nor gender based but if people hear there's been a rape 90% are gonna assume it's man-on-woman and they'll usually be correct?

So gender politics are not politics, and gender politics aren't gender, either?

The punishment meted out for rape affects civil rights, or it doesn't?

Lemming · 01-01-2008 6:16pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

I think I've made my points three times in this thread, yet nobody's addressing the argument, just reiterating "rape is not a political issue it's a judicial one"

so, one more time:

"Your commentary regarding the courts is again nothing to do with politics, and instead an issue concerning the judiciary and how out of touch many of them would appear to be with the real-world. Or perhaps a lack (or failure) of evidence gathering on the part of law-enforcement"

As it was during the Emmet Till case in Alabama during the civil rights movement.

So you are saying that the right of black people not to be assaulted by racists is not a political issue?

Cos it's exactly the same thing: racists act individually, based on their own reasons, and they attack people based on their own ideas.

"Rape has been made illegal and punishable but the legislature"

So has physical assault and intimidation: racism is just these two things.

However it is also a political issue.

So what's the difference please?

I am not familiar with the Emmet Till case so I shall not comment on it. But as to your question regarding the rights of people not to be assaulted based on racial motivations, or on physical assault, again you are not seeing the wood for the trees.

If legislation has not been passed to protect people's rights you are dealing with a political issue. But if legislation already exists (and is not being hindered by subsequently-issued directives) how can you call it a political issue? That a judge does not assign proportionate responsibility, or that a jury does not find one way or another, or that law-enforcement personnel either fail to provide sufficient evidence due to incompetence or personal bias is social (or in certain extraordinary circumstances judicial), not political.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

And to deal with the gender issue:
Why is everyone constantly pointing this out to me when I've already said I've been sexually assaulted? I'm a bloke, btw.

Is there some need that I'm not clear on to remind me of the obvious?

People keep reminding you because you seem to be missing the point. Shockingly so since you claim to have been a victim yourself.

1. Male rape is a completely different crime to female rape: it is socially, physically, and psychologically a completely different crime. To say "both sexes can be physical victims of rape" is simply smoothing over what the crime actually means to a man, and to a woiman.

Errrrr. No. Rape is rape. That you are trying to divide it into saying one is more horrifying than the other is complete and utter b*llocks. The exact means may be different (or may be not if involving penetrative intercourse), but the end-result and the driving motivate are no different.

2. Rape - the physical crime and the impact of the crime - is different depending on your gender. No man will be grilled in court about wearing a revealing top or giving "the wrong messages" nor will most women be "expected" to be able to fight off assailants (though sometimes they will...)

Hang on a second ... you are making incredibly sweeping assumptions. Circumstances will be different in every incident. But what you are referring to is not political, or distinction of rape, but defense strategies to play to people's social beliefs in trying to undermine a victim's testimony. Absolutely nothing to do with the act of rape, or politics.

3. If rape is genderless, why shouldn't I join a woman's rape support group? Are they sexually discriminating against me?

The fact is, I sense a lot of denial in peoples' will to just keep repeating "it's not a gender issue" and "it's not a political issue" but not engage with any of the arguments.

If rape is genderless, then why are support groups sexually segregated?

If rape is genderless, then why is *every* womens' group concerned with rape, but no mens' groups that I know of except actual support agencies?

You complain about segregated support groups and then want to know why there are mens groups are not so concerned about rape. First of all, either call for non-segregation or don't. Secondly, why not challenge the mens groups on that instead of trying to come up with absurd statements claiming rape is different for men and women and that it's political.

Further, to answer your well-thought-out questions ....

I would hazard a guess that the reason why the support groups for women are segregated is that a majority of rape incidences against women are probably carried out by men. And perhaps the victims do not feel comfortable around men (familiar or not, depending on circumstance) as a result. And since you have segregated women's groups, so then must a men's group be created since men may not join the women's groups.

So, without repeating the above statements, I would like to know how:

1. Rape is never politics but intimidation and assault can be?

Now you're crossing a line into a whole other argument that adds so many 'ifs and buts' that it becomes absurd to debate. To be perfectly honest, it smacks of splitting hairs to find justifications for your "rape = politics and gender" assertions.

2. Rape is not about gender but your experience will be totally different if you are male than if you are female?

Since you like getting pedantic I shall return the favour: everybody's experience of rape will be different because every individual is the same.

3. Rape is neither political nor gender based but if people hear there's been a rape 90% are gonna assume it's man-on-woman and they'll usually be correct?

Statistically speaking perhaps they might be correct. And your point is what exactly? That some poor unfortunate got raped and everyone else gets to sit back smug in the knowledge that their guess as to the gender of the attacker might be correct?

So gender politics are not politics, and gender politics aren't gender, either?

Wood. Trees. Learn to differentiate.

The punishment meted out for rape affects civil rights, or it doesn't?

Wood. Trees. Learn to differentiate.

Orion · 01-01-2008 6:18pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

The fact is, I sense a lot of denial in peoples' will to just keep repeating "it's not a gender issue" and "it's not a political issue" but not engage with any of the arguments.

I think you'll find that arguments are actually being made. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't invalidate them.

dr_manhattan · 01-01-2008 6:28pm

"Wood. Trees. Learn to differentiate."

sorry but that's a mantra, not a counter argument.

Emmet Till was just another alabama black kid murdered for whistling at a white woman during the civil rights era in the US. The fact that his trial only finally took placer LAST YEAR should draw a line under your question:

"But if legislation already exists (and is not being hindered by subsequently-issued directives) how can you call it a political issue? "

Again I ask: where people are guaranteed equal rights but NOT GIVEN THEM, how is it *not* a political issue?

I think it's you that can't see the wood for the trees:

Endlessly repeating that a written law exists does not mean anything, nor does it guarantee or even partially guarantee those rights.

And that's all you've done: underline repeatedly that these laws exist.

However when the cops don't investigate (and they don't) and the judge doesn't sentence (and he doesn't) and the whole process of reporting the rape is made a repeditive, degrading and horrendously biased process: what good is a written law?

Fact is, women get raped all the time and they are not protected. Their rights are not protected.

Less than 100 years after women got the right to vote and work as equals, this is a gender issue, a rape issue and a political issue.

And you still haven't answered: is the right of a black man to not be assaulted for being black a political issue, even when laws protect him?

Orion · 01-01-2008 6:43pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

And you still haven't answered: is the right of a black man to not be assaulted for being black a political issue, even when laws protect him?

No it's not. It's a social issue more than anything. The laws are there to protect but enforcement of them rests with the police and the judiciary. However, changing people's attitudes towards black people, women, or any other social classification you care to mention, is purely down to society itself.

dr_manhattan · 01-01-2008 6:45pm

And your points about gender are just nonsensical:

First off, I'm not "complaining" about integration in rape counselling, I'm trying to show how dumb your "genderless" point is.

I'll try again:

If rape is genderless then I must be being sexually discriminated against! Sure a man raped these women, but *I* didn't! Why am I being told that, because of my sex, I am not allowed participate?

Get what I mean? The answer is stupidly obvious:

I am not allowed in female rape support meetings, and they not in male, because rape is a gender specific crime and is completely gender specific. I am not complaining about this, I am using it to illustrate how groundless your "rape is rape" argument is.

If rape is rape, then what is "aggravated sexual assault", "forced sodomy", and "oral rape"?

"Errrrr. No. Rape is rape. That you are trying to divide it into saying one is more horrifying than the other is complete and utter b*llocks."

No, pal: the fact that you are *assuming* I am saying that says a lot about how you are approaching this. You are constructing arguments from thin air.

I said that male and female rape are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CRIMES, crimes against peoples SEX and against peoples' GENDER, which DIFFER ACCORDING TO THAT GENDER.

I did not say one was worse or better than the other: can you get that?

"Shockingly so since you claim to have been a victim yourself."

Not as shocking as you feeling able to blithely dismiss my informed opinions, based on hundreds of conversations with male and female victims, with "Errrrr. No. Rape is rape." Thanks, your sensitivity is overwhelming.

If you're going to refer to my childhood experiences, try and show some respect and don't use it as some kind of tool to browbeat me with, thanks.

Meanwhile, what do you think people spend time discussing assault in therapy for? You think it's all about a penis being stuck somewhere it isn't wanted? We spend years going "oh then he dicked me and then he beat the **** out of me?"

The physical acts of rape is minor: rape is an assault on someone's gender and their sex. Thus male rape is different to female rape, because psychologically, physically and socially MEN ARE DIFFERENT TO WOMEN.

dr_manhattan · 01-01-2008 6:48pm

"No it's not. It's a social issue more than anything. The laws are there to protect but enforcement of them rests with the police and the judiciary. However, changing people's attitudes towards black people, women, or any other social classification you care to mention, is purely down to society itself."

ROFLMAO, this is pure gold.

So it affects law enforcement, the judiciary, and the general attitudes of people in a given society.

Lobby groups campaign to change the laws, politicians raise it as an issue:

But it's not political.

Civil rights, and their protection by society, the law and the cops is not a political issue.

Fair enough, then, nothing is.

Orion · 01-01-2008 6:50pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

And your points about gender are just nonsensical:

First off, I'm not "complaining" about integration in rape counselling, I'm trying to show how dumb your "genderless" point is.

Easy tiger.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

If rape is genderless then I must be being sexually discriminated against! Sure a man raped these women, but *I* didn't! Why am I being told that, because of my sex, I am not allowed participate?

Get what I mean? The answer is stupidly obvious:

I am not allowed in female rape support meetings, and they not in male, because rape is a gender specific crime and is completely gender specific. I am not complaining about this, I am using it to illustrate how groundless your "rape is rape" argument is.

Use your head. The act of rape itself is a power issue not a gender one. You are now talking about the victim and how she feels - not the act of rape. There is a huge difference.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

I said that male and female rape are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CRIMES, crimes against peoples SEX and against peoples' GENDER, which DIFFER ACCORDING TO THAT GENDER.

I did not say one was worse or better than the other: can you get that?

Nope. Rape is rape. End of.

And regarding some of your other comments can I suggest that you calm down a little. Your posts are starting to verge on the abusive. Maybe start leaving out phrases like "stupidly obvious" and "can you get that?". They can be construed as trolling.

Orion · 01-01-2008 6:53pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

ROFLMAO, this is pure gold.

It is now patently obvious that you cannot tell the difference between social action, political action and legal action. Perhaps you should do some reading before making purile comments like that.

dr_manhattan · 01-01-2008 7:07pm

"rape is rape. end of"

great argument.

"Easy tiger."

damn, people in here are sensitive. My apologies for saying things like "dumb" and "stupidly obvious". Yesterday I got complained about for calling someone "prissy" cos they chose to criticise my syntax.

This is the internet, I am perfectly calm.

However when you say things like this:

"The act of rape itself is a power issue not a gender one. You are now talking about the victim and how she feels - not the act of rape. There is a huge difference."

You are insulting my intelligence just as much as when I use the word "dumb".

The "act of rape" cannot be done without a victim. It is not a solo event.

The "act of rape" contains being raped, as well as forcing sex on someone. You are so used to using these terms that you allow them to define what you are talking about.

How else would you say "how SHE feels" when you're talking to someone like me? As I say, I'm a bloke.

And as you may have noticed, I am not talking about the rapist or the "act of rape" as you seem to define it: I am talking about the civil rights of the victim being protected by the state.

This thread is not called "rapists and politics" it is called "rape and politics"

And you didn't answer:

"Civil rights, and their protection by society, the law and the cops is not a political issue."

true or false?

dr_manhattan · 01-01-2008 7:09pm

Oh and btw:

"You are now talking about the victim and how she feels - not the act of rape. There is a huge difference."

Please explain how when I say "rape" I am talking about the attacker and not the victim?

And while you're at it: why is rape not a gender issue, yet you just said "she"?

,8,1 · 01-01-2008 7:16pm

If rape is genderless then I must be being sexually discriminated against! Sure a man raped these women, but *I* didn't! Why am I being told that, because of my sex, I am not allowed participate?

Rape is a taboo issue. Do not be surprised to find yourself pilloried when you don't frame the issue exactly the way feminists and NGOs would like you to. And they are not interested in discussion - they are fundamentally fixed on the way they see the topic.

Use your head. The act of rape itself is a power issue not a gender one. You are now talking about the victim and how she feels - not the act of rape. There is a huge difference.

If it was not a "gender" issue you would not use the phrase "how she feels". Also, "rape as power" is almost completely synonymous with the feminist anti-male critique of rape.

dr_manhattan · 01-01-2008 7:26pm

damn, the first poster who magrees on the gender issue, yet I disagree with:

"Do not be surprised to find yourself pilloried when you don't frame the issue exactly the way feminists and NGOs would like you to."

As I said, this paragraph was intended to be ironic: I do not feel in the slightest bit 'pilloried' - I accept it as a fact of the crime, and of the trauma.

I mean, ffs: if rape is not a gender issue, then why is it I never had to think about whether to keep the child?

Fact is, like the way that there's separate ladies' and gents' toilets, there are separate and different groups for counselling. No problem, no feminist agenda, no nothing. Men and Women are different and have different needs.

Ivan · 01-01-2008 7:33pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

And your points about gender are just nonsensical:

First off, I'm not "complaining" about integration in rape counselling, I'm trying to show how dumb your "genderless" point is.

I'll try again:

If rape is genderless then I must be being sexually discriminated against! Sure a man raped these women, but *I* didn't! Why am I being told that, because of my sex, I am not allowed participate?

There is a big difference between gender being an issue in a rape and gender being an issue with rape counselling.

Rape is an act, I agree with you that the motivations, desires and ideas behind the act are irrelevant to the act, but in the same respect so is gender. Is a man raping a woman any different to a man raping a man or a woman raping a woman? No, the act remains the same, the motivations may be similar but again that is irrelevant.

What is different is the effects the act has on the victim, which can differ based on gender.

Seperating a crime, based on the gender of the victim is not only pointless, but ultimately dangerous. Should a man not be punished more for raping a woman, as women are the "weaker" sex? Should a man not be punished more for raping another man, as he should know better?

Should a woman be punished more for raping a man? Where do you draw the line? How do you even know what shape the line should be? It brings about a whole mess of complications that arent relevant to what is fundamentally an act of violence by one human on another.

Get what I mean? The answer is stupidly obvious:

I am not allowed in female rape support meetings, and they not in male, because rape is a gender specific crime and is completely gender specific. I am not complaining about this, I am using it to illustrate how groundless your "rape is rape" argument is.

You stated yourself in a previous post that the reason you have no issue with these types of situations, is because you would not be very helpful in these situations. But what about a woman raping another woman? The victim is so completely distraught that she cant bare to speak about her emotional turmoil with another woman. How does this, in any way change the nature of the crime?

Yes, the issues caused by the crime are different. Perhaps the therapy to resolve any problems caused by the heinous act have changed, but the fundamental nature of the act of rape itself, is unchanged.

If rape is rape, then what is "aggravated sexual assault", "forced sodomy", and "oral rape"?

That is something that you would need to speak about with someone who has a more technical background in the finer points of legal terms.

"Errrrr. No. Rape is rape. That you are trying to divide it into saying one is more horrifying than the other is complete and utter b*llocks."

No, pal: the fact that you are *assuming* I am saying that says a lot about how you are approaching this. You are constructing arguments from thin air.

I said that male and female rape are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CRIMES, crimes against peoples SEX and against peoples' GENDER, which DIFFER ACCORDING TO THAT GENDER.

I did not say one was worse or better than the other: can you get that?

I agree, that was a little strange that he seemed to put words in your mouth but as I'm sure you appreciate, this is a very emotive issue for everyone and high emotions tend to lead to outrage.

"Shockingly so since you claim to have been a victim yourself."

Not as shocking as you feeling able to blithely dismiss my informed opinions, based on hundreds of conversations with male and female victims, with "Errrrr. No. Rape is rape." Thanks, your sensitivity is overwhelming.

If you're going to refer to my childhood experiences, try and show some respect and don't use it as some kind of tool to browbeat me with, thanks.

Again, you have to appreciate that this is the Internet. Where every day people debate, consider and discuss arguments. Many times a day, someone will claim to be personally affected by the topic at hand and therefore their opinion is more valid than others.

While I am not saying this is the case here, I am saying that that is how it can very easily appear to anyone looking in. I hope you can forgive us our cynicism.

Meanwhile, what do you think people spend time discussing assault in therapy for? You think it's all about a penis being stuck somewhere it isn't wanted? We spend years going "oh then he dicked me and then he beat the **** out of me?"

The physical acts of rape is minor: rape is an assault on someone's gender and their sex. Thus male rape is different to female rape, because psychologically, physically and socially MEN ARE DIFFERENT TO WOMEN.

Again, I believe you are referring to the treatment of and the aftermath of rape and not the act itself.

Rape is the name given to any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.. The act of penetration or not, is irrelevant to the term or to the crime but of course is very important to the victim, the resounding problems the victim may have as a result of the crime and of course, the resulting treatment.

As for your statements about rape being a political issue, I'm afraid I still dont really understand your argument for this so I will refrain from discussing it until I know exactly what you mean. As we've already learned, such an emotive issue cannot allow any misunderstandings or misgivings, or there will be mistakes made.

Orion · 01-01-2008 7:36pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

You are insulting my intelligence just as much as when I use the word "dumb".

No I'm not. I was pointing out the error in your comparison between rape and the victim.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

How else would you say "how SHE feels" when you're talking to someone like me? As I say, I'm a bloke.

You were talking about female support groups hence the use of 'she'

dr_manhattan wrote: »

And you didn't answer:

"Civil rights, and their protection by society, the law and the cops is not a political issue."

true or false?

Correct I didn't. I'm done arguing with you. It's pointless.

Orion · 01-01-2008 7:39pm

,8,1 wrote: »

Rape is a taboo issue. Do not be surprised to find yourself pilloried when you don't frame the issue exactly the way feminists and NGOs would like you to. And they are not interested in discussion - they are fundamentally fixed on the way they see the topic.

If it was not a "gender" issue you would not use the phrase "how she feels". Also, "rape as power" is almost completely synonymous with the feminist anti-male critique of rape.

Ah those crazy feminists :rolleyes: Good, intelligent, well-researched response.

If you read back you will see that I defined rape as power regardless of who is raped by who. And I'm male fyi.

Also, as it seems to have been missed, I used the phrase "how she feels" in direct response to a question about a man being denied access to a women's support group. I feel fully justified in responding to a question as it was asked.

dr_manhattan · 01-01-2008 8:28pm

Oh and one more thing:

"The act of rape itself is a power issue not a gender one."

The why don't women rape men nearly as often? Cos they have no power? Cos they're not interested in power? Cos the only power to be had in this world is by a man over a woman? Cos only men want power? Cos only penetration grants power?

Seriously, you have to think these things through or else you are just defining things as they suit you.

Rape is about lots of things: if it was just about power then why choose to express it using a sexual act? Why not just attack someone and hurt them?Why do rapists apologise and try to befriend the victim? (happens quite a lot) Why do rapists pretend to themselves that it was a loving, tender experience? (happens an awful lot) Because it makes them feel more powerful?

No, because the "power" associated with rape is sexual and emotional power, which is expressed by and targeted at gender and sexuality.

As usual, the constricted and absolutist definitions are beginning to show.

The most consistent fact about rape and sexual assault I have ever seen is this: the less experience a person has of it, the more they seem to know exactly what it is, why it happens and what it means.

Meanwhile, those who have experienced it do not feel safe: we have to cope with serious trust issues and genuine fear of their attacker and any social situation that might lead to another attack. We see our attackers walk free and we are humiliated by gender-based innuendo about whether or not they "wanted" the attack.

And then on top of that, they are told:

Someone had sex with you against your will, but neither your nor their gender is relevant.

They chose to have sex with you rather than just beat you up, but it's not about sex, it's about power.

It's about power, but it's not a political issue.

And the fact that the police, judiciary and society will not protect you is "a social issue" for "society", and not about protecting you, but about "a change in opinions"

dr_manhattan · 01-01-2008 8:37pm

"You were talking about female support groups hence the use of 'she'"

No I wasn't - I said:

"I am not allowed in female rape support meetings, and they not in male."

I was talking about rape support groups in general, and how they are segregated.

"Correct I didn't. I'm done arguing with you. It's pointless."

Yeah, repeatedly saying "rape is rape" and refusing to plainly state what you feel is a civil rights issue is actually not what I'd call "arguing".

but hey.

dr_manhattan · 01-01-2008 8:56pm

Now, Ivan: thanks for the input. Much more like an actual discussion.

I'm gonna try and eat soon, but there's one point in particular I'd like to go through:

"Seperating a crime, based on the gender of the victim is not only pointless, but ultimately dangerous. Should a man not be punished more for raping a woman, as women are the "weaker" sex? Should a man not be punished more for raping another man, as he should know better?"

No, no, no, no, no. I am not suggesting that this should happen, and I have no idea where I may have suggested I do.

What I am saying is this:

1. The state is not protecting rape victims, either from the horrors of court or indeed by deterring rapists with heavier sentences. A crime which is - by definition - a violation of their sex and gender is not being adequately punished.

2. Thus, rape victims are being denied their rights as citizens. Regardless of gender, this IMHO makes it a civil rights issue. Hence "political".

3. At a rape trial, the victim is subjected to the ****ty end of pretty much every social prejudice going: this is not a part of the process, however by not protecting the victim from it, the judiciary *makes* it a part of the process.

4. The harshness of this will depend on their gender: men do not get questioned about short skirts or low necklines. The entire way the trial works will focus on social and sexual prejudices, and often the freedom of the victim will depend on one of these prejudices casting enough doubt to get him (and it is usually a "him") off.

Therefore I believe that this issue of the prosecution of rape cases is very much a political one, and very much a gender issue.

aside:

btw Ivan, I don't really care about whether people believe if I was assaulted or not: it's the use of the term "shocking" to describe my opinion on the subject, rather than any attempt to perhaps describe *what happened to me* as shocking, that brings offence.

It's because it implies some sort of expert knowledge that's being "shocked" that a victim would have strong opinions on the crime perpetrated against them, rather than trying a bit of politeness and saying "I'm sorry to hear that, but tbh I don't believe you and I think..."

I don't think it's shocking *at all* that I see sexual violence as an extremely important political issue, as it governs the day-to-day well being of many people I know, and can quite literally affect their ability to stick their head outside their doors.

To arrogantly confront that with "rape is rape, and I'm shocked you think any other way" is very funny coming from someone who's miffed that I called him "dumb"

Just like I thought it was rude of someone to post a stack of trendy anti rape posters and then, instead of going "whoa, that's nasty, sorry to hear" starts picking at my posting syntax?

I'm sure many people in here are jaded with "I was <insert topic title here>" but you know what?

I'm jaded with people telling me that me getting beaten within an inch of my life and raped was "about power" and "not a gender issue".

capisc?

johnnyskeleton · 02-01-2008 10:34pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Rape, imho, is both political and a gender (depending on the gender of the victim and assailant) issue: otherwise you are conducting a dual absurdity:

1. you are telling male and femal victims of sexual terror that what happened to them is not because of their gender....?

It's hard to say because each rape is different - what all rape victims have in common is that they have been the victims of rape. That is what divides them from non-rape victims, if I can put it like that. Why I think gender is irrelevant is because, for the purpose of discussing rape, a female rape victim will have more in common with a male rape victim than with another female who has not been the victim of rape. Why I think it is dangerous to make rape a gender issue is because it ignores the essence of the offence - that is an unwanted, forced sexual act, which can often be tramatic and life changing. Instead, it focuses on something irrelevant, which is whether the victim was male or female. Both will suffer from the effects of rape, to a greater or lesser degree (depending on the person rather than on their gender).

To put it another way, the majority of violent non sexual assaults are committed against men, arguably because it's testosterine fuelled. But non-sexual assaults are not a gender issue.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

2. You are - while asking someone how they acted, dressed and drank before they were victimised - impinging on very basic human rights to behave as you care to, yet insisting that this "isn't politics"?

It might be politics if, for example, there was a law against behaving in that fashion, but what goes on in a particular case is not a political issue.

dr_manhattan wrote:

How can an issue that *directly* affects the entire population, that causes so much misery and is based on such specific ideas, not be political? And why is it "dangerous" to make it so?

Because politics, in my understanding, is concerned with governing and changing the laws, it should only operate to correct a defect in the law or in government. Politics can't stop rape from happening, and any change in the law should be limited, in my opinion, to making the criminal justice system work better. It should not be used to tilt the balance or in any way unnecessarily disturb the function of the criminal trial, which is to find out the truth.

dr_manhattan wrote:

You think that chap flicking the cigarette at the woman he'd just raped and gotten a suspended sentence for raping is fair? You think this is an isolated incident, that seriously traumatised women and men aren't forced to share space with often cruel and psychologically torturing rapists all the time?

I think the judge got it wrong, and this was corrected by the Court of Criminal Appeal. As a rule, the courts impose suspended sentences only in very exceptional circumstances.

dr_manhattan wrote:

Look at the conviction rates. Look at the fact that if a woman gets drunk and is showing skin, she's got precious little chance of defending herself successfully against the insidious idea that she was asking to be raped?

With respect, I wouldn't call that a fact so much as an opinion, and to be honest I don't think it is well founded. I think the conviction rates for rape reflect the difficulty of actually proving something that happens in private and in circumstances that can often be confusing (i.e. drunken fumblings) and/or misinterpreted (i.e. alleged rapist honestly believing that there was consent). I don't think that there is any reality to saying that jurors get the insidious idea that "she was asking for it" when a woman shows a bit of skin or gets drunk. Rather, they believe that either she was consenting to it (and later regretted it) or that he genuinely believed that she was consenting to it.

Ultimately, a rape complainant will only be cross examined about their behaviour if there is some reality to it being true. If a complainant was in no way flirting, provocative or appearing like they wanted to have sex, this will also stand up in court and his or her account will appear more truthful. I would be pretty confident that incest/paedophelia rape cases the complainant is never cross examined as to their behaviour, because this would destroy the defence's credibility.

dr_manhattan wrote:

No that's absolutely perverse to me: what you are saying is like saying that by acknowledging the fact that the IRA was a political organisation, it downgraded their murders to purely political acts and meant the process of trying terrorists became a civil rights issue... it did not. IRA bombers were tried for murder, not "rights infringement".

Rape is a civil rights issue, yes: not "womens' rights" unless it's a woman being raped. It is absolutely imperative, IMHO, in order for there to be *true* gender equality, that it is treated as such.

I don't see how IRA murders are not political and not rights infringements but rapes are political and are rights infringements. After all, they're all crimes.

dr_manhattan wrote:

When the courts are run by aging patriarch's of seriously questionable ethics who hand out suspended sentences for horrific assault, then the civil rights issue becomes polarised and quite evident: are you seriously going to say that the suspended sentences - which mean your victim has to see your grinning mug every day, walking free - are not an issue of civil rights and safety for victims, male or female?

Let's not get hung up on a few cases out of all rape sentences. If you search for recent sentences (and bear in mind the the newspapers are very selective of what they print, and will only print stories that sell papers) you will see most getting hefty sentences. Anything over 5 years is a strong sentence, and 10 years is very strong. It seems to me that most rape sentences are between these two terms, but there are some suspended sentences and some life sentences too. And put another way, a judge in Australia was criticised recently because a complaint of abuse by several men (termed a "gang rape" by the media) collapsed mid trial. Is this an example of the patriarcal nature of the justice system (when the judge in question was a woman)?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

I was seriously sexually assaulted when I was a child. Is that assault separate from the fact that I'm a man?

I'm sorry to hear that, but I do think it is separate to the fact that you're a man. I hope your gender is not defined by the events of your past, and I hope you'd agree with me that the most important thing for the victims of rape and sexual assualt is for them to come to terms with it (over and above the results of any trial or sentence for the rapist/alleged rapist).

dr_manhattan wrote:

Everything about the act itself was predetermined by my gender: yet you are saying it wasn't a gender issue?

I'd like to keep the discussion as impersonal as possible, but if someone is sexually assaulted because they are a man or a woman, I don't think that makes rape in general a gender issue.

dr_manhattan wrote:

Male rape, IMHO, is a male issue. Female rape is a female issue. Thus rape is an issue of gender, because it is separated by gender.

I'd say that it is a gender neutral issue, because it doesn't happen to one gender to the exclusion of the other. If women are denied the right to vote, that is a gender issue, but if, for example, men and women of a certain religion are denied the right to vote, that does not mean the men being denied the vote is a male issue and the women being denied the vote a female issue.

dr_manhattan wrote:

No it certainly is not: it is, however, separating two very different crimes from each other. Just like male domestic abuse, male rape is a separate and distinct crime which uses a whole different set of social tools as weapons.

Well every rape is different.

dr_manhattan wrote:

And if you cannot see why gender becomes a *massive* issue for therapy then... well i'm surprised as you seem to have compassion and common sense.

Gender might be imporant for therapy, but is not a gender issue in that either males or females have a monopoly over. It is not a discrimination issue, which is what I mean by a gender issue, as opposed to gender relevant to the offence, therapy etc.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

"Your commentary regarding the courts is again nothing to do with politics, and instead an issue concerning the judiciary and how out of touch many of them would appear to be with the real-world. Or perhaps a lack (or failure) of evidence gathering on the part of law-enforcement"

As it was during the Emmet Till case in Alabama during the civil rights movement.

Again, when you are suggesting that there is a certain class of citizens whose rights are being politically ignored, what is that class of citizens and how exactly can their lot be improved in political terms (i.e. other than saying lets change society so that rape never happens again).

dr_manhattan wrote: »

1. Male rape is a completely different crime to female rape: it is socially, physically, and psychologically a completely different crime. To say "both sexes can be physical victims of rape" is simply smoothing over what the crime actually means to a man, and to a woiman.

It's the same crime, or at least the same category of crime. What is different is how different people react to the offence.

dr_manhattan wrote:

2. Rape - the physical crime and the impact of the crime - is different depending on your gender. No man will be grilled in court about wearing a revealing top or giving "the wrong messages" nor will most women be "expected" to be able to fight off assailants (though sometimes they will...)

For what it's worth, probably the most devastating cross examination in Irish legal history was the cross examination of Oscar Wilde by Edward Carson. And the theme of that cross examination? That Wilde was a randy homosexual who went around with lots of boys.

dr_manhattan wrote:

If rape is genderless, then why are support groups sexually segregated?

Two different things - the gender issue as a social argument and support groups catering for only a certain group of people.

dr_manhattan wrote:

If rape is genderless, then why is *every* womens' group concerned with rape, but no mens' groups that I know of except actual support agencies?

That's the problem - it shouldn't be a women's issue. It is an issue for groups like The Rape Crisis Centre, 1 in 4 etc, who are gender neutral. Women using it to suggest they are being discriminated against is a very dangerous path to take.

dr_manhattan wrote:

1. Rape is never politics but intimidation and assault can be?

I don't think that rape, intimidation or assault can be political. They can be used for political ends (e.g. terrorists) and they can be manifestations of discrimination in society, but it is not the actual crimes that are political but the underlying problems (e.g. racial tensions).

dr_manhattan wrote:

2. Rape is not about gender but your experience will be totally different if you are male than if you are female?

Education isn't about intelligence, but your experience of education will vary greatly on your level of intelligence.

dr_manhattan wrote:

Again I ask: where people are guaranteed equal rights but NOT GIVEN THEM, how is it *not* a political issue?

What exactly are you saying here? Is it that male rape victims are given more/less rights than female ones or that rape victims are not given as much rights as non-rape victims. I believe you are referring to the latter, but what I will say is that, while it's tragic and often times devastating when someone is raped, I don't see how we could fairly readjust the balance. In England there are several proposals to "increase the rape conviction rate", but I think this is very dangerous because it is trying to find ways to make trials less fair towards the accused for the sole purpose of increasing a statistic.

dr_manhattan wrote:

Fact is, women get raped all the time and they are not protected. Their rights are not protected.

From a political point of view (as opposed to personally protecting your female friends and relatives) what would you do to protect their rights?

dr_manhattan wrote:

The most consistent fact about rape and sexual assault I have ever seen is this: the less experience a person has of it, the more they seem to know exactly what it is, why it happens and what it means.

All generalisations are dangerous, including this one.

dr_manhattan wrote:

4. The harshness of this will depend on their gender: men do not get questioned about short skirts or low necklines. The entire way the trial works will focus on social and sexual prejudices, and often the freedom of the victim will depend on one of these prejudices casting enough doubt to get him (and it is usually a "him") off.

Are you suggesting that it is the alleged rape victim whose liberty is at stake in a rape trial, and that the alleged rape victim must cast a doubt to "get off"?

I think this is the longest post I've ever had. I'm tired.

Rev Hellfire · 02-01-2008 10:48pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

4. The harshness of this will depend on their gender: men do not get questioned about short skirts or low necklines. The entire way the trial works will focus on social and sexual prejudices, and often the freedom of the victim will depend on one of these prejudices casting enough doubt to get him (and it is usually a "him") off.

By victim I assume you mean the accused, surely they have the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
As such the burden should be placed on the accuser to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is not the case.

aidan24326 · 03-01-2008 4:40pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Oh and one more thing:

"The act of rape itself is a power issue not a gender one."

The why don't women rape men nearly as often? Cos they have no power? Cos they're not interested in power? Cos the only power to be had in this world is by a man over a woman? Cos only men want power? Cos only penetration grants power?

That's a bit of a daft question. The fact is in the vast majority of cases a woman would not be able to rape a man even if she wanted to. Men are on average physically stronger, often considerably so, and then there's the small mechanical matter of the man needing to be erect. Raping the guy anally with a dildo would surely only be an option if the woman was built like the incredible hulk. I'm being silly now of course but then your question was a bit silly to begin with.

Whether women feel that urge is another matter, quite probably not but then we're not designed the same. Women have other ways of exerting power and control over a man when they want to, a bit more subtly of course.

DeVore · 03-01-2008 6:41pm

Male rape, IMHO, is a male issue. Female rape is a female issue.

By that logic, Murder is a dead people's issue and us living folk can safely ignore it.

I'm sorry, I'm completely failing to understand your primary point. Actually thats not true, you are failing to communicate it clearly. Can you post a no-more-then-3-sentences precise of your point?

DeV.

dr_manhattan · 03-01-2008 7:34pm

"Can you post a no-more-then-3-sentences precise of your point?"

okay:

1. the judiciary fails to protect women from rape, thus infringes their rights: just as black peoples' right to not be attacked was a civil rights issue in the 60s, so is this imho.

2. if rape has no gender, then why is it that every single procedure in prosecuting and treating its affects is gender specific? And where are the male rape cases in the media? Can anyone recall one?

3. If 'rape is rape' then why do crimes like "forced sodomy", "sexual assault", etc etc - exist? It would seem to me that even the law recognises degrees and variation of circumstance.

I know it's more than three sentencers, but it's nicely stacked the way you lot like it...

And btw may I enquire why is it that I've been around here for so long, but it's only since I made this thread that suddenly everyone's jumping on me for not using quote systems?

dr_manhattan · 03-01-2008 7:50pm

Damn johnnyskeleton that's a very long post, just one bit for now I'm afraid... which may be key...

"It's the same crime, or at least the same category of crime. What is different is how different people react to the offence."

Exactly: just like in the 1960s, the murder of a white man and the murder of a black man in alabama were the same crime.

What was different was how people reacted to the offence, as you say. And how the police and judiciary treats them.

Because of peoples' attitudes, crimes were not punished.

Because of a legacy of a group of people being only out of voteless slavery for less than 100 years, their needs and crimes against them were not taken seriously. The process of making a complaint was so degrading and humiliating that the crimes mostly went unreported.

Can you see the parallels?

Orion · 03-01-2008 7:53pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

1. the judiciary fails to protect women from rape, thus infringes their rights: just as black peoples' right to not be attacked was a civil rights issue in the 60s, so is this imho.

The judiciary is apolitical. I do agree that the variety in sentencing is very concerning but read a previous post of mine regarding mandatory sentencing for my opinion on that - and that's the only way the political system can influence the judiciary.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

2. if rape has no gender, then why is it that every single procedure in prosecuting and treating its affects is gender specific? And where are the male rape cases in the media? Can anyone recall one?

Prosecution is part of the judicial system - and thus apolitical. Treatment is for the victim and therefore gender specific. But the act of rape isn't.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

3. If 'rape is rape' then why do crimes like "forced sodomy", "sexual assault", etc etc - exist? It would seem to me that even the law recognises degrees and variation of circumstance.

Rape is most commonly defined as forced sexual intercourse. Sexual assault can be something like grabbing someone's backside or breasts. So there is a difference.
I've never heard of 'forced sodomy' as a specific legal definition - that would come under rape.

dr_manhattan · 03-01-2008 8:11pm

"The judiciary is apolitical."

I'm sorry but the judiciary is overwhelmingly male. That's political for starters.

And so just like the white judiciary in alabama, it's hardly surprising it's "failing" to prosecute crimes committed by its own against a minority it does not respect or understand.

Given one of it's most famous members in this country is a child sex enthusiast who got himself off scot free and with a few hundred grand in pensions... it's interesting that this "coincidential" lack of sex crime prosecution should be "just happenning".

Seriously... when it's miles away in Alabama everyone can see how wrong the evil establishment is.

When it's here it's all "impartiality" and "genderless" - a country only a handful of years out of catholic dominion, and you're telling me that womens' control of their bodies and right to be safe is not a political issue?

dr_manhattan · 03-01-2008 8:13pm

"Treatment is for the victim and therefore gender specific. But the act of rape isn't."

What is this constant "the act of rape is not gender specific"?

Cos you know what? It's very hard to vaginally rape a man.

McGinty · 03-01-2008 9:27pm

Therefore it is a political issue, and a gender issue. There is no point in me joining a support group for female sexual assault survivors, because our *genders* mean our needs are different.

I have read most of the threads but got a bit bogged down, but there are a few points I would like to raise, like you dr manhattan, I have been raped and sexually abused, but the support group I go to has men and women, so I took objection to your statements re: women only groups not allowing men, and how the experience is different for each gender. I do not agree, pain is pain, whether male or female, the act may differ, but the feelings of powerlessness, shame, self disgust, anger, etc, etc in my opinion transcend gender.

Where I do agree is the treatment of those raped/abused in the courts, in the case of men, why did they not fight the attacker off, in the case of women, why the short skirt or too much alcohol, basically the court system at present needs to alter its stance on rape in respect for both genders. That is political. I think you need to define what you mean by political, most people assume it is to do with government. Also throwing in issues re: civil rights and treatment of blacks somewhat clouds your arguement, personally I think you should stick to the one point.

Personally I going to break down the act of rape/sexual assult in bald terms. Said man/woman walking/going about their daily business, said sicko/twisted person (male or female) decides to attack that person sexually, they force the victim into a sexual act. It has **** all to do with sex, and most to do with power, even when they try to befriend the victim, that is a form of emotional power (sadly I know that too often) it is a taking away of the other person. The act is a taking away of power, it is about rendering the victim powerless, and this again transcends gender.

Where gender comes into things is through women's groups, support groups and those who advocate the seperation of sexes and our experiences. In the support group I am in, whilst I have suffered enormously by men, it is the fact that the group I am in has a man has been my greatest healing. I have seen first hand that men suffer in the same way as women, that is so so powerful and your support of seperation is limiting. Seeing that men are the same as women in some ways has helped me so much, I have learned that men suffer pain too and are not the perpetrators of it. Pain is pain, physical, emotional or psychological. What I am curious is why are you so concerned with women's issues? Why are you so concerned with seperating the act of rape between both genders? How is rape different for a man and a woman because I cannot see how it is different?

johnnyskeleton · 03-01-2008 9:57pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

1. the judiciary fails to protect women from rape, thus infringes their rights: just as black peoples' right to not be attacked was a civil rights issue in the 60s, so is this imho.

What exactly do you want the judiciary to do? Castrate all hetro males and (I dunno, cut off the hands) of all homo females? How exactly is the judiciary failing to protect women from rape? They are not at the scene, they are not responsible for everything that goes on, they do not decide to prosecute, they do not convict or acquit. The only point I've ever heard made about this is that sometimes judges impose what is considered a lenient sentence for rape. If you think of all the rape trials throughout the year (there's at least one every week), why is it that only one (Adam Keane) has received such widespread condemnation? As a general principle the courts recognise that in very exceptional circumstances a suspended sentence is appropriate, and in that particular case the judge was found to have erred and was overturned on appeal. And on appeal, who overturned the decision? That's right, the judiciary.

In any case, despite all the hype, I don't buy into this media fuelled desire to not only punish all persons convicted of offences, but to demand unreal and ever increasing prison sentences. Honestly, how does it make a victim of a crime feel better to know that the offender got 10 instead of 5 years - what does that accomplish?

dr_manhattan wrote:

2. if rape has no gender, then why is it that every single procedure in prosecuting and treating its affects is gender specific? And where are the male rape cases in the media? Can anyone recall one?

I'm going to ask you to prove that one, because prosecution procedure is not gender specific. In fact, many people have criticised it (especially in the past) for seeming almost indifferent to the victim. As for male rape cases in the media, I know it's the indo, but the times requires a subscription.

dr_manhattan wrote:

3. If 'rape is rape' then why do crimes like "forced sodomy", "sexual assault", etc etc - exist? It would seem to me that even the law recognises degrees and variation of circumstance.

Forced sodomy is rape under s.4 of the Rape (Amendment) Act, 1990. Sexual assault (as has already been pointed out) is not rape.

johnnyskeleton · 03-01-2008 10:14pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Because of peoples' attitudes, crimes were not punished.

Well this arguably applies to the rape of men, who may often find it difficult to make a complaint to the gardai. If you look at Dublin RCC's statistics over the last few years, there is a growing percentage of males receiving counselling, because (as they assert) of a growing awareness and acceptance of sexual abuse against males. But it's all the more reason not to call rape a female issue (or a male issue for that matter).

dr_manhattan wrote:

And how the police and judiciary treats them.
...
Because of a legacy of a group of people being only out of voteless slavery for less than 100 years, their needs and crimes against them were not taken seriously. The process of making a complaint was so degrading and humiliating that the crimes mostly went unreported.

Your argument is very confusing, are you saying females (who arguably find it less difficult to report rape - see the DRCC - and who arguably find it less difficult to continue with the prosecution - see your own post asking where are the male rape cases) are just out of voteless slavery or that men are?

dr_manhattan wrote:

Can you see the parallels?

No because I don't agree that society oppresses female rape victims in Ireland today in the way that deep south america treated minority groups, I don't see (given that the DPP will usually prosecute any rape case that has any liklihood of success) how any rape victim (male or female) is not taken seriously, and I don't see how the making of complaints could be made any easier. I also don't see this big conspiracy of white male judges that you seem to believe in.

johnnyskeleton · 03-01-2008 10:22pm

Macros42 wrote: »

The judiciary is apolitical. I do agree that the variety in sentencing is very concerning but read a previous post of mine regarding mandatory sentencing for my opinion on that - and that's the only way the political system can influence the judiciary.

Which is why I think politics shouldn't influence sentencing - because the media make a big fuss over one case, the politicians start to smell the votes, and you have a law that does no good, and much that is bad. The one size fits all approach really doesn't fit into sentencing, and the only arguments I've ever heard for it are based on the need to punish the worst offenders (or at least the worst offenders in the media), but the difficulty with this argument is that they usually get high sentences anyway.

Orion · 03-01-2008 10:30pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

What is this constant "the act of rape is not gender specific"?

Cos you know what? It's very hard to vaginally rape a man.

Oh good god. This is why I stopped arguing with you. Rape is rape. Vaginal, anal, oral rape are just different forms of ... guess what ... rape.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

I'm sorry but the judiciary is overwhelmingly male. That's political for starters.

Since when is the gender divide in certain careers political? I think you are suffering under a mis-comprehension as to what exactly political means.

johnnyskeleton · 03-01-2008 10:54pm

dr_manhattan wrote: »

"The judiciary is apolitical."

I'm sorry but the judiciary is overwhelmingly male. That's political for starters.

Until Judge Catherine McGuinness retired the Supreme Court was 5:3 male to female. That aint what I'd call overwhelming.

dr_manhattan wrote:

And so just like the white judiciary in alabama, it's hardly surprising it's "failing" to prosecute crimes committed by its own against a minority it does not respect or understand.

Judges don't prosecute cases. If they did they wouldn't be very judicial now, would they?

[quote=Given one of it's most famous members in this country is a child sex enthusiast who got himself off scot free and with a few hundred grand in pensions... it's interesting that this "coincidential" lack of sex crime prosecution should be "just happenning".[/quote]

What's all this? If I remember correctly one of the gardai messed up. But the Courts could hardly be said to have been covering for him. You have to remember as well that paedophiles exist in every profession and every walk of life, so your attempts to try to link the judiciary to paedophilia is nothing but a smear tactic.

dr_manhattan wrote:

Seriously... when it's miles away in Alabama everyone can see how wrong the evil establishment is.

Or maybe it has to be actually wrong before people will see that it is wrong.

dr_manhattan wrote:

When it's here it's all "impartiality" and "genderless" - a country only a handful of years out of catholic dominion, and you're telling me that womens' control of their bodies and right to be safe is not a political issue?

Why women's control of their bodies but not men? If you accept that men can be raped and that it can be just as traumatic, why do their rights not get discussed? That is why I say it shouldn't be a gender issue but a rape victim issue? If rape victims get helped then female rape victims get help, but if female rape victims get help, male victims could be left behind.

And women do have the right to be safe and control their bodies. If they weren't it would be a political/civil rights issue. But they do have those rights. However their rights cannot be protected absolutely in the same way that the right to life of murder victims cannot be protected absolutely (minority report aside).

johnnyskeleton · 03-01-2008 11:31pm

McGinty wrote: »

Where I do agree is the treatment of those raped/abused in the courts, in the case of men, why did they not fight the attacker off, in the case of women, why the short skirt or too much alcohol, basically the court system at present needs to alter its stance on rape in respect for both genders. That is political.

Taking a political view of rape inveitably means you have to have a view - everyone accused is guilty, all complainants are liars, or anywhere in between. The only way to look at it is to look at each case on it's own. The purpose of a criminal trial is to find the truth, not to increase the rape conviction.

But by imposing arbitrary political rules on the courtroom you risk obscuring the truth. Few people accused of rape would risk asking irrelevant and untrue questions designed to bully or humiliate the complainant, because that will loose the sympathy of the jury and make the evidence against them more believeable. On the other hand, if there is relevant evidence that could show the truth of what happened, how could this be excluded because it is an uncomfortable question for the complainant?

If you look at it from the point of view of a neutral bystander, a rape trial is a tramatic event for the complainant and the accused, so if you were to politically decide, for example, that a complainant can't be asked embarrasing questions like what they were wearing, why couldn't you have a rule that a complainant cannot say anything that might be embarrasing about the accused (like, for example, "he raped me"). The nature of a rape trial is always unpleasant for both sides, whether it the allegation that accused is a sex offender, or the suggestion that the complainant is lying. The truth will inevitably be unpleasant for one of the parties.

McGinty wrote: »

Personally I going to break down the act of rape/sexual assult in bald terms. Said man/woman walking/going about their daily business, said sicko/twisted person (male or female) decides to attack that person sexually, they force the victim into a sexual act. It has **** all to do with sex, and most to do with power, even when they try to befriend the victim, that is a form of emotional power (sadly I know that too often) it is a taking away of the other person. The act is a taking away of power, it is about rendering the victim powerless, and this again transcends gender.

I don't think you can generalise, some rapes are not about sex, they are about power, but that does not mean that no rapes are about sex. If there were a scale, I suppose where two people get really drunk and get it on is almost certainly about sex, while a child molester abusing a child over a number of years is almost certainly about power.

McGinty wrote: »

Where gender comes into things is through women's groups, support groups and those who advocate the seperation of sexes and our experiences. In the support group I am in, whilst I have suffered enormously by men, it is the fact that the group I am in has a man has been my greatest healing. I have seen first hand that men suffer in the same way as women, that is so so powerful and your support of seperation is limiting. Seeing that men are the same as women in some ways has helped me so much, I have learned that men suffer pain too and are not the perpetrators of it. Pain is pain, physical, emotional or psychological. What I am curious is why are you so concerned with women's issues? Why are you so concerned with seperating the act of rape between both genders? How is rape different for a man and a woman because I cannot see how it is different?

Well said.

Politics and rape

Comments