Believing what you want to believe.

As a rape survivor who, like most others did not receive justice, this sort of reporting (which happens frequently) severely pisses me off:

Article.

The article is about actor Michael Le Vell. Now while I am impartial to his situation and don't care to speculate whether he is guilty of anything or not, the article suggests he has been found innocent while actually he has not.

First part of the article:
"Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell has told his family of his joy at being cleared of child rape allegations."

Later part of the article:
"Following enquiries by Greater Manchester Police I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to put before a court."

Being "cleared" of a crime means going through the courts and being found 'not guilty', or being found not guilty in preliminary investigations. In his situation, the case will not be brought to court because the law will not even allow a trial unless there is a high chance of a ‘guilty’ verdict. Because rape is usually committed in private, the high amount of evidence required by law usually does not exist. Evidence usually required includes witnesses and CCTV recordings - which is ridiculous considering the most common place to be raped is in your own home.

Only 6% of reported rapes end in conviction because the vast majority of them do not even reach court. This is because the law is tailored towards ‘stranger rape’ scenarios where there will be CCTV evidence, witnesses and severe physical assault. However only 8% of rapes are committed by strangers and possibly may even happen this way, so most rape cases do not possess the required evidence to even get a trial.

Now, as a feminist who has encountered the same thing happening to me, I'm not even suggesting that we should believe the alleged victim must be telling the truth. The fact is that since there has been no legal finding one way or the other, we should remain impartial. That is unless we have access to the evidence in the CPS report, which we don't. My point is that people are far too ready to believe the woman must be lying. Even though it's not been proven one way or the other, they'll be on the side of the accused being innocent and the woman being a liar. Based on absolutely nothing at all.

From Twitter.

Now looking through the comments under the article, the vast majority of readers have wrongly deduced that the alleged perpetrator has been found not guilty and are outraged for the poor man that he has been “falsely accused”! So if, like 94% of rape survivors, you don’t get a chance in court to receive justice (because you didn’t film your ex-partner raping you and he didn't invite a witness to watch!) you are often seen as a liar. I'd like to add here that in my case, a signed confession and emails to the same effect, which he admitted to writing, were not deemed enough evidence to take him to trial.

Notice the amount of people who agree (green arrow) and disagree (red arrow).

Most rapists don't reach court because the law is flawed, this does not mean they have been found 'not guilty' and are falsely accused. For more on how the law is biased towards 'stranger rapes' see my petition here.

I still wish I had a bloody camcorder.

[All statistics from the UK Home Office Report. Alan, J and Myhill, A.]

What's the difference between porn and nudity?

This is a topic I see brought up time and time again. Men and women these days just don't understand what the difference is between nudity and pornography.

On the topic of banning newspaper pornography (also known as 'page 3 girls'), a supporter said: "the next logical step is to ban children from beaches and swimming pools where they can see lots of partially-clad women in the flesh" [From The Daily Star Facebook page]

Defending fully nude Playboy pornography being displayed in a shop window, a supporter said: "Assuming young children were breast fed it's not all that long in the past that they were doing more than just looking at bare breasts and there was nothing improper with that." [From The Daily Mail]

Two thing these idiots - I mean, people, have in common here. They are both defending the public display of pornography through the argument that non-sexualised partial nudity is fine. They really, honestly believe there is no difference between non-sexualised natural nudity and posed, strongly coded pornography which sole purpose is to sexually stimulate. The latter commenter really believes he can compare breast feeding with porn.

Lets just say those two things were the same, then. It is still illegal to walk around publicly fully nude, so why should it not be illegal to display fully nude and pornographic images in public then?

The hypothetical swimming pool or breast feeding situations they argued are not even similar visually, disregarding the pornographic element, to the full nudity they were defending. Secondly, would these people really support mothers breast feeding their infants publicly in shop windows and pictures of breast feeding in newspapers? The general consensus at the moment is no. A lot of people seem to think there is something "disgusting" about that (because it's natural, in a similar way big tummies and body hair is also "disgusting".) Facebook allows pro-rape groups to threaten and laugh about raping women, but bans pages on breast feeding and non-sexualised images of mothers feeding their babies.

I think that as well as being naive of the differences between porn and nakedness (good luck in your relationships by the way) that they're therefore extremely hypocritical, and well, idiots providing illogical arguments that most people seem to accept any way.

I can speculate on the reasons behind this being normalisation of sexualised women's bodies. The difference today is that if you reject porn, it's still inescapable. Day-time TV shows, billboard adverts, music videos, daily newspapers and magazines all represent women in this way. We're forgetting that this isn't natural, and doesn't mean it's automatically O.K.

UR JUS JELUZ

The commenter from the Daily Mail also nicely added: "Are the Art Galleries to have their paintings painted over with jeans and T shirts to preserve the sensibilities of jealous old ladies?"

This is also an issue I see brought up every time I voice my apparent "freedom of speech" against the normalisation of pornography. I'm told by a stranger that I "must just be jelus" (note that they can rarely spell what they are dishing out.) They really, truly believe that everyone in the world believes the same thing that they do and the only reason they may be 'pretending' to be against it is because we all secretly love and really want to be in porn too but we can't because we MUST be old/ugly/fat/feminist; which means we're jealous.

I've been called old fat and ugly because I don't like porn. I'm 23, a UK dress size 8, and I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I'm not ugly. I'm guessing the guys sitting behind their desks thinking up defences of porn just because they use it, are much more likely to be old, fat or ugly.

Putting women in their place

Just a quick thought...

For some people they're just clichés, but for me there is something really sinister about the terms "acting like a woman scorned" and "women crying rape". The meanings are widely known and their persuasiveness is already culturally ingrained, they can dismiss and belittle a person in just a second - just like the "you're just jealous" argument which works instantly without need of argument because it is understood and cannot be disproved.

Why I won't be doing Christmas this Christmas

I'm sick of materialism at Christmas. I want to counteract this greedy atmosphere!

My family have never gone over the top with celebrating Christmas, although "over the top" for me would be a feeble celebration to most people. Today I heard my first Christmas song at work. These Christmas songs will now be playing every day for the next two months. Two months - that's a sixth of the year which is dedicated to this one day of commercialism, materialism, selfishness and waste. Something about this seems so wrong to me, that while we are over indulging by wasting food, things and money - there are a lot of people out there with really big problems that a few quid could save them from.

Most of the country are not Church-going Christians any more, the most Christian of Christians, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, do not even celebrate Christmas with material goods. The only pre-requisite of celebrating Christmas is a strong greed for lots of food and lots of things and the expectation that if you don’t join in with this then you’re a kill joy, or tight with money.

While I may seem like a miserable 'Scrooge' here, I do understand why people love it so much. For kids it's a happy and magical time, for some it may be the only time of year families sit around the table to talk and eat together. But why the expectation of expensive gifts? most of which will be left in a corner then make it's way to the bin a few months later.

Solution 1:
I recently found out about a website,Good Gifts, which I think is a great alternative to having to reluctantly buy someone something they don't really want. Buy a friend a charitable good gift in their name; it could be a goat, food, books, saving puffins... there are loads of ideas on the site and you can type a Christmas message to the recipient that goes along with their ‘gift’.

If they don’t like it then tough, you’ve shown this person you’ve thought about them and aren’t just tight with your money. If nothing else, you can feel good with yourself that you’ve not wasted packaging and money on unethical companies that are only after profit. It's MUCH more fun and rewarding than shitty toiletry gift sets that nobody wants! Plus, it's all done with a click of a button and no wasting of wrapping paper :)

Solution 2:
If you want something to show for your efforts other than a piece of paper, you could buy something from Lush such as Charity Pot Body Lotion which is fair trade, anti-animal testing and of which the profits go to charity!

Solution 3:
Buy Christmas cards from charity shops. Most of them sell brand new cards that aren’t much more expensive than your typical ones. They always print the charity on the card so the person you’re sending it to knows the profits are going to a good cause and you do too!

Solution 4:
Donate or volunteer to hand out food to homeless people at Christmas. A lot of churches take part in similar things too, so think about contacting your local one to see how you can make someone very happy. Visit Caring At Christmas.

Solution 5:
Do nothing, it's just another day!

Sexism: freedom of speech

Last night I took part in a "Rape Culture Page Bomb" along with over 300 other supporters in which we decorated a sexist Facebook page with an estimated thousand anti-rape messages and pictures. Together as a group, we worked to take back the message of the page.

Currently, the Facebook group ‘You know she’s playing hard to get when you‘re chasing her down an alleyway has 193,896 ‘likes‘. ‘Roses are red, violets are blue, I’ve got a knife, get in the van‘ has 73,243. ‘Abducting, raping and violently murdering your friend as a joke’ has 22,655. ‘Kick the bitch , why? coz she’s a slut’ has 115,303.

It is estimated that thousands of people have reported these pages, yet Facebook does not consider them offensive.

Joking about rape isn't just harmless fun. It's a part of rape culture in which rape is normalised and becoming acceptable. ‘Joking’ about rape isn't a joke because there isn't a punch line. This is hate speech against women and rape victims. 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men are raped in the U.S (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). That means that statistically, every single person making rape ‘jokes’ knows rape victims. Rape is a serious issue, it’s not funny. Neither is ‘joking’ about it. Which, by the way, I don’t see these kinds of comments as ‘jokes’ anyway:

Now lets take a look at what we are legally allowed to find hate speech:

“In England and Wales, hate speech legislation has been balanced to avoid curbing freedom of speech: while much of the content on the internet may be offensive, it is not illegal unless it stirs up hatred on the grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation.”

This law reflects the wider cultural acceptance of sexism and sexist abuse, not just on Facebook but everywhere. Sexism needs to be seen as just as destructive as racism. No, that’s not going to stop it happening but then at least it wouldn't just be a huge “joke” which is making abuse even more acceptable.

So racism, anti-religion and homophobic abuse is illegal, but sexist abuse is not. Why? Is domestic violence and rape not as serious as racism? Is it not as bad as being against religion? Is it not as hurtful as homophobia? If they were saying the same thing but being racist rather than sexist, these Facebook pages would no longer exist.

WHY are women allowed to be victims of sexist hate speech.

Please prime minister, give me your best argument because I can find no reason why this is acceptable. Sign the petition against this shit here.

The Page 3 debate

Currently the liberal democrats agenda reviewing ‘page 3’ is being debated. They propose “Tackling the projection of women as sex objects to children and adolescents by restricting sexualised images in newspapers and general circulation magazines to the same rules that apply to pre-watershed broadcast media.”

The Daily Star quotes page 3 girl Porchia Watson to argue against the proposed ban: “This is the last thing they should be thinking about. Only a few weeks back we had riots on the streets, now they are wasting their time with Page 3... We are not hurting anyone.”

Page 3 is part of what is often described as ‘raunch culture’ or the ‘pornification’ of our society. Aspects of pornography are everywhere, from newspapers and magazines to music videos and adverts. The problem for anti-page 3 campaigners is the normalisation of this; ‘Lad mag’ porn is being sold under ‘men’s general interest’ and topless models under the ruse of ‘news’. Thus the correct label is taken away from what it really is, making it more acceptable, readily available as part of our groceries and completely normalised. The problems with pornography include: unrealistic expectations of women’s bodies, distorted expectations of sex, self-esteem problems and habituation. While it is not being claimed that page 3 causes rape, it is a contributor to a culture in which women are increasingly seen as nothing more than sex objects for men’s enjoyment.

Providing an example of how normalisation can promote insensitivity, Cameron Forrest, 22 from Australia says; “Back home I hadn’t heard of page three, when I came to England I was very surprised to see topless women sold in every day newspapers.“ He added “It’s one thing to have it in actual porn magazines but I was really shocked that they’re being sold as news, it’s very strange.”

I was eager to see hear arguments from the page 3 supporters but unfortunately after several messages, nobody came forward directly. On the public Facebook book page of The Daily Star however, readers argue that “It’s all harmless fun” “They shouldn’t be talking about shit like that when the country is up the shiters” [spelling rephrased] and “if they think children need "protecting" from the sight of a partially-clad female body in a picture, the next logical step is to ban children from beaches and swimming pools.”

I have personally found that a common pro-page 3 argument is that it’s women’s own choice and that they get paid for it. While I agree with this statement, I don‘t think that it makes the outcome okay. It seems to go over most people’s heads when I try to explain I have absolutely nothing against the women who pose for things like page 3. I’m opposed to page 3, not the page 3 ‘girls’. In the same way as I may be opposed to an unethical chain store but not against the individuals who choose to work there.

I don’t think women or feminists in general are against the women in page 3 either. Actually, I found during a party I attended with guest page 3 models, that I was both the only female and the only feminist in the group yet I was the only person defending the women. While the men openly stared at their bodies and found them attractive, they thought badly of them as people. They were labelled a ‘shallow’, ‘teases’, ‘dumb’ and ‘sluts’ by the same men who ‘support’ their choice to strip. To me, that’s not respectful of the women’s choice at all. Instead they’re supporting page 3 merely because they enjoy participating in objectification.

I took many photographs of Sam Cooke, The Sun’s page 3 model at the party. I thanked her for posing for me and she smiled back politely, she seemed to do her job happily and professionally. I realised while photographing her absolutely for certain that I don’t hold anything against these women. Despite being told that I hate them and must just be jealous of them, I didn’t have any bad feelings towards her at all. I was happy to get the chance to photograph her and pleased for us both that the pictures turned out well. Topless models may be stereotypical or they may not be, they may be nice people or they might not, but it doesn’t matter to me. They’re just people the same as us, who deserve respect. I think this not despite of being a female or feminist but because of it.

Text and photography: L. Connett. Thank you to Sam Cooke and Cameron Forrest.

Challenging rape stereotypes.

Today I held my first workshop at the DIY feminist festival in Manchester. For the subject I chose rape myths. When asked, the group discussed what rape myths are and provided a variety of excellent examples. One that they neglected to mention however, is the myth that you can tell a rapist through their appearance and that you can tell who is a real victim through what they look and act like.

I asked the group to draw a stereotypical rapist and then what they think a real rapist actually looks like. I gave them the option to do the same thing with the stereotypical view of a victim. The results were interesting, as well as having a good laugh at our drawings we discovered that a few different people drew very similar things.

The victim stereotype was repeatedly drawn as:
-Young
-Thin
-Big breasted
-Dressed provocatively

The rapist stereotype was repeatedly drawn as:
-Well built
-Strong features
-Big eye-brows
-Angry and evil looking (knives and fangs)
-Jumping from a bush or alley way

These are really excellent observations of stereotypes we are all passively fed all the time. Everyone drew similar things, which shows it’s a shared stereotype that is widespread. The ‘realistic’ drawings showed a real understanding of the type of people who really do commit rape - the complete opposite of the stereotype.

My favourite is Ellen’s drawing of a geeky looking boyfriend holding gifts and love hearts because the most common perpetrators of rape are partners, not knife wheedling fanged maniacs in bushes.






Thank you to the ladies who came to the workshop for letting me post their drawings - they’re all really good and you all had some interesting and well informed things to say.