sebastienne

Nope that enraged me too. I mean described like that it sounds dubious but I doubt that is exactly what the case was. And yes rape can happen in marriage.

From:

half-of-monty.livejournal.com

Don't think you are. But Mr. Hett is generally talking crap. I thought there was a consensus that the problem is, in `aquaintance rape', it's one person's word against another, so the jury cannot convict `beyond reasonable doubt' - but nobody doubts that a large proportion of these cases will have been rape?

From:

i thought that too when i read it, don't think its you overreacting... i am pretty sure that "rape is impossible inside marriage" was overturned in 1990 (yes, not very long ago!) so maybe Mr Hett needs to keep slightly more up-to-date.

i can't find it in either of their 2 rape articles now but earlier they had a statistic of something like 85% of rape accusations involve people the victim knows - the whole system needs looking at and changing. a "real" rape is not just one that is perpetrated by a stranger (creepy man), somewhere outside (alley, park, etc), and i don't think judges or juries quite get this. if the woman isn't bruised and crying, they think it isn't a crime - that she isn't a victim.

From:

mi-guida.livejournal.com

1991, actually. Unless I really can't remember anything at all. No, see here (http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/articles/rape.htm)

From:

yeah, that's the one. i also find it kind of disgusting that it took a case where the wife had left home before they would admit it, you kind of still get the impression (at least i do) from the case that the rape is called rape because she was not living with him anymore, whereas the spirit of the law should be that spouses still have to consent to sex for it not to be rape.

From:

r-e-mercia.livejournal.com

The spirit, and indeed the letter, of the law IS that if there is no consent to sex, then it is rape; even if the perpetrator and victim are married, living together, etc.

From:

isn't it also rape if one party is negligent of the consent of the other - consent has to be unambiguous?

From:

anotherusedpage.livejournal.com

Yes, but only as of fairly recently.
Until 1991 consent was automatically assumed between married couples.
Until 2006 (I kid you not) consent was assumed unless an explicit denial had been made. If you were incapable of saying no, (for whatever reason, for eg being deaf-mute...) the bloke was allowed to assume consent. That was only changed last year.

From:

stronglight.livejournal.com

I do find that worrying, although it is difficult to be sure whether or not he is being unfair without knowing more details of the case. If he is describing the case as frivolous purely on the basis that they were married, then yes, that is an appalling attitude.

He also seems somewhat flippantly to be putting "flimsy" and "false" accusations in the same category. I do appreciate that you cannot convict someone if there is not sufficient evidence to prove them guilty, but lack of evidence does *not* mean that the accusation was *false.* He is bracketing together those who make up stories, those who were drunk and can't remember, and those who were so traumatised that they didn't report their attack immediately and may have washed away concrete evidence - 3 entirely different situations.

And whatever the details of the case he mentions I object to the claim that "most" complaints are unwarranted. Yes, there may be the odd case that is unfair and in which the rapist has not done anything which he realised was against the victims wishes. OTOH, rape is a such a traumatic thing for a person to report, and so many continue to go unreported, that I cannot help but think that all accusations should be followed up as aggressively as possible, even if they turn out to be baseless. Furthermore, the fact that you don't have evidence doesn't mean you should sit down and shut up, you should tell what you know and hope that the police can find some evidence that you have overlooked.

So no, I don't think you're over-reacting.

From:

neoanjou.livejournal.com

Would it be the 'five days' thing - i.e. he believes the lady in question should have been quicker to respond if she considered that she had been raped?

Its a stupid argument - I think we are all smart enough to see why.

From:

and offensive. I mean I've had my body violated by some one I thought I could trust. That's not at all upsetting I'll just bounce along to the police with no agonising or questioning myself or fear.

MR Hett is a pillock and many other ruder words

From:

9headeddragon.livejournal.com

And how could any woman go to the police and say "My husband raped me," without feeling like a fool? She's going to be thinking "But he's my husband, they won't believe it was rape because we're married, there's no point reporting it."

Ridiculous example.

From:

Exactly. Poor woman.

From:

mejoff.livejournal.com

Yeah, that tends to wash about as well as 'my wife's beating me'. there's an assumtion that if a loving relationship has existed then nothing can possibly be legally wrong.

From:

I think that is part of the problem. Mind you it is a horrible thought that loving relationships can ever go that wrong. it's also the whole property set up on marriage. legally you are bound togetehr of course you can;t damage each other. Police it seems are just generally useless with domestic abuse.

From:

steerpikelet.livejournal.com

*Explodes with fury*
No, you are NOT over reacting.

From:

dyddgu.livejournal.com

I did read that with a bit of "hmm", but I reckon, what with it being just a sentence or two, that the interviewers/journalists have trimmed a fair few bits out. I'd want to know what he really said before exploding with fury, personally.

From:

ms-rebecca-riot.livejournal.com

No, you're right, the guy is a dick, one of those senile old white mysogynists currently clogging up the benches of the judiciary in Britain and elsewhere. I hope, South Park style, he gets cancer of the ass.

From:

jacinthsong.livejournal.com

posting on the internet isn't overreacting, now if you pulled off his balls and threw them out of a train that would be overreacting...

...then again, maybe not.

From:

jacinthsong.livejournal.com

(seen this before (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/03/the-rape-of-mr-smith/)?)

From:

sebastienne.livejournal.com

(i haven't, but it's immediately lodged itself with "when did you first realise that you might be heterosexual?" as a beautiful simple exposure of hypocrisy.)

From:

ms-rebecca-riot.livejournal.com

yes, brilliant. (btw I never realised I was heterosexual- even when I was a kid I knew I wasn't.

From:

deathbyshinies.livejournal.com

Ffs, indeed. I don't think you're overreacting, no. There are aspects of the common legal systems that I loathe so very, very much...

From:

They have at least taken it down now but some fo the other comments are not much better.

From:

During my time as a juror on a rape case I found that almost all of my colleagues were of the belief that rape cannot happen in the context of a relationship and that the first and immediate action of a person who has been raped is to take herself down to the police station and announce what had happened. Fortunately they were very easily opened up by the gentle suggestion that:

"Maybe after something like that you might, you know, go into yourself for a bit."

The nodding, simpering morons of the jury just hadn't thought about it like that.

I think the article raises issues of greater importance than the dismissive misogyny of Mr Hett. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the basis of justice in this country, but is often a very difficult to establish in cases like this.

I still maintain that failure to educate people about the paramount importance of consent and sexual self-determination at the high school level is what we should really get angry about.

From:

Also, why isn't dealing with the aftermath of a rape/assault crisis dealt with in PHSE or whatever they have these days? Are people still just giggling over getting condoms onto carrots in those lessons?

From:

sebastienne.livejournal.com

meep. the presence of attitudes like that in 11/12ths of Joe Public is a bit terrifying.

and you're so right about education. PSHE was a fucking joke at my school, there was so much room for people to have their misconceptions challeged...

From:

The prevalence of the attitudes is what upset me, and the fact that if anybody actually bothered to think differently about those issues they would see what a fallacy they were.

Re: misconceptions
Looks like it's up to us, then. I made a start by telling my niece that half her toys are transvestites or intergender (like Monkey- who is a great help with this, not beleiving in gender and all) and never calling her a girl, (even 'good girl': it has to be 'Well done Erin!' or 'Oh, you're clever/strong, Erin!').

Nobody realises the damage a pink dress at Christmas can cause... buy them Monster outfits instead, like Max in WTWTA.

Do your bit. Subvert a child today.

From:

Surely your guideline for buying a child presents should be to be a gender neutral until they express a preference and then encourage their preference whatever that is, regardless of gender. There's nothing wrong with be a little girl who happens to like wearing pink dress but plays with train sets or a little girl who like to wear trousers climbs trees but plays with a doll. What is wrong with takign traits of 'normal' little girls if that's what the child has chosen. It's only being pushed in a direction that is the problem. Also let the kid pick the gender of her own toys. Most of mine had no gender or a changing one, why decide for her?

From:

The problem with pink dresses is that they are very often not a choice of the child but of the parent. Just as often they are given to the child along with a complex of expectations about what will qualify as good behaviour, expectations that are not gender neutral. If those expectations are in line with common gender stereotypes then they will include docility, vanity, self consciousness and continual subordination and inferiority to male counterparts.

A child's preferences for behaviours are heavily influenced by peer-pressure and the urge to fit in with the crowd, and is swayed by the gendered expectations of others (especial ignorant teachers and parents). Since the expectations put upon female people by our society include stupidity before the male gaze, manipulation of the body (including invasive surgery and self-starvation) to meet heterosexual desire and bondage to domestic duty I will be doing my best to keep my niece from living up to them. She can wear pink dresses and bake cup cakes till the cows come home but she can NOT be 'Girly'. Not on my fucking watch. My niece will be growing up surrounded by a gender war and she will be armed for bear.

And I get to choose the gender of half her toys because that half happens to be MY BLOODY THINGS taken from MY BLOODY SHELVES.

From:

ms-rebecca-riot.livejournal.com

Yes, yes, its all true! (I've just added you to my friends list hope u don't miiind)

My first toy was (and still is) of uncertain gender- male name- 'female eyelashes', green, & a rat to boot!!!

I got given a red remote controlled toy car when I was 12 by a Chinese friend of the family, because in China apparently toys are not as gendered (apparently!). I was very impressed and raced it round the street.

From:

frank-snow.livejournal.com

Considering that I'm fairly sure you're male and that you're talking about feminism and gender roles, I find it rather hypocritical of you to insist on imposing your own world-view and ideas about gender roles on a small girl.

From:

Firstly, I don't 'impose' anything. My niece is perfectly free to ignore anything I say short of "don't stick stick that fork into the electrical socket." I present alternative gender identities to her and let her make up her own mind, and try to give her ideas that will enable her to be critical of the gendered expectations of others, including any of my own.

Secondly, are you trying to imply that it would be okay for a woman to impose her views on gender onto a small child, or that people born with penises and no tits are not allowed to care about feminism or gender politics?

From:

frank-snow.livejournal.com

Well, it certainly doesn't sound like that from the way you talk about it. "she can NOT be 'Girly'. Not on my fucking watch" doesn't sound much like a gentle suggestion to me.

I'm suggesting neither. What I am implying is that it reeks of hypocrisy for someone who's male to instruct anyone who is female about their gender role or, for that matter, how to be a feminist.

From:

Still stuck on two points here:
1- Why do the facts of my anatomy make it hypocritical to encourage a child to question gendered definitions and stereotypes?

2- Everything you do with a small child has to be gentle however fervently you believe in what you are doing, even telling them off for endangering themselves. By being 'Girly', stereotypicalby the list of stereotypical characteristics I wrote earlier I meant deliberately underachieving, attention seeking and uncritically hetero-normative behaviours. These behaviors are a compromise of the child's personal freedoms and I do not believe that any child would self select them. The expectation to conform to to traditional gender roles is exerted by nearly everyone surrounding a child. I am not taking any choices away from Erin by presenting an alternative perspective, because that choice had already been taken away by the society Erin lives in. My efforts are to restore a measure of self determination through play, story telling and treating the child like an person instead of a 'little girl'.

Can you suggest a better alternative? I would love to leave Erin to decide all matters of gender politics without outside influence. Howveer the outside influence is already there and as far as I can tell it capable of inflicting great harm if left unchecked. Do you think that would be a better alternative?

From:

I have to admit I have problems with your use of the word 'girly' as a derogatory term. While I'm well aware that girly is used as a term of abuse, I think that something that only means 'pertaining to be a girl' needs to be reclaimed in a more positive light. What I do is girly or womanly because I am female not because it does or doesn't conform to some societally established idea of 'femininity'. For me, letting anyone use my gender, or words that really only mean that the person performing them is female, to criticise me is a failure of feminism.

I also disagree with your definition of 'girly'. All small children attention seek. It's part of being a child that you believe you are the centre of the universe and you indulge in behaviours that cause others around you to respond to that. While I completely agree with you, even as a heterosexual, that being uncritically hetero-normative is a bad thing, a small child needs simplistic oppositions. It is only as an adult or a teen that these dichtomies need more questioning. To a child under ten, I'd say well this is your mummy and daddy but some people have two daddies or two mummies if questioned about family units. I wouldn't try and engage with the critical issues around that until the child is old enough to raise them. I hink 'pushing' a child in any direction is a bad idea. We should encourage development in any way the child expresses an interest and I think an openminded rather dogmatic approach is far more important.

I think, though, part of the problem I'm having with the ideas you are expressing is you are being very aggressive and hostile toward that which you percieve as 'girly' or 'hetero normative', just because it is a choice approved by society doesn't mean that it's not the right choice for some people or that, no matter what options are laid before them, people will choose these models that you find so threatening. It's their right to choose that.

From:

i think

frank_snow means that it seems slightly hypocritical to condemn one set of gender roles and then try and foster another in a child... more so since you are male and the child is female - it does not break the pattern of female behaviour being controlled by males, even if it encourages healthy behaviour.

i'm not sure if i really agree with your definition of girly, but i know that (even and perhaps because i am a feminist) it can be very rewarding behaviour, and that ignoring it is likely to end up with the child being bullied/made fun of/or just simply excluded. growing up is hard enough but it can be made even worse when you are part of a gender war that you haven't chosen to be in and don't understand. we need to change the influences on children, rather than using children to change the influences, basically.

having said that i completely agree with trying to foster "male" (!) traits in her, i just don't think it's right to completely cut off "female" ones - purely for the sake of the individual.

From:

But what do you mean by trying to foster 'male' traits? My parents encouraged me to stand up for myself, to speak my mind and not be afraid of people disagreeing with me. These could be construed as teaching me 'male' traits, but I'd say that any child should be taught that. I think that trying to teach a child "male' or 'female' interests, gendering their toys to make a poitn or giving them toys they don;t necessarily want to make a point is ill thought out. I had knex and a trainset because I liked them. I watched the rugby and 'played' rugby with my dad because I liked spending time with him. I also played with and slept with my doll and loved dressing her up. About the only agenda my parents brougth to me was not giving me barbies. Children should be allowed to choose their own path not being used to fight against something.

From:

no i put them in "" because they are stereotypically male and female traits, but obviously that's complete bollocks. sorry, should have made it clearer what i meant!

From:

@ liminereid & hildabeast

I completely agree that 'Girly' should be reclaimed much the same way as 'Queer' has been. The definition of girly I gave above is the one held by Erin's grandparents, great grandparents, potential teachers (about half of those that I have thusfar met) and it is the definition that they would enforce with every 'there's a good girl' and 'be a good girl, won't you'.

@ liminereid

"To a child under ten, I'd say well this is your mummy and daddy but some people have two daddies or two mummies if questioned about family units."

Well that kind of is engaging critical issues because nearly every other source a child under ten is exposed to (especially those I mention above) are going to deliberately and purposefully exclude same sex parenting. You would be presenting the child with an essential contradiction to what it has previously been told. You would be telling the truth, but it's a truth that has enormous political weight. Also I do not arrange the soft animals in a semi-circle and read Foucault to them.

@ hildabeast
I have no more intention of instilling male traits in a child than I have of instilling female ones. My intent is to separate traits such as aggressiveness, honesty, meanness or intelligence from gender by inverting the gendered contexts in which they are usually (and frequently) presented. Boys are not rougher than girls. Boys and girls can be as rough as they want to be so long as they don't actually hurt or upset another person. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT MOST PEOPLE TELL THEIR CHILDREN (although your educated, liberal friends might). The potential harm of how people dichotomise gendered behaviours is that it can prevent children from being able to choose NOT to be girly or boyish because they have been taught that to cross gender boundaries is to face social sanction. Please note my earlier comment about baking cupcakes (which extends to wearing frocks and playing with tea sets).

It seems to me that Erin already IS in a gender war. I just want the child to have some ability to avoid being damaged by it. She can fit-in all she likes and probably will. As far as I can tell that is 'changing the influences' on the child.

True story: In 2001 I was helping my English & Sociology teacher mark some year 7 (11-13year olds) mark some poetry assignments titled 'What I Love' and 'What I hate' 18 out of 30 children had included "I hate gays" on their second poem. I don't see anybody else in my family who's prepared to explain to its most impressionable members why that might be a bad thing to say.

From:

Incidentally, this is the best skive from work I've had in months. I do respect all your views even if I disagree with them and thank you for taking the time to share them as lucidly as you have.

From:

I say this partly having had a toy rabbit called Ronald. Ronald came dressed in a flowery dress and an apron but was called Ronald. I got very very upset when any one tried to tell me Ronald's gender or correct me. Sometimes Ronald was a girl sometimes not, but was always called Ronald and I did that on my own. Children don;t naturally take on a heteronormative paradigm but you don't have to push them away from it. Just let do what they like.

From:

Yes, well I would just have said hello to Ronald and asked what he'd like to eat. Mr Sunflower is a Mummy among Erin's toys while Wooden Blurk (my wooden maquette for sketching from) can be anything, including Queens, (male) Marathon Runners, Airplanes and Television Antennae.

From:

anotherusedpage.livejournal.com

ohgod see much as I know that people think like that, I really do hate having it confirmed. It's the trouble with my wonderful liberal educated friendship group is that I forget that there are people out there who are mysoginistic like that simply because they haven't bothered to think about it. In some ways, I find that even more unforgivable...

From:

chaosdeathfish.livejournal.com

Mr Hett's comments are bad enough.. but I really hope the comments left by the public (especially the men) aren't a representative sample of the populace.. *shudder*

From:

anotherusedpage.livejournal.com

He's a tosser. You knew that anyway though.

From: