48 Women an Hour Raped in Congo

It is now two years since I first began studying rape, and over those years I have inevitably come across some awful stories and statistics. Some of them I've published on the blog - from the fact that a South African woman is more likely to be raped than learn to read, to the Pakistani statistic of a woman raped every hour, every second attack is on a minor and every fourth a gang rape. I've raged about defence lawyers' tactics - women wearing skinny jeans couldn't possibly be raped (an Italian example only recently rejected by the courts), women pinned down by the weight of a man is engaged in the missionary position (Assange's lawyers) and the opening gambit of one trial in America a few decades ago where a lawyer span a Cola bottle around and attempted to insert a pencil into the neck. Obviously a woman who doesn't want to be raped can fight back(!) Academic studies which ask women how violent their attack was, delusional muppets claiming to be academics and a textbook which finished a section on sadistic rape with a paragraph on victim impact which began "if the victim survives...".

All terrible things that have led me to rant and rave, and in many cases cry.

But as I stumbled across a Guardian article this afternoon, I had to take a deep breath before reading the article:

Forty-eight women raped every hour in Congo

The systematic use of rape as a weapon of war is not a new discovery, particularly in Congo, but the assertions that rape is beginning to creep outwith the areas of the fiercest conflict and especially into the home are disturbing.

12% of the female population of Congo have been raped, whilst 3% of the female population were raped in a single year between 2006 and 2007, rising to 7% in one province. More than a fifth have been forced to perform sex acts on their partners.

These statistics are even thought by some researchers to even underestimate the problem.

:(

Too Serious for a WikiLeaks Joke

As I've watched the saga of the rape allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange unfold, I've been horrified to see celebrity after celebrity demean the alleged victims, painting a picture of a team of for-hire honey traps sent by the CIA to trap Mr Assange any way they can. They 'know' that the allegations are rubbish, they 'know' that Assange is being set up and anyone who doesn't 'know' that is facilitating the big, bad governments in silencing democracy.

Well I want to 'know' why such knowledgeable folk haven't been snapped up as a super celebrity crime fighting team, because they seem to have an impressive record on investigating serious crime on an international level.

I do not pretend to know the truth behind these allegations; indeed, I've only just come across the full allegations myself. According to the Guardian, Miss A alleges that, despite consenting to sexual intercourse with a condom, Assange forced her to engage in unprotected sex, pinning her down throughout. He stayed in her flat for a number of days after the assault, during which she moved from her own bed and eventually into a friend's flat due to her discomfort at being in the same flat as her attacker. Miss W alleges that after having (protected) consensual sex, the woman awoke to Assange having unprotected sex with her. The basic fact is that both acts were not consensual*. Both women had consented on the basis that a condom was used; therefore permission was withdrawn when a condom was not used.

However, the way Assange's supporters have responded is worrying, to say the least. Ridiculing the accusations as 'not rape' - the disturbing term "sex by surprise" and making fun of the place of condoms in the act is completely unacceptable. I've written time and time again about how important I believe it is that society accepts a wider definition of rape than the stranger lurking down a dark alleyway motif that dominates the public imagination, but I repeat - these allegations detail rapes, not a sexual indiscretion, or impoliteness - RAPE. To make light of these accusations as numerous high-profile supporters have done makes light of the plights of many rape victims and as such is entirely unacceptable.

Also frankly frightening is the fact that the identities of these women have been revealed online. Women are already scared to report rapes because they fear retribution from their attackers, particularly high-profile cases, let alone millions who have made them political targets too.

It is also important to keep making the distinction between supporting WikiLeaks and supporting rape. Far too many Assange supporters have conflated the two, and this is leading to a situation where one must choose. The simple fact is that one can support the work of WikiLeaks whilst not supporting the potential criminal aspect of the founder.

Assange may be the victim of a conspiracy. However, two women have alleged that he has raped them and the treatment of those women is symptomatic of how society has come to deal with those who allege rape - they are inevitably liars, they are out to 'get' men, they are blowing it out of proportion, they can cry rape at the drop of a hat - and it needs to stop. Assange needs to pull his supporters into line.

*My own definition of rape does not revolve around the notion of 'consent', which I believe is too flawed to protect women, but this is the legal definition of rape in Sweden to the best of my knowledge.