I'm glad I hadn't fetched my tea just there...

... for I most assuredly would have spat it all over my monitor. The Guardian reports that rape victims are having some of their compensation withheld if, before they were attacked, they had been drinking alcohol.

I'll break that down for those who don't quite understand this.

1) A woman goes out for a drink, or has a glass or two at home before going out.
2) A man, who statistically speaking has probably also been drinking*, attacks the woman.
3) If the man had indeed been under the influence it has for a long time been seen as a mitigating factor (by the public and thus, the juries as well as a few terrible judges) as his 'judgement was impaired' and he may have thought the woman was 'leading him on' when she wasn't. This can sometimes lead to reduced sentences despite the fact that whether he was drunk or not is hard to prove unless he was caught and breathalysed pretty quickly.
4) However, because the woman was drinking, instead of punishing the man for breaking the law and taking advantage of a women in a more vulnerable state than him, she is being punished for doing something that isn't against the law at all, in a public place where almost everyone else was doing the same thing as her and where there were no warnings that there was a rapist in the room.

Punishing the woman for having the audacity to hope that she wouldn't be raped is quite simply abhorrent. This is victim blaming, being thrust in the faces of women who are already traumatised enough by their ordeal as it is.

Helen, a beauty therapist who has not worked since the incident, said: "When I read the CICA letter I just had no words; I could not take it in. It felt like I was being punished for having the audacity to step up and say 'I don't think this should have happened to me.' It was like going back to the 70s, saying 'she was asking for it'. How else could you read the letter but as saying it's my fault I was raped?"

Helen told the CICA she had been drinking but did not say how much alcohol she consumed. The police submission said it was "possible" her behaviour had contributed to the incident, because she had drunk a "large amount" of alcohol.

Maybe I'm just reading a slightly ambiguous section wrongly, but sounds to me like the police are taking a few liberties here. She didn't disclose how much she'd had to drink- does that mean she gave an unspecific estimate of 'a lot' or did she just say she'd had something to drink and then someone else decided she'd had 'a lot' because, in some peoples' minds, drunk women are the only women who get raped? I can't tell from this. However, the police should know better than to say that being drunk makes a women a rape target. As we all should know by now, the likelihood of a woman being raped is dramatically increased by her proximity to a rapist. There aren't little disembodied penises that fly around targeting any woman with a glass of wine or a pint in her hand, no matter where she is.

In a second statement, issued later, the CICA said a mistake had been made in Helen's case and its policy was not to reduce awards to rape victims on the basis of alcohol consumption.

Oh, really. So how come 14 victims in the past year have had this very thing happen to them? Clearly there's something going on here. Hopefully, this won't be happening in the future but, cynic that I am, I don't think this is the last case of its kind that we'll be hearing. CICA may try to make amends, but they're a drop in the ocean. Attitudes still haven't changed in many places.

*In this study, for example, over half of the men who had attacked women had been under the influence.

Why I'm a Feminist

On Saturday the Glasgow Feminist network held a public participatory reading at Borders entitled 'Why I'm a Feminist'. Instead of coming along and having an author or scholar do all the talking, people brought along books and materials that opened their eyes to the fight for gender equality.
I searched around for something by Ensler or Dworkin or Greer or... well any of the feminist authors in my bookshelves that would sum up my reasons, but no-one truly represented my reasons for being a feminist. I then forgot about it until the day, and with nothing else to read I wrote down my piece on both sides of an A4 sheet and jumped on the subway into town without editing or re-reading (looking back, I'm proud that I remembered my statistics correctly!). Here it is with added references.

I wasn't always a feminist. When I was a little girl I just assumed I would be treated fairly... or better than boys because they were smelly and I was pretty and a princess and everybody loved me, of course - but even then there were signs that I was wrong. An example of this is the nursery picture books I loved. There was mummy the housewife or the beautiful queen, and there was daddy the farmer, baker, banker, king, outdoor hero, he-who-saves-one-from-the-big-bad-wolf. The princess would love being pretty, was chastised for messiness and a temper (also known as an opinion) and always needed a prince for lifelong happiness. Lastly, the doctors were men and the nurses were women. Always.
I internalised all of this. I hated trousers and Lego because those were for my brother and told Dad that I wanted to be a nurse "because that's what girls do". He told me that was good and nursing is an honourable profession, but girls could be doctors too. I didn't believe him. (I recently discovered that, around this time, my mum finished her job as a research Biologist not only because she wanted to see her children more but also because she was being given a hard time at work since giving birth to us.)
Then I entered the real world. A world where famous chefs are men but we'd never dream of giving a boy a toy kitchen or iron or anything domestic because it's too feminising. A world where Wal-Mart pulled a line of T-shirts featuring a girl saying 'Someday a woman will be president' because it was in some way 'anti-family values' yet kept the one of a boy shoving an 'uppity' girl ("Problem solved!") despite the worldwide epidemic of domestic violence. A world where I'm told to be scared to go out after dark, even though statistically I'm 10 times more at risk of victimisation from an intimate whilst my brother's more likely to be, and has been attacked by a stranger when out. Where the woman who married Steve Wright, the Ipswich murderer, was recently asked if she thought that if only she'd had more sex with her husband, he wouldn't have seen and killed those women. Where my bodily freedom is government-controlled, whether I want to plan or end a pregnancy. Where I'm 'asking for it' if I get raped whilst drunk even though the majority of rapists are inebriated when they attack, yet that somehow excuses them. Where I'm still likely, in our modern country, to be paid less and given fewer opportunities than my male counterparts, where male violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities to 15-44 year olds than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war put together, where almost a third of the British public say violence against women is absolutely fine and half - 50%, one-in-two! - say domestic violence is a private matter that should remain behind closed doors where we can't hear or do anything about it - and where people who say they want this all changed for the better are called man-haters, crazy, or worst of all, ugly fat spinsters *cue mock distress*.

I don't have the answers to this. I believe that my position is perfectly logical and morally right, and I want people to know that when half the population of the world is poorer, less healthy and more frightened than the other, I care. I want REAL equality, new attitudes, men proud to be sensitive and women proud to be assertive; people being who they are as opposed to what they are told they should be.

And I'm going to med school this year.
Your future doctor is a feminist.

Waitaminute, The Sun isn't victim-blaming?!

An online petition has cropped up at The Sun calling for a 24-hour hotline for rape victims and more specialist centres for them. Which is good. I signed it. It accompanies an article in which the journalist Abigail Grant tells of her ordeal (which is detailed, and may trigger) when a man broke into her house and attempted to rape her 12 years ago, seriously injuring her in the process, and her experiences when they finally brought him to trail recently, 12 years after the attack. There are also details of other recent rape cases that were carried out appallingly - the man who got off practically scot-free after he claimed that the 10-year-old he abused (and that IS sexual abuse, as a child cannot legally give consent no matter what you say) was 'dressed provocatively', and the other recent one where it was implied* that the victim was 'glad of the attention' when she was gang-raped. The article highlights the huge prejudices that exist in rape cases, highlights how unfairly they are treated and calls for change.

However, I did have a few questions when I looked at where the article was featured in the site (I only knew about it via The F-Word, which linked straight to the petition). It is in the 'Woman' and 'Real Life' (personal accounts etc.) sections. Not on the Home Page. Not in the 'News' section, despite the fact that rape is a current issue and recent events are mentioned. In the sections that it does feature in, it's not immediately noticeable - Real Life has it after dieting articles, something about new mothers having sex (SHOCK!), humourous pictures of eggs and mobile phone allergies. And in the 'Woman' section.... sex, sex, fashion, diets, guys, fashion, celebrities.... ah, there it is!

So, despite this being an important issue which affects everyone, despite having a message we should all hear, it's been cordoned off as purely a 'women's issue' and hidden down the pages of two of the 'girlier' sections. I can understand why is would be in the section of personal accounts, but come on! It's a bit more important than weight loss and hot pants! Nice to know how important you guys at the Sun think this is, but I should've expected this, really. The Sun isn't exactly renowned for it's gleaming track record in highlighting the inequalities that exist in our country, except perhaps how 'unfair' it is that some women don't look like Pam Anderson.

Thoughts, anyone?

*Sorry, make that 'stated in plain language by the defence barrister', because the victim was overweight. Just to add insult to the injury.

Mature female = rape target

I was blearily skimming through the news during the wee small hours this morning when I came across this report from the BBC on a nine year old girl called Ashley in America. Ashley suffers from a condition which 1) has suspended her mental state at that of a three-month-old baby and 2) effectively renders her helpless as she is unable to talk or move herself around, though she can move her arms and legs. She is a fully conscious human being and has a full life expectation; however, her life depends on constant care and attention by others as she very clearly cannot take care of herself (she's been nicknamed 'Pillow Angel' by her parents because she will not move from where she is set down - usually on a pillow). Because of this, her parents have taken surgical steps to 'improve the quality of her life' whilst simultaneously making her 'easier to care for', a means to the aforementioned end. Along with hormone treatment, Ashley has undergone surgery to have her uterus and breast buds removed (she is already entering puberty at the age of seven). As Ashley will never be able to raise a child, this is to 'reduce the discomfort' of menstruation and the growth and presence of breasts, which will be especially uncomfortable for Ashley because she comes from a family of large breasted women and such organs will make lying down, something she does almost all the time, extremely uncomfortable. (There is also a history of breast cancer in the family.) Thus, to improve her quality of life, these ostensibly unnecessary organs have been removed. Along with hormone treatment, this also suspends her development; Ashley will remain in a child's body for the rest of her life, to make carrying her easier, reducing her chance of various health problems associated with increased weight and severely limited movement and, in her parents words, she will retain more dignity in a body that is healthier, more of a comfort to her, and more suited to her state of development.

Now, I understand these concerns. All of these, while they have been seen by some as providing mere convenience to the carers, also allow more comfort to the child and increase the effectiveness of care provided to her. It is not something I'm going to go into because I have extremely mixed feelings on the issue ( a) She cannot consent to such drastic changes to her own body, but b) she may well be more comfortable and happier without this that and the other, but c)... ) that will just make this post ramble on endlessly. BUT, and this is where my ears prick up and I KNOW what I think, there is another reason for the surgery (emphasis mine):

The operation [removal of the uterus] also removed the possibility of pregnancy if Ashley were ever the victim of sexual abuse, they said.
The removal of the girl's breast buds was also done in part to avoid sexual abuse, but was carried out primarily so she would not experience discomfort when lying down, the parents said.

Does that not worry anyone? That one of the reasons for removing a young girl's sex organs is an attempt to ward off rape? The parents are going to be the primary carers of this child, but they are probably thinking forward to a time when they will be unable to look after her. What does it say of society when parents will resort to surgery in part to protect their child? Also, it is highly unlikely that they would have listed 'prevention of sexual abuse' as a reason for removing all signs of sexual maturity from a boy. I, for one, am appalled that this has become a such concern. A future carer is seen as a potential abuser unless this child REMAINS a child. But even then, it's a good idea to remove the womb, just in case. Is there no way of ensuring they find a carer/carers who will look after Ashley without taking advantage of her regardless of her physical appearance? And why is it HER body that is seen as potentially provocative? That sounds similar to the old rapist's excuse of a woman provoking him (and thus deserving it) through her appearance. I'm not saying that the parents see their child as such, and I do think that they genuinely have their child's best interests at heart, but is this not a symptom of something... wrong with society?
I advise you to read what Ashley's parents say and make up your own mind.

Well, I guess I was asking to be robbed and my house burned to the ground with my family inside...

... I mean, I left a window open. I was asking for it.

Does that argument stand up, to you? Would you let someone off the hook for something like that on those grounds?

I wouldn't, and I'm usually a pretty forgiving person. Unfortunately, we are seeing similar kinds of arguments every month, only on the subject of rape.

'Oh, she was drunk/walking home alone/wearing a short skirt, guv. She was asking for it.'

What's more, despite the law being changed to be just a tiny bit more helpful to rape victims in court, excuses like this are still being accepted every day, all over Britain, by otherwise competent juries and judges. Somehow, women are being made responsible for being attacked. They did something 'unladylike', which provoked a man. And as we all know, men are useless at controlling themselves and can't be held responsible for their actions at all. (Yes, boys, that's what you're being made to look like while the women are called whores. You are subhuman and severely lacking in any self-restraint or moral character.) So the blame falls on the shoulders of the victim, who is defamed AND punished for defaming the poor little rapist.
Oh, aside from her actions at the time of the event being twisted like this, our victim may also be judged by her sexual history. Despite laws against this now, it is still happening. Some of you may have heard the infamous comments made by an anti-choice politician in America saying that rape only happens to young white devoutly Christian virgins who have been horribly ravaged and sodomised - the implication being that anything else just ain't rape. Here, if you aren't a virgin, your chances of winning your case decrease with every sexual encounter you have had in the past if the courtroom hears about it. Similarly, if you show no obvious physical signs of being viciously attacked, they'll assume you didn't put up much of a fight and thus it was all consensual.

So, lets just labour the point here.

Rape is NEVER the woman's fault.
No-one 'asks' to be raped.
Regardless of what she was doing or wearing, what happened to her was STILL rape. Drunk? Rape. 'Provocatively' dressed? Raped. Alone at night? Rape. Being female? Rape. Being male? Rape. Being an 'easy target' in any way? Rape. It doesn't matter how the victim responded to the attack, if it was non consensual, it was rape, and remains as illegal as if they were swaddled head to toe in thick winter clothes and had tried to beat the crap out of their attacker in their efforts to escape.


Why is has she chosen this subject today, you may well ask. The BBC reports the apology from a Muslim cleric about his sermon which compared non-hijab-wearing women to 'uncovered meat'.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" he asked.

The uncovered meat is the problem, he went on to say.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred," he added.

Sheikh Hilali also condemned women who swayed suggestively and wore make-up, implying they attracted sexual assault.

He has apologised after an outcry by Muslim women in Australia, saying '...the sermon was targeted against men and women who engaged in extra-marital sex and did so through alluring types of clothes...'.
Try fitting that in. It doesn't quite fit with the wording, does it? Oh, for the record, women who wear the hijab and/or stay at home get raped too. In fact, the majority of sexual assaults and rapes are carried out by people, such as friends and family members, who knew the victim well - not by the stereotypical shadowy monster in a dark alleyway (though, of course, this happens too). In these cases, they cannot be safe in their rooms, and no amount of modest apparel will change that. Changing attitudes towards women will.