A Speakout on Male Sexual Violence

This blog has now moved to WordPress

2006-10-30T00:27:00.000Z

This blog, including all the old posts and comments, has now moved to WordPress.

http://speakoutonmaleviolence.wordpress.com/

Please update your favourites/bookmarks.

***COMMENTS HAVE NOW CLOSED ON THIS BLOG***

The war of terror against women

2006-10-05T10:07:00.000Z

In a thread discussing the recent school shooting of 10 Amish schoolgirls, Heart at Women's Space/The Margins has written a brilliant comment regarding the war of terror on women.

Read more...

I don’t think men have to be conscious, intentional misogynists in order to terrorize women. In fact, I think there are very few Marc Lepines– men who consciously, intentionally hate women and decide to terrorize them.

When someone is robbing a certain neighborhood, he is terrorizing the neighborhood. That might not be his purpose or his intent– he might just want to rob people. But the effect of what he does is terrorism because before, people in the neighborhood weren’t scared all the time, looking behind them, listening for every noise but now they are.

I think when men murder women, rape women, incest them, that is terrorism in a similar way. If you asked them, they would tell you about all the women they treat well and care for, and that the only reason they murdered their wife or these women or raped them or whatever was because of (some reason that makes sense to them). Not because they hate women. But the terrorizing in and of itself evidences the hatred, regardless of what the guy says his intention is, in the same way that, for example, someone who uses racist hate speech or engages in racist actions evidences his racism, even if he tells you he’s not a racist because after all, he was nice to his maid and the doorman and the janitor. However nice he might have been to these people, his racist acts would still be terrorism against the race he was targeting, would still have the same effects, would still serve the purpose of shoring up his power as a white man, would still benefit all white men.

Same thing with sexual terrorism. It doesn’t matter if a rapist or murderer was nice to his mom, his wife and his kids. His raping and murdering still terrorizes women and evidences his misogyny. It doesn’t matter what the Amish murderer says about God, his fantasies, vengeance, molesting relatives, none of it. It is irrelevant that he entered an Amish schoolhouse. He did that because it was easy; these little girls were sitting ducks. His father served the Amish in his business; this guy knew the Amish were pacifists and would not resist him.

He entered that school with a long board with 10 eyehole screws screwed into it, and with cords. He held 10 girls hostage. The eyehole screws were 10 inches apart, just the right amount of space to tie the hands of 10 little girls to each eyehole screw after he’d pounded the board into the wall (he brought plenty of tools), and then sexually assault all of them. His plans were foiled when police approached and told him to put down the gun. He panicked and started shooting.

But this was a predatory, murdering, terrorist. It doesn’t matter what he said about anything. It matters what he DID. It’s what he did that made him a sexual terrorist and a hater of women.

Heart

The war against women

2006-10-03T20:11:00.000Z

So you don't believe me?

Check out Amananta's latest post on her blog "How long before they admit it". It is a brilliant post cataloguing just one month's crimes against women - and these were just the 'newsworthy' ones.

Of my favourite comments so far, from angryandqueer, was:

"You know, one aspect of this that troubles me is the way so many woman-killers or girl-killers so easily substitute one female for another. Only by this logic can a man exact “revenge” against his ex-wife by shooting a bunch of other females who are completely unconnected to his life. And the sad thing is that this logic is innately understood by people who hear or talk about these events without ever being questioned."

Sexual Predator 'led double life'

2006-09-15T22:12:00.000Z

Jennifer (Truth About Rape Campaign) gives her analysis of the recent case of a 'Mr Nice Guy' who was in reality, a despicable teen predator. He was only caught through an investigation of theft.

Read more...
Anthony De Boise a 58 year old Wandsworth Council Planning Officer, married for 30 years was convicted of raping at least six young women between 1989 and 1996. De Boise had deliberately disguised himself as a tramp in order to seek out young women at various beauty spots, Southwark Crown Court were told.

De Boise's defence barrister attempted to mitigate De Boise's litany of rape and sexual abuse against these young women by suggesting that a change of diabetes medication might be partly to blame, as well as work pressure!! The barrister went on 'how else do you explain such behaviour for a man married for 30 years who has an exemplary working record and is very hardworking'. So the real perpetrators were (apparently) 'work pressure and because De Boise was given a different diabetes medication'. This was a poor attempt at deflecting De Boise's actions and excusing his actions. In reality, De Boise is a clever, calculating and manipulative man who made a decision to seek out young women and sexually abuse them.

Rape survivors however are not so fortunate, they are not allowed to present character testimony in respect of their 'respectability'. Instead they are blamed and held partially or totally responsible for a man/men raping them. Defence counsel too, routinely minutely question them about their sexual histories (despite a change in the law restricting such questions, medical records, any mental illnesses or problems they might have experienced and whether they have had an abortion, are single mothers etc. All in order to discredit the survivor as a non-credible witness. Fortunately in this case De Boise admitted raping these young women.

These rape survivors were also portrayed in my opinion as pathologised 'victims'. Yes, the prosecution had to show how they were affected after being subjected to sexually degrading sexual abuse by De Boise. No, these survivors will not remain 'victims'. Yes, all these young women no longer trust any man and in fact there is no reason why they should. Yes, these survivors' lives have been radically changed but survivors do recover and no they are not the same women before De Boise sexually abused them. They will have changed, that is inevitable. The real tragedy is that men's sexual violence against women does have a long-term impact on both rape survivors and their families. Perhaps one of the reasons why one of the survivor's family was placed on medication was because there is an ever-increasing shortage of rape crisis centres in the UK, plus a chronic shortage of expert counselling services which are well-funded and easily within the financial means of families. Instead, rape survivors and their families will continue to be left to deal with the long-term effects by themselves. Men's sexual violence does have far reaching effects both on the survivor and her ability to lead what is termed a 'normal life' and also secondary effects on her friends and families. That is the real and continuing tragedy not the defence's claim that a so-called 'respectable man' married for 30 years, was adversely affected by work pressure and a change in his medication.

De Boise made a choice to rape women and rightly has been found guilty.

Rape judge slammed for leniency

2006-09-14T19:54:00.000Z

Jennifer (Truth About Rape Campaign) gives her views on the sentencing that was increased by the Appeal Court.

Please first read the article "Rape judge slammed for leniency" from the BBC website.

Read more...
The Appeal Court has rightly increased two male convicted rapists' sentences from a 24 month detention order and 18 month order to four years and three and a half years in prison respectively. The Appeal Court quite rightly criticised the original sentencing judge for treating a young woman's group rape by two teenage boys as just a 'childish prank gone wrong'. In reality, these two convicted boy-rapists deliberately planned the rape of this young woman since they knew the young woman believed she was safe because she was acquainted with them. These boys raped the young woman in the presence of three other young men (sic) who apparently did nothing themselves to prevent the boys raping this young woman.

How fortunate that this young woman was able to 'prove she was not able to defend herself' against a multiple attack and subsequently these two boys were convicted of rape.

Judge Bullimore when sentencing these boys to detention orders spoke about how these sentences would affect the boys and their families. However, the judge made no mention of the young woman's ordeal in being raped by two teen boys or how she has been affected by such a serious crime. Judge Bullimore instead believed the rape was not really rape but just the case of a 'childish prank gone wrong'. This effectively excuses and exonerates a very serious crime committed against this young woman by two teen boys.

However, these two teen boys were not little children, instead they were in their late teens. The judge spoke about the boys' supposed immaturity and naivity, plus the fact they both came from supportive and loving homes. Since when is immaturity and naivity an excuse for the crime of rape? These boys were responsible for the rape not their families! These two boys alone made the decision to rape this young woman and the fact they come from loving and supportive homes is totally irrelevant. The families did not rape this young woman, instead it was the two teen boys who committed this rape.

It is heartening to read that on this occasion the Appeal Court did not believe this multipe rape was just 'a childish prank' and rightly criticised Judge Bullimore for his blatant biased remarks. The Appeal Court judges rightly stated the rape of this young woman was a very serious offence and irrespective of the boys' ages merited a substantial period of detention.

Although the Appeal Judges stated they could not understand why Judge Bullimore said that in some circumstances he might have imposed a non-custodial sentence on the teen boy who held the young woman down or Judge Bullimore's remarks that he could understand why the boy who had forcibly restrained the young woman had pleaded not guilty to this offence.

Sadly, Judge Bullimore like so many individuals who work within the legal system, still have little or no understanding of the reality of male sexual violence against women. Despite efforts to 'educate and train' judges there appears to be an embedded resistance to the realities of males raping and/or sexually abusing women and girls.

Judge Bullimore by saying this was 'just a childish prank' continues to justify and excuse male sexual violence against women, since once again in his view, it was just a case of 'boys being boys' not one of calculated male sexual violence against women.

Paris: seven policemen charged with rape of prostitutes

2006-09-13T17:13:00.000Z

From 'Liberation' newspaper, Wednesday 13th September 2006, and NouvelObs.com.

Seven members of the parisian riot police (CRS) are facing sentences of up to twenty years imprisonment for the rape of three eastern european prostitutes in April 2003. Three of the men admitted to the rapes during an internal police inquiry and are charged with aggravated rape, while four others are charged with complicity. Only one of the women will be present at the court proceedings as the others have - understandably - fled from fear of reprisal from the men.

Late one night in April the police picked up the first women on the pretence of checking her ID documents, took her to an isolated area next to a motorway and raped her, then returned her to the street where they found her. Later the same night they picked up the other two women on the same pretext, took them to the same isolated area and forced them to have sex in exchange for the return of their ID documents. One woman attempted to run away and was recaptured and raped. On the journey back both women managed to escape from the car and were picked up by a passing lorry driver.

It is excellent to see that the police and courts are taking this case seriously, particularly considering the women were prostitutes and therefore had even less chance of being believed than non-prostitutes. The men involved obviously believed this to be the case.

The case is also a good example of why so few women go to the police when they have been raped or sexually assualted - according to Truth About Rape less than 7% of women report their rape to the police - we know that there is no reason why policemen will be any different from the men who assualted or raped us.

These rapists are normal men with supposedly respectable jobs who feel entitled to use women in any way they please. Let's hope they get what they deserve - I'll keep you posted.

A Crackdown On Encrypted Child Pornography

2006-09-13T14:40:00.000Z

Events in Sussex last year in which Jane Longhurst tragically and horrifically threw the spotlight on another form of extreme material on the internet — violent pornography in which children and women are depicted as the victims of rape, torture and asphyxiation.

There has been remarkable progress in a comparatively short period, as politicians and the public have responded positively to the call for a crackdown on both violent pornography and encrypted child pornography.

Read more...
It would seem in the past few months or so, the police, spurned on by press and public, have been forced to take note of the Internet and its potential to harm vulnerable individuals and groups. Nobody likes being told what to do, especially when you are used to saying what you want, to whom you want. Until recently, the Web has been an open forum for freedom of expression. However, as its audience grows, so does the possibility of offending someone's sensibilities. Therefore, whether some people like it or not, welcoming restrictions are being developed and implemented.

[Related article from The Observer, 27 Aug 2006]

Suspected paedophiles who refuse to show police encrypted images on their computers could receive much longer prison sentences under laws being considered by the government.

The proposal has won support from a coalition of children's charities, which are worried that an increasing number of paedophiles are using sophisticated software to hide child pornography from investigators. Currently, anyone refusing to reveal an encrypted image to police faces a maximum of two years in prison. But making and disseminating child pornography carries a maximum 10-year sentence, so some suspects refuse to decrypt images in the knowledge they will receive a lighter sentence.

In May, Home Office minister Liam Byrne signalled the government's concern over the issue, acknowledging that 'the use of encryption is proliferating'.

A government consultation about giving judges powers to increase sentences for suspected paedophiles who refuse to unlock encrypted files closes this week. It highlights a number of cases in which suspects refused to co-operate. One, the consultation document notes, had '27 encrypted disks, none of which could be opened'. In another case, images of child rape were recovered along with encrypted files 'giving rise to concern they may contain worse material'.

The Conservatives have called for the maximum sentence to be increased to seven years. The charities, which includes NCH, Barnardo's and the NSPCC, have written to the Home Office saying there is an urgent need for the law to be changed.

The consultation discusses the higher sentences as part of amendments to the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The legislation was introduced in 2000 but, after a public backlash, the government dropped the part of the act that made it an offence to refuse to hand over encryption keys.

Why men's verbal sexual coercion is rape - not just unwanted sex

2006-09-11T16:33:00.000Z

An essay by Jennifer (Truth About Rape Campaign) on why verbal coercion IS rape.

Read more...
I was recently researching the subject of language and gender, whereupon I chanced upon a book entitled Language and Sexuality by Deborah Cameron and Don Kulik. In one of their chapters, Cameron and Kulik write that in the early 1990’s Antioch College in the US, introduced a campus-wide Sexual Consent Policy. This Policy clearly stated that consent to sexual activity was to be defined not by one partner saying ‘no’ but rather by saying ‘yes.’ Central to this policy was the requirement that an affirmative yes must be obtained, before either partner proceeded to perform any sexual act upon the other person. In other words, neither person was to presume they knew precisely what their partner wanted or desired sexually, but had to actually ask for permission! (Cameron, D. & Kulik, D. 2003: 36). Of course the US press and even international press heard about this new Sexual Consent Policy and the media’s opinion overwhelmingly was one of ‘political correctness gone mad.’ Sexual activity according to the US and international press was one of spontaneity not one wherein one person had to seek active consent before engaging in any sexual act with their partner (Cameron, D. & Kulik, D. 2003: 64). Sexual activity, according to the media is always ‘spontaneous’ and having a set of so-called rules would ruin a passionate and sexually desirable encounter! What appalled these critics most was that both parties were actually being asked to speak their desires. In other words, both parties would have to actually say what sexual acts they wanted or did not want enacted upon their bodies.

Deborah Cameron subsequently interviewed students attending Antioch College and learned something totally different to the media’s interpretation. Antioch’s administrators had imposed this Policy in an attempt to reduce the numbers of men raping women. However, Cameron when asking the women students if this policy had reduced the numbers of men committing rape received a very different answer. A number of women spoke about not of feeling safer but rather of having better, more exciting, more varied and more pleasurable sexual encounters. When these women students were asked how this policy had achieved such a difference, their response was it had compelled women to develop a language for representing their desires, both to themselves and to their sexual partners. These women discovered that talking more explicitly than they had done previously, had enhanced their experience of sexual activity. As Cameron says, this view was at odds both with the Antioch authorities and also the media’s interpretation which presumed Antioch were intent on suppressing young people’s (sic) ‘natural’ sexuality. (Cameron, D. & Kulik, D. 2003: 37)

Later, I happened to visit a blog entitled Den Of The Biting Beaver and the author has written several pieces on the subject of men’s sexual coercion and also the denial of women’s sexual autonomy. Biting Beaver wrote a piece entitled ‘Consent = Desire??’. In this article Biting Beaver describes how many men do not use force or threats to gain unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman, but instead resort to verbal and continuous coercion. Biting Beaver describes how many women upon saying no to sexual intercourse with a man; his immediate response is ‘why not?’ Many men refuse to accept a woman’s right of saying no and instead either wants an explanation or simply ignores her answer and instead continues verbally pressurising a woman, often for hours until eventually the woman is utterly worn down and submits. Note she does not actively and freely consent, instead she submits because of such continuous verbal harassment and coercion. In other words, as Biting Beaver says, unless a woman can provide a solid reason which the man will accept as reasonable in his opinion, then the woman has to have unwanted sex, or she really wants it (in his opinion). In order for a woman to believed, the assumption is a woman must use some form of violence if she is to be taken seriously and for her sexual autonomy and agency to be accepted and respected by many men.

Biting Beaver also discovered that a number of her male friends could not understand why verbal coercion is another form of sexual abuse against women. One of the primary reasons is men as a group grow up with the belief since they are male; they have the right and entitlement of having their heterosexual desires satisfied by any woman. That it is acceptable and normal heterosexual male behaviour to continue verbal sexual harassment against any woman or girl who dares to say ‘no’ to any sexual act, since she is being ‘unreasonable’ in his opinion. In other words it is about power, the power to define supposedly normal sexual scripts. Both women’s and men’s sexualities have historically been defined solely from the male-standpoint wherein male sexuality is active and dominant with female sexuality seen as opposite, namely passive and receptive. Society also continues to reinforce these supposedly biologically ‘natural’ views by controlling and constraining women’s sexualities. Which is why any woman society perceives as deviating from what is presumed to be the ‘natural female sexual role’ is punished and judged to be a slut, whore etc., since unlike men, it is a woman’s sexuality which defines her identity. Therefore, it is no wonder so many women find it difficult not only to express their sexual desires and needs, but also for them to be heard and accepted by men as valid.

Verbal sexual pressure or harassment continues to be viewed by many men and women as just part of the ‘normal heterosexual male sex drive.’ Such common-sense views, render abuses of power invisible and at the same time deny women the right of sexual agency and autonomy. This is why so many men believe it is ridiculous having to actually request a woman’s permission before initiating any sexual touching. As Biting Beaver says, it is a man’s right and entitlement to initiate and control any sexual interaction, since society reinforces the belief that a man’s sexual desires is more valid and takes precedence over any woman’s. It is all part of the heterosexual script which is still widely accepted as normal and fixed heterosexual behaviour, not one which has been socially constructed and therefore is changeable.

Such beliefs feed into Biting Beaver’s other very insightful article about women’s sexual autonomy and ownership of their bodies. This article is very interesting to me personally, because at times I have wondered if I am the only woman who believes my body and sexuality belongs to me alone and is not owned by any would-be sexual partner. That no one has the right of presuming to initiate any sexual contact without first seeking mutually and freely given consent. (http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/2005/09/hey-its-my-tree.html).

Like Biting Beaver I have often thought what a man would say if I were to remove his trousers and suddenly insert a vibrator into his anus whilst at the same time telling him ‘you will enjoy this, I know you will because it will be good for you’. I am certain the man would protest in the strongest terms that I shouldn’t have done that and even possibly I am committing rape (horrors!). The difference of course, is that men as a group do not routinely experience unwanted sexual activity, do not have their bodies routinely groped by women who believe it is their right and entitlement, or have unwanted sexual activity forced upon them without their permission. Instead as boys, they are taught their bodies belong to them, that being male it is their right and entitlement to seek out sexual encounters and most importantly, they alone are the ones who initiate and control any sexual encounter. Since male sexual pleasure is primary and a female partner’s is very much secondary. Men committing rape and/or sexual abuse against women is a violation of all women’s right to bodily and sexual autonomy, but in saying this, I am not excluding the fact some men rape and sexually abuse other men and boys, but the numbers are far less than men raping and sexually abusing women. Myths still perpetuate the belief that only homosexual men rape other men, whereas in fact the majority of male on male rape is committed by heterosexual males in order to degrade, dehumanise and control a man/boy who is perceived as being not a ‘real man.’

However, unlike heterosexual males, it is women of all sexual orientation or identity who are still denied sexual autonomy and sexual rights. The sexual double standard still exists and it is women’s sexualities which continue to be socially controlled and ‘policed’ by a male-dominant society. Male homosexuals too are subject to social control, but obviously this does not apply to all men unlike women. Women who are perceived as transgressing their sexual role are termed slags, sluts etc. but no such sexist insults exist for heterosexual male behaviour. Instead their actions and behaviours are praised and are considered to be ‘real men.’

There is still a widespread belief that women’s bodies and sexualities belong to men and it is a man’s right to touch his female sexual partner, remove her clothing etc. all without having to ask her permission. Why? Because as Biting Beaver eloquently says, asking a woman for permission before enacting any sexual act upon her is irrelevant, she is only a woman. Asking permission is vital, because it means the partner and this applies equally to both heterosexuals and same-sex couples, that both partners respect the other person’s sexual and bodily autonomy and agency.

Of course one of the embedded rape myths is what Wendy Hollway calls the ‘male sexual drive discourse’ (Hollway, W. 1984 & 1989). Hollway describes the male sexual drive discourse as one wherein men’s need or desire to have penetrative sex is so strong, that it is almost an overwhelming drive and that it exists in all healthy, normal heterosexual men. As such, this is one of the reasons why so many men will go to any lengths to have penetrative sex, including using prostituted women. The media too plays its part in perpetuating this myth, by portraying men as always wanting and needing penetrative sex on a regular basis. Therefore, whilst men are the subjects of this male sexual drive discourse, women are its objects. Men therefore are ‘naturally’ always ready and willing to engage in ‘real’ penetrative sex and it is women, their bodies or pictures of women’s bodies which activate the male sexual drive. (Hollway cited in Gavey, N. 2005: 104). Heterosexual women’s only sexual role is one of gatekeeper, wherein she can only say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, she must not under any circumstances express her own sexual desires or needs. Which is partially why so many men refuse to accept a woman’s ‘no’ to sexual activity as authentic and a woman’s right. It also links into the idea that when a woman says no, she is a ‘tease’ or she ‘must have led the man’ on etc. All of which are entrenched rape myths and which serve to deny women’s right of sexual autonomy and agency.

Imagine what would happen if the legal system and society were to actually recognize and accept that both women and men have the right and ownership of their bodies and sexualities. That any man using verbal sexual coercion against a woman is in fact rape and not just ‘unwanted sex’ since the woman was so worn down by a tirade of constant pressure she eventually submits. Such actions are rape not ‘unwanted sex’. Male rapists would then be less likely to be acquitted of raping women, since the courts and society would finally recognize and accept that the right of bodily integrity and sexual autonomy is NOT the prerequisite of just heterosexual men.

REFERENCES:
Cameron, Deborah & Kulik, Don: 2003: Language and Sexuality, Cambridge University Press
http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/2005/09/consent-desire.html
http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/2005/09/hey-its-my-tree.html
Hollway, W. 1984: Gender Difference and The Production of Subjectivity. In J.Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn and V. Walkerine, Changing The Subject: Psychology, Social Regulation and Subjectivity, London Methuen
Gavey, N. 2005: Just Sex: The Cultural Scaffolding of Rape, Routledge

Justice in the dock...

2006-09-11T11:28:00.000Z

Jennifer (Truth About Rape Campaign) gives an insight and analysis on the reporting of an horrific attack on a female walker in Scotland, and the coverage of the trial of the self-confessed woman-hating male perpetrator.

Read more...
From The New Scotsman, 9 Sep 2006 (reprinted below in its entirety for reference).

Justice in the dock following attack on walker
by SHÂN ROSS AND MICHAEL HOWIE
AN URGENT investigation was last night demanded into why one of Scotland's most violent criminals was released early from prison weeks before carrying out a horrific attack that left an American tourist in a coma.

Colin Ross, a self-confessed woman-hater, yesterday admitted attacking Marty Layman-Mendonca, 57, a teacher from Vermont, with an iron bar near Inverness on 5 July. The attack occurred less than a month after Ross, 34, was released early from a three-year sentence for attacking a female holidaymaker from Germany.

Northern Constabulary were so concerned about the risk he posed to women that on 29 June - six days before the attack - they were granted a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) banning Ross from approaching women or wearing a balaclava. The order also banned him from leaving his home or the immediate area for more than 24 hours without police permission and from getting a job or voluntary work without written approval.

Yesterday, Ross admitted attacking Ms Layman-Mendonca by repeatedly striking her on her head and body with a metal pipe and a boulder, causing life threatening injuries that left her permanently disfigured and impaired, and attempting to murder her. He also admitted carrying her into a wood, dumping her and stealing her possessions before tying her wrists together with shoelaces.

And as Ms Layman-Mendonca remained seriously ill in hospital, police and politicians last night joined forces in attacking the Scottish justice system and demanding to know how the assault was allowed to happen. Margaret Mitchell, the Tory justice spokeswoman, said: "I will be writing to the Lord Advocate asking him to investigate the circumstances surrounding this case to see what lessons can be learned."

Last night, a senior officer said police were "powerless" against lenient sentencing. He described Ross as a "very, very twisted individual who would always be a danger to women unless kept behind bars indefinitely". The officer said: "The justice system lets the police down a lot. We can only do so much with SOPOs. You could say we are being pro-active by getting Ross on the Sex Offenders Register when he has never been convicted of a sex offence, but it has extreme limitations. People can't be watched 24/7. The only solution in this case would be to keep him in jail."

Ross's behaviour became more and more aggressive over time. In July, 2003, Ross, of Inverness, was sentenced to two years' jail for breach of the peace after being arrested as he lurked in the Culcaboch area of the city with what could have been a rape kit. It included material for hooding and tying up a victim, a balaclava, plus a sinister guide to getting into a woman's house, ending with the chilling words "...and now the fun begins".

In May 2004, while wearing a balaclava and gloves, Ross attacked a German holidaymaker, Ina Bruns, 36, in a forest near Cawdor Castle, outside Inverness. When arrested he was wearing her glasses. He was convicted for three years but released early on 9 June under a supervised release order. Less than a month later, despite the SOPO, he attacked Ms Layman-Mendonca.

The SNP's justice spokesman, Kenny MacAskill, said: "This is a tragic case. There is clearly a problem with the supervision of offenders."

John Scott, chair of the Howard League for Penal Reform in Scotland, questioned the value of SOPOs, but said locking someone up forever was not the answer. "We understand the frustration of the police, but they have their part to play in the justice system too. There can never be any guarantees about how people will behave. They can only be sentenced for what they've done, not for what they might do."

In court yesterday, Lord Wheatley called for a social inquiry report, and the defence will provide a report from a forensic psychologist. Ross will appear again on 3 October. But because an individual risk management plan will have to be drawn up, it could be months before he is sentenced.

A spokeswoman for the Crown Office said: "We play no role in requesting either a risk assessment or in applying for a Sexual Offences Prevention Order. The former is requested by the Scottish Prison Service and SOPOs are applied for by chief constables."

A Scottish Executive spokesperson said: "It is not appropriate for Scottish ministers to comment on the details of an individual offender's case. "However, public protection is a key priority for Scottish ministers and that's why we have taken steps to tighten up release arrangements and improve the management of offenders."

'I wanted to hurt someone'
COLIN Ross had prepared the ambush site, hiding clean clothes, a sponge and a milk bottle full of Dettol in the undergrowth alongside a quiet path. All he needed was a victim.

On Wednesday, 5 July, she arrived. Marty Layman- Mendonca, 57, was on her third visit to Scotland - a country she described as "the most warm and welcoming place on earth" - and was walking the last six miles of her trek along the Great Glen Way when she met Ross. He followed the committed Christian for ten yards, engaged her in conversation and then went into a frenzy. He repeatedly hit her on the head with a metal pipe and a boulder before stealing her rucksack and rifling through the pockets of her walking shorts for cash. Ross then tied Ms Layman-Mendonca's wrists with shoelaces, leaving her unconscious and bleeding heavily. He buried the boulder and threw the pipe into a pond. Ross wore the victim's rain jacket to cover his bloodstained clothes. He used money he stole from Ms Layman-Mendonca to buy cigarettes and six cans of beer. When he got home, he changed and put his clothes in a black binbag inside a holdall, which he hid behind bushes on a secluded canal path.

Glasgow High Court yesterday heard that when Ms Layman-Mendonca failed to return, her friends contacted the police. At 6pm, a police officer and dog walked the forestry track. After 35 minutes, the dog found Ms Layman-Mendonca lying in a ditch at the side of the track. She had serious head wounds and her face was covered in blood. Her eyes were closed and the skin around them was black and blue. Her wrists were still bound tightly and the wounds were infested with flies. Ms Layman-Mendonca's fingers were also smashed as she had tried to ward off the blows. Her cheeks, eye sockets and jaw were so distorted, lacerated and bloodied by at least 19 blows that she was barely recognisable. She was left in a coma. Even now, her horrific scalp wounds are still open.

When Ross later returned to his house in Inverness, police saw him approach. He did an about-turn when he saw them - he had just dumped Ms Layman-Mendonca's rucksack containing his bloodstained clothes. When he was arrested, he confessed, saying: "I can't cope on the outside. I've got so many anger issues. I am a danger to the public and I don't deserve to be walking about." He claimed cannabis had changed him, turning him into a Jekyll and Hyde character, adding: "I wanted to hurt someone, do a lot of damage to someone."

Derek Ogg, QC, defending, revealed Ross knew that he had violent tendencies and prior to his release from jail had asked for anger-management counselling. A course was eventually arranged three weeks after his release. Ross had also repeatedly asked for drink and drugs counselling, specifically because he felt he might lapse back into his old conduct. Mr Ogg added: "Like the anger-management course, that drink and drugs counselling was not in place at the time he was released." He said, as far as this lady was concerned, there was nothing at all in her conduct which could explain his attack. "In conversation with him, she was a person trying to be helpful. He said the violence was as if a light-switch had been turned on."

COMMENT - MICHAEL HOWIE
UNDER the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the police can apply for a prevention order against anyone already convicted of a violent sexual crime. The order prohibits the offender from doing any specified thing considered necessary to protect the public - such as having contact with women. In theory, such orders are a good idea. However, in the case of Colin Ross, who battered a visiting American teacher almost to death, they have grave limitations.

The police were granted such an order six days before Ross committed his crime. He had just been released early from prison for a similar attack on a German tourist. A psychiatric report warned that Ross "posed a serious danger to the public, particularly women".

Here we have a known serial offender allowed to repeat his crime. The justice system made do with the notion that a formal "order" would stop him. The order merely acted as a diversion deluding the authorities into thinking they were protecting the public. Sadly, that was not the case. Now a woman lies still seriously ill in a hospital.

It is difficult to see in this case what meaningful restrictions could have been put in place that would have stopped an attack. Detention would have. A prevention order that fails to prevent is useless, and their continued use must be questioned. [END ARTICLE]

Commentary by Jennifer:
Defence Counsel, Derek Ogg attempted to excuse Colin Ross's violent and brutal attack upon a woman walker, by telling the jury 'although she (the woman walker) didn't do anything to bring on such an attack' Ross himself knew he had anger management issues and had repeatedly asked for drinks and drugs counselling. In other words, it was (apparently) a combination of uncontrollable anger, drink and drugs which were responsible for Ms. Layman-Mendonca's violent and brutal attack. How unfortunate Ms. Layman-Mendonca herself could not be held partially responsible. After all, it is (apparently) nearly always women's behaviour which provokes men's violence. Men themselves are (apparently) never responsible for making the choice to commit acts of violence against women and other men. Colin Ross himself attempted to excuse his actions and accountability by claiming 'drugs changed his behaviour by turning him into a Jekyll and Hyde character.'

In reality, many men and women too abuse drink and drugs but they do not as a matter of course commit acts of violence upon another human being. Anger itself does not cause acts of violence, instead a deliberate choice is made to commit a violent act. The difference is men are perceived as being provoked whereas women are always held accountable for their actions or for provoking a man beyond reason.

The other culprit in this case was apparently the social support system, because it failed to provide him with anger management counselling and a drinks/drugs abuse course. Although Ross actually committed this crime because he is yet another woman-hater this became marginalised and coincidental to the 'real culprits': uncontrollable anger, drink, drugs and a system which failed to provide him with support. Ross (apparently) is rather to be pitied than held accountable for his actions. Once again, men are excused their violent woman-hating crimes.

Notice too, how the term 'people' is used in this reporting. 'People' conveniently invisibilises the gender of the perpetrator. Women however, are always referred to by their gender as in the case of Ms. Layman-Mendonca who was called a 'female victim'. Likewise when women are convicted of violent crimes, they are always demonised and called 'unnatural women' because they have deviated from what are still perceived as 'appropriate submissive feminine behaviour.'

The usage of the term 'people' when referring to men alone not women, serves two purposes. One it renders men's violence against women invisible and secondly, by referring to women as either 'female victim' or 'female perpetrator' sends a strong warning to women. Namely, women must always be careful to ensure their behaviour, actions etc. do not CAUSE men's violence against them and secondly, women offenders are deviants and unnatural. It is a clever and hidden form of social control over women as a group. This is used to keep women 'in line' and also renders 'natural' men's domination and control over women as a group.

Peeping tom student is spared jail

2006-09-08T22:10:00.000Z

From: Jennifer, Truth About Rape Campaign

Article from the Metro, 08 Sep 2006

"PEEPING TOM STUDENT IS SPARED JAIL
A student who secretly filmed women bathing and showing was spared a jail term yesterday.
Read more...
Charles Greaves, 19, hid a digital camera in a show gel bottle in the showers at his hall of residence, at the University of North Wales in Bangor. When this failed to record clear footage, he moved it to the side of a bath, complete with a note saying the showers were out of order and students should take baths instead. When police seized his laptop, they found nude images of three of Greaves's fellow students. All three were said to be 'hurt' by the discovery. Greaves was given a nine-month suspended sentence by a judge at Caernarfon Crown Court." [END ARTICLE]

All three women were said to be 'hurt' by the discovery. Since when are women 'hurt' by seeing such images? Having the term 'hurt' in inverted commas clearly trivialises the crime of voyeurism which Greaves was found guilty of committing against these women. These women were not 'hurt' which implies they were just 'upset', but rather their rights to privacy and bodily intregity were invaded by a man who deliberately installed a camera for his own sexual gratification. Would the Metro print the term 'hurt' if it was discovered images of a man's penis had been photographed without his permission? I very much doubt it.
-Jennifer

Stormcloud: Read more on the BBC website. At least the BBC omitted the 's around hurt.

Women are never safe from rape

2006-09-08T21:16:00.000Z

From: Jennifer, Truth About Rape Campaign

Article from the Metro, online, 07 Sep 2006

"Twin brothers and an accomplice have been arrested Wisconsin, America after they tried to dig up a girl's corpse and have sex with it.

Read more...
Police received an anonymous tip-off that the three men were on their way to the cemetary to dig up a grave in rural southwestern Wisconsin.

Nicholas Grunke had openly lusted after Laura Tennesen - who died in a motorbike accident last month - when he spotted her picture in the obituary column of a local newspaper.

Three days later, on Tuesday, twins Nicholas and Alexander Grunke, 20, and Dustin Radke, 20, were charged in Grant County with attempted theft — and attempting to have sex with a corpse.

'In different schools that teach you about bizarre behavior, necrophilia is one of those things that you hear about, but never think you'll have to deal with,' Grant County Sheriff Keith Grovier told reporters.

A Cassville police officer arrived at the St. Charles Cemetery on Saturday night after a neighbor alerted police to suspicious activity, according to a criminal complaint filed Tuesday.

The officer found an abandoned vehicle parked near the cemetery. Minutes later, the complaint stated, the officer saw Alexander Grunke walking toward the vehicle, dressed in black and sweating profusely.

After being questioned, Grunke told the officer his brother and Radke were trying to dig up a grave, according to the complaint.

The two drove into the cemetery to find the partially dug grave of the 20-year-old Ms Tennesen.

The diggers had only managed to reach the top of the grave's concrete vault.

The complaint said Radke told police that Nicholas Grunke had asked him to help dig up the Cassville woman's body and take it to Grunke's house, so that Grunke could have sex with it.

On the way to the cemetery, Radke said, they stopped by a Dodgeville Wal-Mart to buy condoms 'because Nick wanted to use them when he had sex with a corpse,' the complaint added.

Grovier said the three did not know the woman."[END ARTICLE]

Firstly the young men who are charged with breaking into a cemetary in order to dig up a young woman's grave, remove her corpse and then 'have sex with her' is not true. In reality these men were planning group rape. The young woman had died in a motorcycle accident a few days previously and when these men saw the picture of the dead woman they decided to commit rape against her body. I always thought 'having sex' translated into both parties consenting and since when can a woman who has recently died 'consent' to having her body violated by three arrogant males. It would seem that no woman alive or dead is safe from men thinking they are entitled to commit rape.
-Jennifer

How the media exploits sexual crimes

2006-09-03T22:07:00.000Z

An article from the States regarding the media coverage of sexual crimes, particularly those against children.

The article is titled How the media exploits sexual crimes, and is by Lucinda Marshall, a feminist activist and journalist, who has written extensively on the subject in general.

This link was found by Jennifer, to read her comments click on
Read more...
Pedophilia is routinely misused by the media. The actual meaning of this word means 'loving children' and to quote Lucinda Marshall's article "there is nothing loving about child pornography let alone the murder and sexual assault of children."

Claims that Warren Jeffs, leader of a polygamous US sect, arranged 'marriages' between young girls and older men is not the truth, in fact it is statutory rape and sexual enslavement of these young girls. Sexualised images of very young girls feeds into the myth 'many young girls are sexually provocative and they are to blame for leading adult men astray.'

Until such time as the realities of child sexual abuse are accepted and recognised, the media will continue to portray such crimes as voyeuristic entertainment - not crimes of child sexual abuse.

Jennifer, Truth About Rape Campaign.

'Lenient' sex offence sentences appealed

2006-08-31T18:34:00.000Z

A young woman exhausted with fighting the system that is there to protect us. I am pleased this survivor has the courage and strength to write a book about her ordeal so that other rape victims “have something to relate to”. One brave and gutsy young woman.

Read more...An 18-year-old rape victim attended an appeal court hearing Monday as prosecutors claimed the jail sentences handed to her attackers were too lenient.

Tegan Wagner said that while she was "exhausted" by the length of time the case had taken, she wanted to see justice.

"I'm still waiting for everything to be over, so it's still taking a bit of strain on my own personal life," Ms Wagner, who has waived her right to anonymity to encourage other rape victims to speak out, said outside court.

Prosecutors have appealed against the jail terms given to three Sydney brothers for sexual offences, arguing that they do not reflect the seriousness of their crimes.

The men were already serving lengthy jail terms for gang rape when they were sentenced in April for assaulting Ms Wagner and another teenage girl at their Ashfield home, in Sydney's inner-west.

The crown on Monday challenged the latest sentences given to the Pakistani trio, who can only be identified as MSK, MAK and MMK.

MSK, 27, and MAK, 26, were convicted of sexually assaulting Ms Wagner on June 14, 2002, when she was aged 14.

MSK was also convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl known as CH on July 14, 2002.

Earlier that night, the girl had had consensual sex with MMK, who was convicted of having sexual intercourse with a minor.

When the brothers were sentenced for the offences, their jail terms were made partly cumulative with sentences they were already serving for the 2002 rape of two other girls, aged 16 and 17.

In 2004, NSW Supreme Court Justice Brian Sully had sentenced MSK and MMK to 22 years each behind bars for those rapes, while MAK was jailed for up to 16 years.

Last April, Justice Peter Hidden effectively ordered MSK to serve at least another five-and-a-half years for raping Ms Wagner and CH, while MAK was sentenced to a minimum two years on top of his earlier sentence.

MMK, now 19, will spend no extra time in jail, serving his 12-month term at the same time as his other sentence.

In the Court of Criminal Appeal, Crown Advocate Richard Cogswell, SC, argued that MMK's sentence was inadequate and "failed to recognise the harm done to the victim".

He was convicted under a law designed to protect young women from sexual violation, he said, and the sentence "fails to deliver any punitive response at all".

Mr Cogswell said MAK's sentence did not reflect the gravity of his criminal behaviour and the offender was simply not adequately punished, he said.

The sentence handed to the ringleader and oldest brother, MSK, was "manifestly inadequate", he said.

MSK had encouraged MAK to assault Ms Wagner and threatened CH with violence as he raped her, telling her he had strangled a girlfriend and hung her from a balcony.

Chief Justice Jim Spigelman, and Justices Anthony Whealy and Roderick Howie reserved judgment on the appeal.

But Chief Justice Spigelman indicated they would increase MSK's maximum term by at least two years, to take into account a miscalculation in his sentence.
Outside court, Ms Wagner said she was "exhausted" by the legal proceedings, which have dragged on for four years.

"I'm not happy that justice hasn't been served yet," she told reporters.
Ms Wagner is writing a book about her ordeal so other rape victims "have something to relate to".

http://au.news.yahoo.com/060828/2/10b6b.html

Defense say Kissing means Consent to Sex

2006-08-27T10:48:00.000Z

A woman was raped by two men in a camper van in Penrith, Cumbria. The way in which the local paper is reporting this trial, indicates how unfair rape trials are still.

In the article, the defense say that because the woman kissed one of the men, this means she was 'a willing participant'.
So, kissing a guy means you are saying yes to sex..?
No it doesn't.

The article also states that the men admitted the woman said 'NO' a few times, but after she said 'NO' she was happy to have sex with them...
To me this means, she stopped resisting once they ignored her pleas of 'NO' and began raping her...

Did the defense not consider that she was most likely scared..?

(click on article, then click on icon that should appear in bottom right corner)

The scars that don't heal

2006-08-25T11:19:00.000Z

Over at the Den of the Biting Beaver, read BB's account of the soul-destroying reality of survivors of childhood rape, in her post Firewalking.

Pornography and the Fear of Men

2006-08-24T13:59:00.000Z

Welcome to new "Agent" WLNow, who has written this moving piece:

As I sit in the library now, I’m watching a group of men huddle around a computer, clearly looking at pornographic pics. Remarks alternate between “she’s so young!” and “she’s an ugly bitch—could be my grandmother.” I have also heard them say “look at that fucking bitch,” and rate how much they could ejaculate with each girl. Some wouldn’t do much for them, but some would make them go “straight up” (illustrated with hands).

Read more...
Now they left. The group plans to come back with another library card to get more computer time, as well as “pick up some girls.” (Apparently, they’re into the booky type).

My mom is a librarian, and ever since my early childhood days I have considered the library a place of relaxation and freedom—but the Internet changed all that. Or rather, the people viewing the Internet did.

* * *

After I typed this message, I went back over to the computers, only to find the guy next to me looking at (you’ll never guess). Porn. Hard-core porn. Anal shots and then videos: a woman sucking a dildo and another woman tied up in a harness being penetrated by a penis while she screamed. And the guy next to me knew I was looking, knew I could see, but didn’t care. He would minimize the screen when a man or child walked by, but not when I, an adult female, could clearly see what he was getting off to.

What wonderful “speech” he was hearing.

Smells like teen spirit...

2006-08-24T13:33:00.000Z

"Agent Witchy-Woo's" recent submission about the two teenage boys assaulting the 21yo woman got me thinking. There seem to be more and more teenage boys committing rape and sexual assault, although most of the time, it is on young(er) girls. Of course these teen rapes have happened in the past, but they seem to becoming far more commonplace. So what are the causes?

Read more...
Certainly we can't do-a-Freud and blame it on the mothers, as die Kinder are far more likely to emulate the behaviour of same-sex role models (so that would be fathers, uncles, older male siblings then!). Any sexist/objectifying behaviour is speedily absorbed by children.

What of pornography and Lad's Mags? Whilst there are unverified reports of boys under 16 buying LMs, the fact is, they don't need to. Children are curiosity-seeking missiles, and will find any stash of porn in the house (even the oh-so-carefully-hidden-in-the-wardrobe ones). And the sexist role models above, are the ones most likely to have this stash of porn – so these two points go hand-in-hand. But your average teen or pre-teen doesn't even need to exert that much energy to seek out porn – just a computer – as even some of the most innocent of searches can yield porn results (try Googling feed my pussy with the default setting moderate-safe search).

If we were to assume that these teens didn't have sexist role models, didn't see porn/LMs, and didn't Google their fingers off, what else would influence their hormone-fuelled little minds? The following list I consider to be the biggies in shaping the attitudes of the youngsters:

Music videos, TV and film, video games and advertising.

Music videos (aka 'music-porn'). The majority of kids are drawn to pop-music as an expression of their generation. Not only are there more music programmes showing clips, but there are numerous channels dedicated to it (several available on Freeview). In the world of music-porn, ALL the young women are scantily clad, pout and gyrate as if they've just gotten back from a strip club. The men are almost without exception, fully clothed. The males have two types of role models, either a pimp or a drug dealer (especially if black) promoting hyper-masculinity, or; the 'white-power' model, either dressed in a suit and/or has scantily clad females fawning over him – but (he) always has more clothing. So the message promoted by music-porn is: Men are powerful and/or 'tuff' and have (many) women making themselves sexually available to them. Women ARE sex. The influence of music-porn is equally bad for both boys and girls. There is no regulation, as long as intercourse or full/partial nudity is not shown, it can be screened at any time of the day or night.

TV and film. Sexual violence and rape are common themes – call it a 'how-to' manual if you will. Just last night I happened to see (some of) the start of the film "The General's Daughter". In this film, the female lead, an investigator of some sort, was attacked and threatened at the same location as the rape and murder of the title character occurred. This message was – she was a woman, she was vulnerable, she could also have easily been raped and murdered. Sure, there was other male-on-male violence, but these were testosterone contests of (relative) equals, and didn't carry the same message as when the woman was attacked. It is a crap film. Slasher films are another breeding ground for sexual violence. Women scantily clad, women attacked, women screaming…women's pain and suffering at the hands of the almost-always, male boogie-man. Sure there are many other examples in mainstream TV and film, but when sex, sexual titillation and violence are mixed, women in the real world will suffer.

Video games are getting more realistic by the minute. Certainly the main theme is violence, and most of it is male-on-male violence (guns, fists, whatever), but when women appear, there is always a sexual element. Lara Croft could easily share clothes with Barbie. In a TV ad I saw for the last Tomb Raider, there were many sexualised shots of Lara, notably from behind in those tight-tight shorts. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas used to have a 'cheat' that allowed the player to kick a prostitute to death without paying, complete with screams. A prostitute is of course, a woman whose 'purpose' is for sex. The cheat was apparently replaced after lobbying, with – a 'lesbian' porn scene. So in the land of video games, it is violence-sex-violence. And if you want to see something equally as disturbing online, check out Boneless Girl, which looks like a body dump to me (see also Biting Beaver's post on this one).

Advertising - primarily TV advertising as it has the widest audience. Briefly (as this is a massive subject) it is a land where 'gender' roles are heavily enforced. Women are frequently scantily clad or naked. The majority of women are associated with sex (Herbal Essence is my pet hate). Magazine (and billboard) advertisements, in utilising the 'best shot', usually pick… the naked woman. Sex sells my arse; as I refuse to buy any product that relies on this sexist crap. The ASA does nothing, mainly they only uphold complaints that breech financial and misleading advertising. I'm in the process of making a blog to voice my disgust at the advertising industry: Grrrlcott.

So with all of these cultural influences on the young, (including porn when they find it), it is not surprising that these teens view girls and women merely as sex objects. The younger they are exposed to these attitudes, the more influential they become in shaping the adult.

On a final note, I would like to see two radfem blogs, one on music videos, the other on video games. Any takers?

Deputy head jailed after sex with pupils

2006-08-23T23:44:00.000Z

Article from The Guardian:
"A deputy headteacher who had sex with two vulnerable teenage pupils after posing as their mentor was yesterday jailed for five years and three months. Stephen Brenchley, "targeted and groomed" the girls, the youngest of whom was 13, during a time when both were having problems at home, Norwich crown court heard.

Read more...
The teacher had sex with a 15-year-old at a Suffolk school in the 1980s but escaped detection until he had a relationship with the second girl after moving to Costessey high school near Norwich between 2002 and 2005 while he was a deputy headteacher.

Brenchley, 48, a father of three, was described in court as a "dangerous and corrupting influence". He offered to show the 13-year-old "how to have sex properly" after she told him she was thinking of sleeping with a boy, the court heard.

A police investigation only began when the pair split, the court heard.

Katharine Moore, prosecuting, said the girl had described herself as "troublesome and attention seeking" and that Brenchley had become her mentor. Ms Moore said the girl was 13 when the pair first attempted to have sexual intercourse. They did not have sex on that occasion, but went on to have sex once or twice a week. Ms Moore said the girl had ended the relationship when she was in the sixth form.

The girl and Brenchley initially denied their relationship. But he was rearrested when the girl's father found a letter from him to his daughter. The letter implored the girl not to cooperate with the police.

Brenchley admitted five sex offences against the girls during an earlier hearing. He admitted having sex with a girl between 2002 and 2005 and indecently assaulting a girl between 1984 and 1986."
Article from The Guardian Tuesday 15 August, 2006

What comes first the teacher or the paedophile? Does tutoring nubile pre-pubescent girls turn an adult male’s sexual preference from grown consenting women to easily manipulated vulnerable young girls. Girls who are growing up in a pornography-saturated environment, who are identifying from an alarmingly early age that to be born female equals pleasuring men by the male standard. Alternatively, do tutoring nubile pre-pubescent girls attract these men to be given a sanctioned opportunity to abuse vulnerable “Barely legal teens” or maybe even these “Teen Sluts” which seem to be fair fodder for the ever-worshiped male sexual privilege?

Yet another "Sex Text Pest"

2006-08-23T19:36:00.000Z

This story just goes from bad to worse!

Tony Ardener, 26, from Orton Goldhay, Cambridgeshire, sent around 132 text messages, many of a sexual/suggestive nature, to a local schoolgirl (unnamed).

Read more...
He was a primary school teacher, and the schoolgirl was 12 years old. She was bombarded with the text messages over the Christmas-New Year period of 2004.

Earlier this year, Ardener was found guilty and sentenced to four years and three years on two charges, to be served concurrently. Read more here. Hugh Vass (aka Jackass Vass?), Ardener's defence counsel, gives such pearls of wisdom as "(Ardener)...paying the price for one week of madness" and "...was a fool, but not a paedophile".

Last week, Ardener's sentence was reduced down to two years. Read more here. Where Lord Justice Gage says "The sentence ... longer than it ought to have been for this appellant, a young man of good character, in which the activity was carried out over a limited period of time."

So, Justice Gage, a crime is ok if it is a quickie? I'll remember to look you up if I ever go into bank robbery.

At least, according to other reports, Ardener will not be able to teach again. It's a pity they didn't ban him from owning a mobile as well.

That'll teach him!

2006-08-23T18:05:00.000Z

How should the justice system deal with sex offenders? Longer sentences perhaps?

Nah, Old Bailey Judge Jeremy Roberts seems to have come up with the ultimate deterrent to sexual assault - have the perpetrator write a letter of apology to the victim!! Certainly, all rapists will look at this ruling as a ... FUCKING GREEN LIGHT TO RAPE. Judge Roberts, you sir, are a complete moron.

Related links worth checking out:
Miss Robyn wrote her "Imagined rapist letter of apology".
Feministe have some great comments on their blog about this story.

(If the link to the Guardian moves, please let me know.)

21yo woman assaulted by teens

2006-08-23T10:03:00.000Z

From "Agent Witchy-Woo" this report of a 21yo woman sexually assaulted by two teenage boys whilst she was waiting to meet a friend.

'Police Disbelieve Women On Rape'

2006-08-17T09:39:00.000Z

A poll has found one third of people think a woman is at least partly to blame for being raped if she is flirtatious, and a quarter if she is drunk or wears revealing clothing.

This is not a new article as it was published on the BBC website in November of last year. Lets face it, nothing much is going to have changed in eight months - is it? So I thought it was well worthy of another airing, just to remind ourselves just what we are up against.

One woman, raped at the age of 20, told the BBC News website she never reported it for fear it would not be taken seriously. She agrees that it was a shocking stastic but that she was not surprised; as public perception of rape is affected, by the way rape is treated by the justice system.

"I didn't hold much hope that it would be taken seriously"

Read more...
She felt it would have been too much of an ordeal to go through, as she did not have any faith that the Police would take her seriously, coupled with the low conviction rate she did not hold up much hope that her rape would be given the gravity of seriousness that it deserved.
She knew her attacker, she had had a drink with him, he was a friend, she had been drinking and she had kissed him. That was as far as she had wanted it to go. She was raped by him, but did not report it to the Police.

"It wasn't what I would have thought rape was. I know now that most people are raped by someone they know. It's not the 'stranger danger' that people think happens, bushes and knives. I didn't know that - it's not something that was ever covered at any stage of my life, there's no education at school. I didn't know the statistics."

The sexism, and yes the misogyny in the justice system needs to be challenged and turned on its patriarchal head. Women seem to be of little value, their safety and integrity appears to be an after thought. As long as the police and the judiciary are getting away with not taking rape seriously, things are not going to improve. Women continue to be questioned regarding their previous sexual history, although this was addressed and disallowed a couple of years ago. Many Judges don’t even realise that questioning of the victims sexual past is not permissible. They need to be held accountable, for the way they treat women when they report rape, and do their job properly, gather evidence and make sure the resources are going into that area.

Rape is not taken seriously, approximately 6% of rape cases that get to court are convicted of their crime. When you combine this with the huge percentage of women who don’t even report the crime, it points to a rape culture. We live in a culture, a so-called civilised society that minimises the horrific act of rape, disbelieves the woman if she reports it, and if it does get to court, brings her past previous sexual history as something to be held in 'evidence' - evidence for what? That she may have 'deserved' it?

Virgin - Whore - or Saint... anyone?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4458122.stm

My Fear

2006-08-13T12:24:00.000Z

Even though I am street-wise, and have had my share of fights, I fear rape.

I have recently begun to think through all the self-regulating and risk-avoidance behaviour I and my female friends do in our everyday lives, to get to the true cause of what we are avoiding...

Read more...
When I leave a club and my mates say, "are you sure you're alright getting home safely on your own..?" I say, "yeah, I'll be fine"

What I should say is, "Statistically I am unlikely to be raped or attacked on the way home, but I will be shitting myself and looking over my shoulder clinging to my mobile, all the way home."

When my mates say, "text us when you get home"
I text to say, "I'm home now, see you later"

What I should text is, "I wasn't attacked on the way home so I'm safe thanks."

When I'm walking home, I come to a point where I think, I could either walk the quick way, along the cycle path, or the long way along the main road, to be safe from rape. Depending on how dark it is, I usually will walk the long 'safe' way.

What this means is, I will walk along the main road where it is brightly lit with cars driving by, so that a man is less likely to attack me, and if a man does attack me, I can get help easier.

When I'm walking home at night, and a man is walking behind me, I think, 'Shit, a man, walk faster...'

This really means, 'Shit, a man, I hope he won't rape me, walk faster so he doesn't catch up with me.'

All this pisses me off, I want to be able to walk home on my own without fear of attack.

William Parkinson Sexually Harrasses with Texts

2006-08-13T12:08:00.000Z

Daily Star 21st July 06 pg 35

Why Doesn't She Just Fight Back?

2006-08-13T12:00:00.000Z

There are many reasons why a rape victim doesn't, or doesn't 'appear to' fight back.

Read more...
Firstly, the appearance of not fighting back. She may well have fought back against her attacker, but in the men's terms of fighting back, it is 'invisible'. She, like most women, probably lacks actual fighting experience, and therefore uses more spontaneous methods of self defence or attack (not 'recognised' fighting techniques, like punches).

Many women do not fight back against their attacker. She may 'just' struggle as a form of resistance to the attack, or give initial or constant verbal protests against the assault. Or, she may 'appear' to acquiesce.

In this last category, of 'not fighting back', it is a survival strategy. Women are not stupid. They know (whether consciously or subconsciously) that they are 'outgunned' by his weight, muscle mass, and possibly even fight experience. Let's face it, it is the equivalent of putting a heavy-weight boxer in the ring with a feather-weight – hardly a fair contest. In the land of men, they recognise this in their sports, but not in the Law. Because, under the Law, men and women are seen as an adults, and therefore 'equal'. What is never taken into account in the Law is this physical discrepancy. This is well illustrated in cases of self defence (particularly in domestic violence cases) where the woman 'levels the playing field' by using a weapon. Because, in the 'rules' of self defence, you may only use a like-for-like arsenal. If he has a knife, you can use a knife (but not a gun). If he has a gun, you may use a gun. But if he is unarmed, then the use of any form of weaponry by the woman, is regarded as 'not self defence'. The self defence 'rules' are men's rules, designed in resolving deputes between men – those who are more equally matched physically. That is why if a woman kills her abusive spouse, attacks often appear 'pre-meditated', for even though he may have raped and beaten her for last five or twenty years, it is her seizing a moment of opportunity (and possibly weapon) when he is vulnerable, that is not recognised by Man's Law. She knows from years of experience, she is no physical match for him in an altercation.

Which brings me to acquiescence, or apparent acquiescence, as a survival strategy, especially in rape. There are two categories here, stranger rape (less than 20%) and acquaintance rape (over 80%). In stranger rape she may appear to acquiesce because he is an 'unknown quantity', she doesn't know how much (more) he is going to hurt her, or even kill her, if she resists or fights back. In the acquaintance category there are two modes, first victimisation and repeat victimisation. In repeat victimisation she has learnt through experience that she is no physical match for him, and submits. This is not, definitely not, the same as consent, and is still rape. In a first victimisation of acquaintance rape, probably either 'date rape' or someone the victim knows such as a trusted friend, then she may be reluctant to inflict injury on someone she cares about, even though he has, or is about to, hurt her.

Compliance is a valid survival strategy, but will definitely work against the rape victim in Court. This is perhaps why so many rapes, mainly acquaintance rapes, do not even get reported.

I mentioned domestic violence because I regard DV and rape as part of the same continuum of violence against women. There are many parallels, most notably in the conviction rates for both – under 6% (closer to 5% actually). In Court, it is 'her word against his' (HWAH), and in men's Courts, it is HIS that will be taken over HERS, unless there is other physical evidence to the contrary.

For women, it is, and always has been, a case of survival first, justice second (if at all).

Further reading on the women who do fight back in cases of domestic violence.

Craig Sweeney abducted and sexually abused a three year old

2006-08-13T11:57:00.000Z

Metro 7th Aug 06 pg 21

The Devil You Know – Acquaintance Rape

2006-08-12T13:03:00.000Z

Charliegrrl asked if she could use my rape experience story posted on her other blog within the thread of rape fantasies. I said yes. I think I was prompted to write about the experience after seeing the programme "30 Minutes" on Channel 4 (11 Aug) and presented by Nina Hobson (Nina also did an exposé on institutionalised sexism in the police force for "Dispatches" back in April – what a sister!). I think I've decided to share my story, not for sympathy (as I've never told anyone), nor for 'therapy', but possibly because it may help someone else avoid a similar or understand their own situation a bit more. I have certainly now forgotten his name, and even forgotten which former workplace I knew him from.

Specifically, the following story is about acquaintance rape – the most common type – as the victim knows her attacker in just over 80% of rapes reported/surveyed. (Truth About Rape, see sidebar). The following incident is typical, and has probably been repeated many times before and many times since.

Read more...
He was an ex-work colleague and had known him for quite a while. We went out (this was well after I left the old work), had a really great time, yep, a few drinks as well (but certainly not over-intoxicated). He insisted on seeing me home 'to be sure I was safe'. I trusted him, had no reason not to. Once I had the front door open (converted Victorian terrace into flats) he then made his 'move'. Despite a constant barrage of 'no no no, stop, stop, stop, don't, don't, don't' (etc), he got me on the floor. I was a size 10, 5'5" (and an office worker, who didn't 'do' gym). He was approximately 50% more bodyweight, and used it against me (despite constant physical struggling on my part). He completed his rape of me. As he left I think I said stuff to the effect of 'fuck off and never see me again' along those lines anyway. And certainly, the only thing complying with my wishes (consent) was the last part. (oh, goody)

If he thought it truly wasn't a rape, then he would have resumed contact, or tried to 'clear up any misunderstanding'. He didn't. At the time I knew it was rape. Afterward I knew it was rape. And I'm pretty damn fucking sure that HE knew it was rape. There blows the other great patriarchy rape myth, that HE doesn't KNOW, or MISUNDERSTOOD. Fucking utter bullshit. He knew.

I didn't report it mainly because of (and this was my view of the successfulness of legal redress at the time):
1) I knew him and had 'been out with him' that night even though it was only as friends, not a date
2) alcohol consumption (but not overly intoxicated, just 'merry')
3) no proof (except my word against his) that the 'sex' wasn't consensual

What I didn't know at the time was that over 80% of rapes ARE by someone the victim knows. I think that most victims won't report acquaintance rape because it doesn't fit the 'nasty stranger in dark alley scenario' because I am sure that featured in my thinking as well. Anyway, all the decisions were based on information that I had at the time - this (acquaintance-as-most-likely rapist) information wasn't readily available at the time, indeed in the spirit of all good conspiracy theories, possibly repressed by the mainstream media of Patriarchy.

Rapes are crimes of opportunity. Most rapes happen in private or secluded locations. That would certainly discount the rapists' usual (lame-arse) defence of "I lost control". Certainly true in the above example. The rapist in this instance did not 'lose control' at the pub/restaurant. The rapist did not 'lose control' escorting me 'safely' home. Ah, but as soon as we were off the street, bingo-bango-bongo, magically he 'loses control'. Cue the piggies flying.

I wasn't really 'traumatised' as such after this rape, but I did lose my sense of trust (of men) for a very long time, and gained a real sense of betrayal. I regarded him as a 'mate', one I had known for quite a while. I am fairly certain that male buddies don't do this to each other, and yet this risk exists in the female-male buddy relationship. The other things that concerned me at the time were that he didn't use a condom, so he obviously didn't care about getting me pregnant or giving me an STD, or in fact, him getting an STD from me. Nor did he care that a friendship no longer exists between us.

I've gotta ask - what makes me so fucking special? To be raped. The answer is nothing, nothing because I am a woman. A moment of opportunity that presents 'itself'. I am not (nor ever have been) meek and mild (just the opposite), not a 'sexually inviting bimbo', nor 'leading him on' or any other such crap from the patriarchy propaganda machine. There was also no 'flirting' from either party during the evening.

There is no 'vibe the victim gives off', it is a matter of motive and opportunity on the part of the rapist. Yes, that's right, it is the rapist's fault that the rape occurs, not the victim's. I certainly don't give off any 'victim vibe', as I carry myself with confidence (I even used to walk home at midnight after work from the City through Aldgate, not exactly a picture postcard district).

Besides, the 'victim vibe' accusation is irrelevant in this case, we were 'mates'. It is far more likely that a fantasy of "I want her, must have her" and "I know she wants me just as much" was playing in HIS head as the cause of this episode. My struggles and objections are the same as in the rehashed 'plot lines' as seen in porn, mainstream porn. Pornland enables the act of rape to be done in real life, because in Pornland, she may 'resist' at first, but after she has been successfully 'convinced' (forced), she 'enjoys' it, and either 'wanted it all along' or 'needed' a man to 'show her want she wanted'. BFL (big fat lies)

Nope, I didn't do ANYTHING to encourage (but always actively discouraged/protested) rape - in my account above, my (constant) verbal protests and physical struggling certainly couldn't be clearer. Yet it happened. I as a woman, an average women, am far less physically strong than the average man. Men's (self-defence) laws are against me (I cannot use a weapon against him to 'even the playing field'). Men's courtrooms are against me obtaining true and fair justice (any justice that women get in men's courtrooms is purely 'collateral'). And we have in the name of freedom of speech/expression/commerce, pornography that glorifies rape (or 'forced/coerced sex').

And if I'm truly honest, I'll admit I have some guilt. Not guilt (or shame) about what I did to 'cause' the rape (as there was nothing I could do to predict it nor prevent it), but guilt that, by my silence, I have been unwittingly complicit in enabling the rape culture to thrive and flourish.

Boy finds his Mum after a Brutal Sex Attack

2006-08-12T08:38:00.000Z

Metro 1st Aug 06 pg 14

Women's Fear of Men

2006-08-11T13:00:00.000Z

Fear of male sexual violence is deeply ingrained in the psyche of women. Women partake in rape-avoidance strategy behaviour, in their everyday lives. We get taxis to avoid walking home on our own, we walk the long route home, we walk home in groups, we get men to escort us home, we are chaperoned from place to place by our parents, we get the women's bus, we keep an eye on our drinks to avoid spiking, we are told to cover up, we carry a personal alarm, we never go out without our mobiles...

The way we relate to space and time is informed by our fear of men. We associate certain spaces, such as parks and shortcuts, with the risk of being attacked. When it comes to night and gets dark, certain spaces become risk-associated spaces we avoid, to avoid being attacked by a man.

This risk-minimization behaviour has become a part of our lives without much questioning of what we are avoiding - that is male sexual violence. In a civil society, women should be able to walk home, on their own, without fear and risk of being attacked by a man. This fear is constricting our mobility and we need to make a stand.

Contributions

2006-07-31T15:00:00.000Z

We would love to hear from you!

Send us copies of newspaper cuttings and links, of male sexual violence, abuse and harrassment.
Share with us your fears, experiences and ideas.
Or even if you would like to write a piece for this blog.

A final note: This Blog does not accept Anonymous comments, so you need to create an ID at Blogger in order to comment or contribute. We apologise for the inconvenience, but Anonotrolls are too much of a pest in the feminist blogosphere.

***COMMENTS HAVE NOW CLOSED ON THIS BLOG***

Please update your favourites/bookmarks to:
http://speakoutonmaleviolence.wordpress.com/

Broken links

2006-07-31T14:00:00.000Z

Yep, it happens. You click on it, and someone has moved the darn thing!

Certainly, we will use our super-human magical feminist powers to find where it has moved to, or in the case of archived newspaper articles, reproduce the original content.

To report broken links - please use the 'Comments' link (below) to this post.

Troll policy

2006-07-31T13:00:00.000Z

This blog is a woman-friendly place.

Men are certainly welcomed to comment, as long as they are sympathetic to the plight of women in this society.

Trolls (and abusive behaviour) will not be tolerated.

We take this stance, not because we are 'afraid' of people (men particularly) that disagree with us - as we radfems can certainly debunk all of the unoriginal pro-porn arguments - but mainly because Trolls derail any indepth dialogue. And quite frankly, it is a waste of our time, especially going over the same 'arguments', or just to get into mindless 'debate' (usually over semantics).

Therefore, this site moderates the comments.

To any Troll that bothers to infiltrate this space, YOUR words will NOT be published. Instead, your words will be 'amended' to the following or similar sentiment:

“I would like to thank Charliegrrl, Laura, SparkleMatrix and Stormcloud for pointing out what a jerk I have been. I have learnt my lesson, and bow to their superior intellect. I realise now that pornography harms women and encourages violence towards them, and I must personally apologise to all women for my use of pornography over the years. I see that the male orgasm is not the most important thing in the world, and that women should not have to suffer in the making of material that I wank to. I further realise the damage that it has done to me, and those around me. Certainly, my inferiority complex had not been helped by continually seeing penises that are much larger than average, or that when I tried to use my-penis-as-weapon (and it didn’t work), just made me feel more inadequate. This feeling of inadequacy made me lash out at the really nice women on this blog. I am really sorry for being a troll and promise that I won’t do it again.”

Of course, if we have time or can be bothered, we may make up an equally amusing (to our readers) amendment to attempted Troll postings. The other reason we have the amendment policy is because, in pornography women's words are twisted and distorted, and it is simply a matter of turning the tables.

This in no way actually hampers the 'free-speech' argument ALWAYS put forward by our Trolls. You have many opportunities to express your misogynistic views on pro-pornstitution blogs, where your inane viewpoints will no doubt be welcomed. But here; NOT. Get over it.

Nor bother sending us any of your hate-mail. What you don't realise, Mr. Troll, is that your 'power base' of male privilege ONLY comes from your greater physical strength, and you have bought into the myth that male power is about superior intellect. Sadly for you, you inadequate creep, your misogynistic threats don't carry the same weight here in cyberspace. Added to that is, feminists, particularly radfems, don't scare easy.

An additional disclaimer is that most of the contributors are not necessarily anti-man, but are all pro-woman. Even the notorious 'man-hating' Stormcloud, likes about 5% (of men), tolerates 5-10% and distrusts the remainder. It is men's violence against women that is intolerable to ALL of us here.