Slut-blaming, again.

From BBC coverage the of the Ipswich murder trial:

Despite the case being about determining whether Steve Wright killed these women, they had to slip in this comment:

Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, said the decision by the women to turn to prostitution "was ultimately to prove fatal".

Yep. Deciding to sell their bodies ended their lives, not the decision of one disgusting person to hunt them down and kill them. *sighs*

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.