Rape IS Rape: Giving Ken Clarke the Keys to a Special Level of Hell

It's been a while since I banished anyone to a special level of hell. However, Jane Austen and those who use the word 'frape' have a new hellmate* (see what I did there?) Ken Clarke, our esteemed Justice Secretary has today given the victims of date rape and any form of non-violent rape a kick in the teeth by declaring that these crimes are 'not as serious' as violent rapes.

Serious rape is violent rape. It plays upon the myriad of stereotypes that continue to plague the victims of rape; indeed, Craig Palmer would love it. We all know what rape is. It's that dodgy looking creep who stalks the city streets late at night, preying on vulnerable young women. Heaven forbid that it be a woman's partner, or that she is coerced by non-violent means. Who'll take her seriously unless there are hand marks around her neck?

It's not even just a question of evidence in a trial though, it is another way to blame the victim. If she isn't covered in marks and bruises then she must have assented - he wasn't being violent towards her so how could she not have stopped it? She must have wanted it.

Clarke is explicit in his belief that there is a hierarchy of rape - when faced with the statement "Rape is rape" he replies "No it's not". As for Date rape, well: "Date rape can be as serious as the worst rapes". Can be, not is, and when did the government introduce a Top 10 Worst Rapes countdown?!

To be fair to Clarke (an extraordinary difficult attitude to take when faced with such an idiot), the other issue he points out is that of underage sex. In Scotland, at least, there is a difference between statutory rape and underage sex, the former being the crime pursued regardless of issues of consent with a child aged 13 or under, and the latter referring to those between 14 and the age of consent. Underage sex is a less serious crime, as is reflected in Scottish law, and if there is no distinction in English law then perhaps Clarke should have thought about dealing with that before opening his trap and spouting a crock of dangerous idiocy.

Rape in the "ordinary, conventional sense" that Clarke talks about - violent rape by a stranger, is a terrible crime, but rape is rape. Even if you know that person. Even if you are coerced by non-violent means. Rape is Rape. To have the Justice Secretary disagree with such a statement is to perpetuate the myths that rape victims have to tackle daily. That is an injustice. That is a disgrace. That is why Ken Clarke should resign with immediate effect.

* Also, for anyone keeping count of those banished to hell, Nadine Dorries is there for her ridiculous opinion that child sex abuse victims brought it on themselves. A twisted misogynist who will fit right in.

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.

:(

The Puffa Paradox: Victim Blaming and Fashion Dilemmas

It would seem that women just can't catch a break this week.

First we hear that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised", according to a Canadian policeman giving students a talk on personal safety. Well blow me down with a feather. Or not, because the long-johns, jeans, camisole, vest, t-shirt, long sleeved top, jumper, cardigan and ankle length puffa jacket with Doc Martens is quite a heavy ensemble, and as I don't want to be raped I thought I'd take extra precautions. However, such an outfit would cause me to faint with the weight and heat generated, so I've had to make do with a little less.

But, wearing less could get me raped. So what do I do? Is there a cut off as to how much clothing is not 'sluttish'? Could I wear jeans and a t-shirt and not get raped? What about skirts? Heaven forfend that I advertise my vulnerability in something that is associated with femininity. Is there an accepted length of skirt? Should all skirts fall below the knee, or is that too much leg on show? And what about how form-fitting my clothes are?

Or, is it less about how much of me is on show, but on how attractive the clothing is? Perhaps a knee-length wool skirt won't get me raped, but a knee-length leather one will? Scoop neck v V neck?

What about the elderly women attacked by Delroy Grant? Did they dress too sluttishly for him to resist?

Clearly women are all undergoing the dilemma posed in this excellent advert by Rape Crisis Scotland.

Of course, there is a deeper subtext to the use of the word 'slut'. Women across the Anglophone world have had the word flung at them because they are comfortable with their own sexuality, revealing the double standards applied to women and men. Sleep with too many men? Slut. Yet reverse the genders and the almost reverent 'stud' comes into play. Sanguinetti is making it clear that women should be subject to a moral code, for their own good of course. They shouldn't sleep with lots of men, and to advertise their 'services' in the way they dress means that they shouldn't be surprised when men take advantage of them.

So, women who like sex, or dress in a way which might possibly make someone think they do, are fair game for your neighbourhood rapist.

But nobody asks to be raped. Not ever. And if Michael Sanguinetti finds it difficult to resist victimizing and raping women who dress 'sluttishly' then he should bloody well seek help.

Women who like sex with men are fair game, but, so it seems, women who don't like sex with men (although lesbianism is obviously not equated with this) are also OK to rape too. I've blogged before about the horrifying cases of correctional rape in South Africa - where men try to 'cure' lesbians by raping them. But reading this article which gives an estimate of 10 rapes and gang rapes a week in Cape Town alone brings a shudder to my spine.

As a women, you can neither like sex with men, nor sex with women, lest you be raped. And then it would be your own fault. Dress in a way which might advertise either of these facts and you are asking to be raped. Oh, and if you have been raped, then you'll have done something to deserve it - your sexual history will be debated, your alcohol consumption questioned and your honesty doubted - but somewhere along the line you will have done something to deserve it.

Difficult being a woman, eh?

Feminism and Religion: Census and Sex Trafficking

I am a feminist. This may have come across on the numerous posts I've written on this topic, but for further clarification, check out the links at the side.

I am also a Christian, of sorts. When it came to that all-important question on the census I left it blank, an action that will no doubt have Religious Studies scholars for generations to come tearing their hair out. I have issues with quantitative analysis of religion. I also got a bit twitchy when the campaign to get the non-religious to say so took on a slightly unsavoury bent; if you are not religious, then say so, because then we can prove religion is loosing it's grip on society and we are trundling along to become a secularist society. Or indeed when some Christians get panicky about the increasing numbers of Muslims in the world. Numbers are irrelevant.

I also find it hard to put myself into a box - perhaps the easiest (some would say most true) response would be to tick the Christian box with the addition of Salvation Army - as the denomination in which I currently worship - underneath. But I can't be defined like that, my dislike of charges of heresy mean that I am quite well suited to denomination hopping and I can't claim that I am sure I will attend SA worship forever.

However, my fundamental issue is with declaring myself a Christian. The term holds so much baggage and requires a list of caveats at least ten foot long. The way I conceive of my own spiritual life owes much to other religions - for example I think that the doctrine of jihad offers a brilliant concept of how I perceive 'the devil', I have no issues with meditating etc - that it seems wrong to nail my colours to that mast.

But perhaps the biggest issue is that Christianity, in these surveys, is not what I make it. It is a distilled, intellectualized and academic exercise, determined by preconceived notions of what is Christian and forced to tick certain boxes. My opinions on religious pluralism, gender, religious leadership and sexuality (not simply orientation, but other issues like premarital sex) don't fit into the category of Christian that most people would use, and so, for these purposes, can I be called a Christian?

Anyway, that little tangent was borne of the real reason for this post - my sadness at the opinions on show in this situation. The government has awarded funding for the Poppy Project - a service for victims of sex trafficking to the Salvation Army, over the bid of previous provider Eaves Housing. However, Eaves Housing has accused the government of an 'ideological' decision which harms the vulnerable women they are trying to help.

The article fails to go into detail about whether the ideological issues arise from the government spending cuts, which they argue will give women a cut price service, or the religious issues at stake, as is hinted at in the reference to the Salvation Army's mission to reach people through evangelism. However, reading through the comments section (always an interesting activity if one has a spare afternoon and the need for a bit of therapeutic anger) it seems that there is a real concern that a Christian organisation has been given the contract for this work. Comments tend to focus around the fear of services being predicated on assent to evangelistic works and possible conflicts of interest in this work.

As someone who works in service provision for vulnerable people, I find it ridiculous that people would assume that the contemporary Salvation Army would refuse to provide a service unless some willingness to conversion was shown. For my part, I am working as someone with fuzzy-wuzzy Christian-ishy like belief kind of things within a Christian organisation, and I see my work as "evangelistic" (if one would wish to apply such a loaded term) in the sense that religious leaders have given religious weighting to serving the vulnerable/needy/poor/sick/dying. I do not demand that religion is even discussed, though I will talk about my beliefs when asked. The SA offers chaplaincy and counselling where it is desired, be that through formal prayer etc or through informal support and should be praised for that.

Possible conflicts of interest again brings me to my point way up at the top - people will judge by their own preconceived notions of what Christians believe (as a monolithic and static group singing off the same hymn sheet). But contrary to some comments, I know that I have no issues with supporting a victim of sex trafficking through an abortion, or providing a service to homosexual/bisexual service users. To suggest otherwise is utterly insulting.

Now if Eaves Housing are concerned because women will not receive the specialist treatment they require, then I wholeheartedly support their claim for these women should be at the centre of any debate. But, if the reactions I have responded to above are illustrative of the basis of their claim then I am appalled.

I am a feminist. I am 'religious'. But the wellbeing of these women comes before either of those concerns.

Spewing Wrath Upon the (Blog) Page: Guilt and Sexual Violence

It's been a wee while since I condemned anyone to hell (see the right hand side for more details) but in the past few months of my blogging hiatus I've gathered a wee list of new Satan-fodder.

I've dedicated a lot of my blog to arguing against the myths that persistently crop up whenever rape and sexual violence are discussed (again there's a wee category to the right for anyone wishing to read the wrath I have vomited upon these pages) but still the old favourites crop up with the alarming regularity of rent day.

From someone in a position of power last week I heard the words "she would be lucky to be raped", referring to a woman that person thought was ugly.

At first I stared in horror.

Then I silently seethed as all the implications of a statement I hoped I'd never hear came to mind - this woman had confided about her rape and not only did this man say that he didn't believe her, but that she would be lucky to be raped.

As if being raped is a badge of honour.

As if, as Hadley Freeman pointed out in the Guardian a couple of days later, rape is a compliment.

This sort of attitude not only grossly misunderstands the impact of rape upon victims, but makes all women complicit in the guilt of sexual violence. That woman was guilty of being too ugly even for a rapist to desire her, just as those who do fall prey to rapists are guilty in being pretty enough to be raped. Just as the old favourites - she was wearing a short skirt/her cleavage was visible/her ankles were showing/she had been drinking/she flirted/we dated/she married me - are wheeled out repeatedly as excuses, the guilt of rape never lies with the rapist - us women are eternally tempting and teasing and deserve it.

As for the Delroy Grant story which elicited the above story, I can add nothing to the condemnation which has already been given, other than to use this horrific example as another reason for which to condemn the dangerous drivel spouted by Mr Palmer as documented here.

I Would Spit on Him. Unless He was on Fire...

I know, I know. I'm mean and horrible. Unless you consider who I'm talking about, in which case you may be more amenable to my way of thinking...

That's right, it is the monster that is Clameron, or Camegg. I've not decided yet.

And why, oh why would these odious, duplicitous little goblins make me act in such a terribly impolite manner?

WELL.

We've got an issue that is close to my heart, even if it doesn't directly affect me - tuition fees. I will say here and now I can't imagine a time I'd ever vote Tory. Ever. Like, unless my local Tory candidate was standing against Nick Griffin, and I'd still be tempted to spoil my ballot. My feelings about the Lib Dems (or Labour if you want to accuse me of being partisan) were not quite as entrenched, but the sight of Clegg's smarmy (and worryingly indistinguishable from Cameron's) face and manner in the election debates, as well as my inability to shake off the feeling that he was the illegitimate love child of Pinkie and the Brain - all the world dominating ambition but with the ability to only say nyarf - meant the Lib Dems weren't getting my vote either.

(Side note: I'm not actually keen on the idea of party politics anyway, but the fact that my constituencies Tory and Lib Dem candidates spouted the same rubbish as their 'leaders' meant that they didn't get a vote.)

But it seems the rest of the country is STUPID and/or were mislead by greasy lies, and so we have a ConDem Nation.

It took a while, and I got over the sharp pain in my brain whenever I realised that those muppets were in power. So much so I didn't even get violent at those who admitted they voted these idiots in.

Then the cuts happened. Tripled tuition fees for many students came in, just to make sure that your universities are filled to the brim with clones of our power sharing team, who were privately educated at two of the best regarded schools in the country, and we can patronise all 'poor' students who need to be catered for with practical training, because heaven forbid they want to go to university too, or even, horror of horrors, wee Tarquin from Harrow wants to be a roof slater.

Iain Duncan Smith told people to 'get on their bikes' and look for work when no suitable jobs were available in the immediate area. Which is fine and grand. Unless the nearest suitable job requires public transport, which is going up in price. Or if you have a young family or sick relatives and need to take on caring responsibilities.

But what makes me truly incandescent with rage is the ways in which the government has targeted women in their cuts. The Fawcett Society brought an action against the government for sex discrimination, in which it was found that no gender impact assessment was carried out.

The most horrific example I have come across is the situation in Devon, where the cuts in council grants mean that three main charities working with victims of domestic/intimate partner violence have had their funding cut. By 100%. That is not a misprint, one hundred per cent. The Devon model has won awards for their success in working with some of the most vulnerable members of societies, but when the economic crisis (would it be churlish to point out the massive gender disparity in bankers here?) hits, women are disposable. As I've argued before, the myth that women are equal is damaging, and here it is being put into practice.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I'm keeping my saliva to myself.

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.