the other hand

Protecting Your Safety While Speaking Out is Not Irresponsible

http://thecurvature.com/2009/09/18/protecting-your-safety-while-speaking-out-is-not-irresponsible/

"Over at the F-Word is a post that I was absolutely horrified to see on a feminist blog, and while there are many already speaking out in the comments, I feel strongly compelled to say something myself.

According to the post, UK celebrity Katie Price has spoken out about being raped prior to her last marriage, which was to a man who is currently making a movie that glamorizes rape. That makes it seem like a prime time to speak out. She has also apparently said that her rapist was someone who is famous, but refuses to name him and says she never will.

Stating that her rapist was a celebrity was probably a decision worth thinking twice about, for her own sake — in that it would, and has, only increased public scrutiny and speculation. Such as that up above. But who among us, in speaking out, has not underestimated the hatefulness of people and thus accidentally made things more difficult on themselves? Who here has not found that in speaking out, there are more people than you could have imagined who are eager to make it as difficult as possible, anyway?

Katie Price has not done something particularly different from what I have; she has only done it while people know her name. I have spoken about being raped, and while I have never been particularly specific about the details, I have constantly mentioned that my rapist was also my boyfriend at the time. For those who have known me for many years, that is more than enough information for them to know his name. For him, were he to find me, it is also almost certainly more than enough. And that makes it enough period.

I have not given his name. I will not ever give his name publicly. And no amount of victim-blaming bullshit is going to change that.

Why? Because I value my safety. Because I value my mental health. Because I value myself.

Because printing his name would make it a million times easier for him to find me. Because it would make it easy for his friends to google his name and find me, too. Because it would open me up to extraordinary harassment by someone who through his very narrow definition of rape, which he undoubtedly uses to maintain his belief that he’s a decent person, almost certainly believes with all his heart that he did not rape me. It would open me up to charges of false accusations, to questions about why I have not pressed charges and statements about what a liar I am because I haven’t. It would back me into a corner, because while not pressing charges makes me a liar, pressing charges means setting up an impossible case on the grounds of something that happened many years ago with no witnesses, for a crime that rarely results in conviction, anyway (something that is especially true in the UK). Because it could potentially open me up to charges of libel. I will not name him because I deserve — no, because I have the goddamn right — to not spend every second of my life looking over my shoulder, afraid of just when he will appear.

And I imagine that if not every one of these things is true for Katie Price, a significant majority are. Her choices, right now, are being called an irresponsible coward by feminists and an attention-seeker by the media, or being sued for libel by her rapist and being called a liar by every single person under the sun.

What a brilliant fucking set of options, right?

Katie Price has already done more than a vast majority of celebrities who are also rape survivors will ever, ever do. The media reaction has undoubtedly only ensured that even fewer will. That is enough. That is more than enough, and it is brave. And she didn’t owe it to me. She didn’t owe it to you. She didn’t owe it to anybody, and she certainly doesn’t owe us more now.

Her refusal to name her rapist doesn’t send the message that rapists deserve to go without punishment — the court system does a fine job of that, and would only reinforce the message were she to do what people are trying to guilt her into doing. It doesn’t reinforce male privilege — it puts a tiny dent in it by speaking out about rape at all, and a tiny dent is sadly the most that any of us can do.

Her decision to not name her rapist does not speak of a right for men to be protected, it speaks of a right for women to deserve protection. It speaks of her belief that she has a right not only to set personal limits in a world that believes women are public property, but also and more importantly, to safety. It’s a refusal to relinquish that right in the face of victim-blaming and misogyny, even out of unexpected quarters.

I’ve said it over and over again, but I clearly cannot say it enough times. Women have a right to safety. And I would have expected feminists of all people to understand that."

another similar post can be found here: http://shutupsitdown.co.uk/2009/09/18/no-katie-price-is-not-obliged-to-name-her-rapist/

 ------------



s a v a n n a h

"As we’ve seen in the past, social media can add some complications to the normal flow of legal proceedings. In recent months, we’ve seen court cases wind up declared mistrials because of the social media activity of jury members. 

Now, it’s the alleged victim in a legal case that’s taking heat for her Twitter activity. Seventeen-year-old Savannah Dietrich of Louisville, Kentucky is facing up to 180 days in jail and $500 fine for a series of tweets she made regarding an open case. 

The Courier Journal reports that Dietrich, who was reportedly the subject of a sexual assault where two young men violated her while she was under the influence and then circulated photos of the event, was upset about what she felt was the unfair plea bargain that the two men received. 

She took to Twitter, where she named the two boys that allegedly assaulted her, saying,

“There you go, lock me up. I’m not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell.”

Another tweet read: “Protect rapist is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville.”

The two boys’ attorneys want the trial Judge to hold Dietrich in contempt, as she has violated a court order to keep confidentiality.

The defendants have both already plead guilty, but received what amounts to a “slap on the wrist,” according to Dietrich. “So many of my rights have been taken away by these boys. I’m at the point, that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it. If they really feel it’s necessary to throw me in jail for talking about what happened to me as opposed to throwing these boys in jail for what they did to me, then I don’t understand justice.”

Two different Facebook pages have already been set up in support of Dietrich. “Savannah Dietrich is a victim of Sexual Assault, upon doing the right thing and naming the men who assaulted her, she is being wrongfully punished. Please spread the word,” reads the page Help Savannah Dietrich. 

There’s also a petition on popular online petition site Change.org. They are calling on the Kentucky District Court Judge on the case to dismiss the charges of Dietrich for tweeting the names of her attackers. 

It reads:

She tweeted the names of her attackers anyway, likely feeling that it is wrong for anyone to get away for what they did to her. Now, she may face jail time for “contempt” because she stated who attacked her. Her punishment may be up to 180 days in jail and a $500 fine. This girl has already been traumatized and abused by her attackers. Now they want to violate her rights and ability to control her body again by putting her in prison, and the twisted laws are on their side.

Whether or not your think that Dietrich was right in her actions or that she violated the law, the only thing that’s certain is that cases like this are only going to increase as more and more people have access to public forums like Facebook and Twitter. 

UPDATE: As of Monday afternoon, defense attorneys for the two boys have withdrawn the motion to hold Dietrich in contempt for tweeting their clients’ names. Since the names have already been tweeted, one defense attorney told the Courier Journal, ““What could contempt do now? Seems like a rather useless exercise doesn’t it?”"


----------------

Why Katie Price should name her rapist.
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2009/09/katie_price_why


"Glamour model and reality TV star Katie Price was raped prior to her marriage to Peter Andre, according to her column in OK! Magazine earlier this month. In response to the media furore surrounding her revelation, Price stated that the only reason she chose to speak publicly about her sexual assault was following reports that her current partner, cage fighter Alex Reid, starred in a film that glamorised rape. While criticising the media attention this has yielded, two-weeks after her initial column Price has gone further to state that while she is unwilling to name the man who assaulted her he is, in fact, a “famous celebrity.”

Of course, this has inflamed tabloid interest in her attack, with almost any male celebrity she has ever been photographed with now the subject of speculation. As it stands the names of a footballer, a TV personality and a small-time film star have been bandied around the Internet as if the nation is involved in some sort of celebrity whodunnit, which not only means that, inevitably, innocent men are going to be accused, but that the severity of rape itself is being diminished, becoming nothing more than tabloid fodder, with papers scrambling to break the story rather than deal sensitively with what is a heinous crime and one that has a shamefully low conviction rate.

Price’s decision to publicly discuss her rape was, on Wednesday, the subject of channel 5’s current affairs programme, The Wright Stuff, and as a result Price called the show to defend her decision to conceal her attacker's identity, stating that she would “never, never absolutely not” name him. While, understandably, it must be extremely difficult for rape victims to speak about their experiences, Price is a TV personality who has made the transition from glamour model to mainstream celebrity owing to her outspoken and confident public persona and her determination to speak her mind, all marketed as part of her independence and business acumen. Therefore her silence is, in itself, a strong statement.

The vast majority of women who are attacked neither speak about their experiences, nor report them to the authorities. The reasons for this are manifold, but include fear that they will not be believed, that their personal lives will be subject to the basest scrutiny and judgement, and that there will be aspersions cast upon their morality. It is a physical and emotional trauma that a lot of women suffer in silence, worried that they will be seen as the cause of their own abuse. While Price now feels able to speak about what happened to her, making the claim in a national publication, maintaining the anonymity of her attacker is not only inconsistent, but also downright irresponsible.It perpetuates the idea that rape is part of the male privilege, positioning guilty men above puishment, and suggests that female victims should consider their attacks something that they must just quietly accept. According to the Guardian:

The government estimates that as many as 95% of rapes are never reported to the police at all. Of the rapes that were reported from 2007 to 2008, only 6.5% resulted in a conviction, compared with 34% of criminal cases in general. The majority of convictions for rape resulted from an admission of guilt by the defendant, whereas less than one quarter of all those charged with rape were convicted following a successful trial.

Price should realise that as a public figure she can lead by example, and is now in a position to offer strength to women who are living in silence, wrongly convinced that this is their shame. She has no obligation, of course, she is an individual, but as she courts the media she must realise that by now refusing to name her attacker she is fuelling misogynistic attitudes that encourage the dismissal of rape allegations as nothing more than a form of attention seeking, meaning that in actual fact it will become harder for women to come forward, fearing a disblieving reception. While she claims that she did not anticipate the media reaction her comments have incited, Price is well-versed in the machinations of the British tabloid machine, making this an extremely poor explanation.

Cynical journalists believe that this is nothing more than a publicity stunt by Price, designed to win favour with the nation following her vilification during her divorce from Peter Andre, and the fact the name of her assailant is said to have been “accidentally” caught on camera during the filming of her ITV show, What Katie Did Next, will probably fuel this belief (especially as it was said to have happened during a magazine interview). However, this attitude is reflective of the general scepticism accorded many rape victims, and her claims must not simply be dismissed, but properly investigated.

partner rape

 

 

warning: some of the following information may be triggering.

 

It is still a widely held myth that women cannot be raped by their husbands or partners.

Many people believe that sexual intercourse without consent, in this context, doesn’t really constitute rape at all, or if they do, that it is somehow not as serious as an assault carried out by a stranger.

The belief that by marrying or co-habiting with her attacker a woman has somehow given up her right to say no and should be expected to comply with his sexual demands is commonplace and causes great harm to women who suffer assault in this context.

The damage done when a woman is raped by her partner can be extremely serious. The experience of rape for a woman in this situation is compounded by a complete breach of trust by someone once loved – often the foundation of her personal life and security. Inevitably, this can leave her fearful of what confronting that might mean.

Sexual assault by a partner can be very difficult not only for women to disclose or walk away from, but even, sometimes, because of circumstantial pressures, to fully admit to themselves.

A significant minority (13%) of the broad cross-section of the Scottish population (700 interviewees) who took part in research carried out by Progressive on behalf of Rape Crisis Scotland in August 2007 believed that most women who are raped are raped by strangers.

Other research findings give the lie to this in the clearest possible way:

• In 2002 the UK Home Office published the findings of a British Crime Survey to which 6,944 women had responded. Nearly half (45%) of rapes reported to the survey were committed by perpetrators who were victims’ partners at the time of the attack. Strangers were responsible for only 8% of rapes reported to the survey
• The survey also found that partner rape entails the highest occurrence of multiple rape (62%) and attacks by partners and ex-partners are more than twice as likely to result in some injury to the victim (39%) as attacks by strangers (19%)
• In her landmark study Rape and Marriage (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990), Diana Russell reported on interviews with a random sample of 930 women in the San Francisco area. Of all the women who had been married, 14% had been raped by their spouses at least once. Of these, 1/3 reported being raped once; 1/3 reported between 2 and 20 incidents; and 1/3 said they had been raped by their spouses more than 20 times.
• Another study estimated that 10 to 14% of all married women have been or will be raped by their spouses (Finkelhor, D., and Yllo, K., License to rape: sexual abuse of wives. The Free Press, New York, 1985)
 

”It was very clear to me. He raped me. He ripped off my pyjamas, he beat me up. I mean, some scumbag down the street would do that to me. So to me, it wasn't any different because I was married to him, it was rape — real clear what it was.

It emotionally hurt worse. I mean you can compartmentalise it as stranger rape — you were at the wrong place at the wrong time. You can manage to get over it differently. But here, you're at home with your husband and you don't expect that. I was under constant terror even if he didn't do it.”

 

 

http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/relationships/#myth_tab

 

 'Force-only' rape is usually understood to include only enough force used on the part of the abuser to control or hold his wife in position, eg holding down the victim by her arms or wrists to prevent her defending herself or escaping. This form of rape is common where there is a larger contrast between the physical size and strength of abuser and victim, or in abusive relationships where physical violence is infrequent or non-existent (insofar as one does not categorise sexual assault itself as a violent act). In most cases of 'force-only' rape, coercion plays a large part. The victim may also be so confused and numbed by constant emotional abuse, that she simply does not know how to act or react when sex is forced on her.'

 

 

some useful links about partner rape:

 

http://www.pandys.org/partnerrapesurvivors.html

 

http://www.aphroditewounded.org/definitions.html

 

http://www.pandys.org/articles/intimatepartnerrape.html

 

 

Partner rape is real rape.
It may happen once or many times.
It may involve coercive pressure or battery and torture.
It happens in very violent relationships, or in those that are otherwise respectful. Women are raped by men they love.

 

http://www.aphroditewounded.org/loustory.html

http://survive.org.uk/maritalrape.html

 

 http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/marital_rape.html

 http://www.voicesandfaces.org/survivor_victoria.asp