Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News

Judge says rape victim ‘let herself down badly’

Posted: 08 Jan 2013 03:04 AM PST

As Laura Bates recently wrote in The Independent, 2012 seemed to be the 'year of victim blaming'. 

Sadly it wasn’t just media commentators such as Caitlin Moran and Alyssa Royse implying women are at least partially culpable if they are raped - shockingly, it was also members of the police and judiciary.

In California, Judge Derek Johnson said that a rape victim "didn't put up a fight" during her ordeal.

A British police officer recently tweeted “Its always sad to see young women become victims of sexual offences , Don’t Drink too much … and regret your actions!”.

And perhaps most concerning of all is the following:

On 14 December, while sentencing 49 year-old Anthony Parry to six years' jail for raping a 19 year-old woman, Judge Niclas Parry said to Caenarfon Crown Court that the victim had "let herself down badly" and was "easy prey" for Parry.

The court heard that the victim woke up naked on a sofa in Anthony Parry's house, to find her attacker on top of her.

The jury rejected the defendant's claims that the victim had consented to sex, yet even in the face of a guilty verdict, Judge Niclas Parry felt the need to mention the victim's behaviour.

In his summing up, Judge Parry stated that the victim had "consumed too much alcohol and took drugs" prior the attack. He added "but she also had the misfortune of meeting [Anthony Parry]."

Note Parry’s use of ‘also’.

As if drinking and taking drugs are somehow 'contributing behaviours' to a person raping you, rather than irrelevant incidentals to the crime.

As if anything, except a person deciding they are going to have sex with you without your consent, is a 'contributing behaviour' to rape.

As the recent Stern Review reminds us, the 2003 Sexual Offences Bill clearly sets out that ‘sex without consent is rape and all other factors about a person making a complaint of rape are irrelevant to that fact." (my bold).

By ignoring these clear legal guidelines and deciding to pass comment on a rape victim’s behaviour, Judge Parry has undermined the much-deserved sentence he passed on Anthony Parry.

It is deeply irresponsible for a judge to reinforce one of the most dangerous rape myths of all – that rapists are not fully responsible for their actions, and that women are at least partially culpable for being raped – and it could contribute to more rape victims refusing to come forward, because they fear being blamed for their attack.

In 2008, 14 rape victims had their compensation restored by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), after it was initially cut by 25 per cent because the victims had been drinking before they were attacked.

Despite CICA righting this terrible wrong, the very fact rape victims were ever accused of 'contributory negligence' at all speaks volumes about how our judiciary still views rape.

So let's keep saying it until our voices are heard: the only thing that makes a woman truly 'vulnerable to rape' is being in proximity to a rapist.

Women are raped whether they are drunk, sober or tipsy, awake or asleep, using or not using drugs.

And they are raped by husbands, boyfriends, acquaintances, friends and family members. Only 9 per cent of rapes are by strangers.

If we really want to talk about what makes a woman 'easy prey' for a rapist, the only answer is being in possession of a vagina and knowing a man.

The only people who 'let themselves down' in this case were the man who chose to rape and the judge who ignored a rape victim's right not have her behaviour scrutinised even though this is enshrined by law.

In doing that, Judge Niclas Parry has sent out a powerful message of support to a culture that tolerates and espouses rape myths rather than confronts the uncomfortable truth that women don’t just ‘get raped’, but that certain men choose to rape them.

He must retract his words and apologise for them, or further damage women's faith in an already flawed system that has let down so many rape victims already.

You can sign the petition asking Judge Niclas Parry to retract and apologise for his comments here.

An Anti-Feminist Party. Sound familiar?

Posted: 08 Jan 2013 01:00 AM PST

Former Conservative launches anti-feminist party.

You would be forgiven for thinking that an “anti-feminist party” must be an allusion to the current Tory government.

After all, David Willetts, Minister of State for Universities and Science, attributed men’s social immobility to the role feminism has played in enabling women to enter university and the workplace.

Feminism was also targeted by Conservative MP Dominic Raab, who accused feminists of “obnoxious bigotry” because of their overt and unchallenged discrimination against men.

And, who can forget, David Cameron’s “calm down, dear” comment to Angela Eagle, or his assertion that Nadine Doies was “frustrated”.

However, Mike Buchanan, a card-carrying member of the Conservative party and obviously thinks that the circuitous anti-women agenda of the government doesn’t go far enough.

The new party, for which he is the vociferous figurehead, plans to raise candidates to stand against Harriet Harman and other leading feminist politicians at the next General Election.

Revealing his intentions to the Daily Mail’s Quentin Letts at the end of last month, Buchanan proposed that, ‘our political elite has become detached from reality with its state-sponsored feminism’. And feminism, he suggests, ‘is a reason for many male outcomes in modern Britain being poor.’

The sole agenda of the party then, is to take on feminism, issue by issue.

Number one on Mr Buchanan’s hit list is campaigning against initiatives which propel gender diversity in the boardroom. The former business executive claims that initiatives like implementing gender quotas in the boardroom do nothing but damage corporate performance.

‘The reasons for the ‘imbalances’ between the numbers of men and women in the senior reaches of organisations in general, and in the boardroom in particular…have nothing to do with discrimination against women.’

The skewed proportion of men to women in the boardroom is representative of what then?

Men are just better, he would have us believe.

Buchanan has written a number of books on the issue of feminism, the most recent of which is entitled Feminism: The Ugly Truth.

What exactly is the ugly truth that Mr Buchanan wants to reveal? Quite simply, feminists are ugly.

‘It would be dishonest to deny the evidence before us – that feminists are generally less attractive than normal women.’

Feminists are also, ‘profoundly stupid as well as hateful.’ An assertion which he claims, ‘could be readily tested by arresting a number of them and forcing them – with the threat of denying them access to chocolate – to undertake IQ tests.’

This is not, however, a platform to propound the misguided misogynistic espousals of Buchanan, but those wanting to read more of his ‘thoughts’ can do so here.