![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flewellynI posted this on this blog, discussing the 17 year old Oregon girl who, after accusing her boyfriend and two of his friends of raping her, was convicted of filing a false police report; the apparent reasoning by the judge was that, since the prosecution couldn't find enough evidence that the rape had taken place, she was obviously lying. Several commenters on the blog proceeded to do the usual misogynist bashing of women, feminism, and the notion that rape actually happens all that often, and went off accusing women of lying about rape as often as 25% of the time.
Several other people, of course, took them to task for their nonsense, and cited actual statistics showing that the number of rape reports which turn out to be falsified is around 1.6%; nonetheless, I felt compelled to respond, thus:
Aside from the statistics cited above showing that women lie about rape charges in as few as 1.6% of reports, there is a simple, logical reason why assuming that women will lie about rape just doesn't make sense.
Look at what happens to a woman who accuses a man of raping her. Her name is dragged through the mud, her sexual history is questioned, she is slandered with all sorts of vile names by the defendant's supporters, lawyers, and by men of society at large. She is told that it was her fault, that she shouldn't have been doing whatever she was doing when her attacker raped her. She is accused of making it all up, of lying to be vengeful or (if the rapist is rich, such as Kobe Bryant) of seeking money. She faces long odds of getting a conviction; in Oregon, apparently 10% of reported rapes result in a conviction. Rape being one of the most underreported crimes there is, the real numbers are surely much higher.
She receives all kinds of "advice" from people which can be summed up as "don't have a social life, don't ever drink, don't go out of your house, and if you still get raped, it's still your fault". Her family and friends may well abandon her, or even turn against her. Her religious community may well turn their backs on her, as well.
Given all of this, what sort of logical reason would there be for women to lie about being raped? The 1.6% who apparently do, I would surmise, are probably mentally ill; otherwise, anyone sane would realize that accusing a man of rape is extremely difficult and has all kinds of social and psychological penalties, whether he is convicted or not. The man accused, or even convicted, of rape has many allies in society, many people trying to excuse what he did, or blame it all on the woman. Look at how many people today still think Desiree Washington was just a golddigger, even after Mike Tyson was, in fact, convicted.
Quite simply, sane people do not lie if there is no benefit to them in doing so. And the simple fact is, lying about rape has no benefit for women. So, given these facts...who would benefit from lying about rape? If it's not women, then who?
Several other people, of course, took them to task for their nonsense, and cited actual statistics showing that the number of rape reports which turn out to be falsified is around 1.6%; nonetheless, I felt compelled to respond, thus:
Aside from the statistics cited above showing that women lie about rape charges in as few as 1.6% of reports, there is a simple, logical reason why assuming that women will lie about rape just doesn't make sense.
Look at what happens to a woman who accuses a man of raping her. Her name is dragged through the mud, her sexual history is questioned, she is slandered with all sorts of vile names by the defendant's supporters, lawyers, and by men of society at large. She is told that it was her fault, that she shouldn't have been doing whatever she was doing when her attacker raped her. She is accused of making it all up, of lying to be vengeful or (if the rapist is rich, such as Kobe Bryant) of seeking money. She faces long odds of getting a conviction; in Oregon, apparently 10% of reported rapes result in a conviction. Rape being one of the most underreported crimes there is, the real numbers are surely much higher.
She receives all kinds of "advice" from people which can be summed up as "don't have a social life, don't ever drink, don't go out of your house, and if you still get raped, it's still your fault". Her family and friends may well abandon her, or even turn against her. Her religious community may well turn their backs on her, as well.
Given all of this, what sort of logical reason would there be for women to lie about being raped? The 1.6% who apparently do, I would surmise, are probably mentally ill; otherwise, anyone sane would realize that accusing a man of rape is extremely difficult and has all kinds of social and psychological penalties, whether he is convicted or not. The man accused, or even convicted, of rape has many allies in society, many people trying to excuse what he did, or blame it all on the woman. Look at how many people today still think Desiree Washington was just a golddigger, even after Mike Tyson was, in fact, convicted.
Quite simply, sane people do not lie if there is no benefit to them in doing so. And the simple fact is, lying about rape has no benefit for women. So, given these facts...who would benefit from lying about rape? If it's not women, then who?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Where the hell did this come from?
Date: 2005-12-07 04:07 am (UTC)I think that some (not all, NOT ALL) rape situations could have been prevented by making better choices BY BOTH PARTIES. That doesn't mean it's all her fault, but I think we don't stress the whole "hey, you know - if you booze it up and lose conciousness, this could happen to you and it will suck a whole lot, so let's make some more educated choices when out there."
Women are just as responsible for putting themselves in bad situation. This doesn't mean I can't go out to a bar and drink it up, but it does mean hey, maybe I shouldn't go out with strangers or drink until I black out.
And I think it is easy to champion women in this society. We are a lot stronger than given credit for. But I feel that we let ourselves get taken advantage of because of it. The only time I have ever felt like society has betrayed me was when someone says something like "look how much she, a woman, has accomplished!"
I'm just saying - and this is my whole point - is that rape is never a simple court case.
Re: Where the hell did this come from?
Date: 2005-12-07 04:14 am (UTC)Of course, 50% of rapes have sober victims. So avoiding alcohol will not prevent it.
You might find reading
Re: Where the hell did this come from?
Date: 2005-12-07 04:16 am (UTC)Just because you think I'm wrong, doesn't mean that my argument has merit. I'm just presentiing a different side.
Re: Where the hell did this come from?
Date: 2005-12-07 04:21 am (UTC)Re: Where the hell did this come from?
Date: 2005-12-07 04:26 am (UTC)And being right is the most important thing, isn't it? I mean, who wants to be just when you can be right.
Re: Where the hell did this come from?
Date: 2005-12-07 04:28 am (UTC)At any rate, given the statistics, the "problem" of women falsely accusing men of rape is one that occurs in less than 2% of cases. I don't think 2% of cases deserves 50% of the attention.
Re: Where the hell did this come from?
Date: 2005-12-07 04:33 am (UTC)Re: Where the hell did this come from?
Date: 2005-12-07 04:37 am (UTC)Let's first work on the vast majority of non-"gray area'd" cases of rape and sexual assault which nonetheless do not result in a conviction. Then we can start worrying about "gray areas", when by and large most women do not need to fear every time they walk out their doors.
Re: Where the hell did this come from?
Date: 2005-12-07 04:41 am (UTC)It's dangerous for ANYBODY to walk outside. It's dangerous to be a man, to be a woman, to be black, latino, gay, a furry, to be different, to be the same. Why? Because that's the way life is - it SUCKS. But we have laws, we have government, and at somepoint everybody needs to realize that it's a dangerous world, sucky things can happen, but let's not let that hinder the way we live our lives.
Re: Where the hell did this come from?
Date: 2005-12-07 04:43 am (UTC)May I submit that your experience may not in fact be typical?
Re: Where the hell did this come from?
Date: 2005-12-07 04:46 am (UTC)Blah blah blah, you're right. Blah blah blah, I haven't done my reasearch, I don't know what I'm talking about, blah blah blah.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand scene.
Re: Where the hell did this come from?
Date: 2005-12-07 04:48 am (UTC)It's not like I think you're bad or evil or anything...just misguided. I mean no insult by it. Hell, I was pretty uneducated about this stuff awhile ago, too. It's a correctable problem.
Re: Where the hell did this come from?
Date: 2005-12-07 05:00 pm (UTC)It's dangerous for ANYBODY to walk outside. It's dangerous to be a man, to be a woman, to be black, latino, gay, a furry, to be different, to be the same. Why? Because that's the way life is - it SUCKS. But we have laws, we have government, and at somepoint everybody needs to realize that it's a dangerous world, sucky things can happen, but let's not let that hinder the way we live our lives.
...a good dose of fear is good for the soul. Fear is a perfectly sensible reaction to a dangerous situation, and certainly I am aware when walking around (say) suburban Paris or inner-city Southampton that I had better be cautious walking outside, because the risk of rape or mugging is pretty high (statistically and anecdotally) in both areas. In fact, if it's late at night and dark and I'm alone, it makes so much sense to avoid walking around the place that I'll happily spend about fifty dollars on the cost of a taxi just to avoid that situation, and if I don't have fifty dollars then I'd better just get used to not taking that trip at all. Conversely, if I'm in Karlsruhe, where street crime is so rare that spitting chewing-gum onto the street excites the attention of the press, I'm not going to waste the cash on a taxi because I am not risking anything by walking apart from perhaps a blistered heel.
I can't imagine any sort of thought, serious or otherwise, which would make this a stupid reflex. It's simply good risk management.
As you say, any identity can be "dangerous" at times. For example, if I am a Russian male on the St Petersburg metro, I am pretty well in my element, whereas if I am an affluent non-Russian-speaking Welsh female on the St Petersburg metro, I would be well advised to take great care or perhaps to take a taxi instead; if you switched the location to Cardiff, the equation changes appreciably since Russian nationality suddenly becomes a liability. Risk management is contextual. Given this, women tend to see rape as a risk, what's surprising or stupid about that? That particular risk is less of an issue for men, who perhaps need to worry instead about violent crime such as mugging, what's surprising or stupid about that? In some contexts, I do not need to fear. In others, I know that I do. Statistics allow us to calculate risk - and?
Law and government is not an effective shield - rather, an ethical form of punishment. The knowledge that the person holding the knife is committing a crime does not make any difference until much, much later, after the photo parade and the identity parade and the establishment of sufficient evidence to bring a court case.