Germaine Greer's views on rape and anonymity

[Rum]

I saw this on Question Time on BBC last night. I was tempted not to post this given our..er...reputation..with this subject, but I am intrigued so fuck it.

As ever Greer was challenging of anything we take for granted. More so as she gets older and a bit crotchety! She expressed the view that anonymity for rape victims assumed that they had something to be ashamed of - rather than the perpetrator one assumes.

It is a damned good point and she is of course right - a victim has nothing to be ashamed of - but I can't imagine many - female or male victims of rape would want their names to be made public.

In passing I met her once! When I was at Art School I touted some of my 'psychedelic' artwork around some of the underground magazines and comics. One of these was OZ in London, which was famously anarchic. She happened to be in the offices when I turned up with my folder of drawings. I remember her being friendly..but loud! ..this was just after The Female Eunuch, which as the time I hadn't read. I did later though and was impressed.

Link r.e. OP -

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05 ... _hp_ref=tw

[pErvinalia]

I really enjoy watching Germaine Greer speak. And as you say, as she gets older she gets a more crotchety (but definitely very humorous!). I think with a lot of her arguments/positions she focuses on the broader picture and sometimes disregards the specific. This would be a case in that mould. In the broader picture, she is definitely right. But she finds herself in trouble from time to time from ignoring the individual.


(disclaimer: I haven't read the article yet...)

[PsychoSerenity]

I think Greer is right in saying victims shouldn't be ashamed and I can't help wonder if the provision for anonymity may in some cases make things worse - but at the same time I think a psychological assessment could still be done for victims, not just for rape, to see if an alternative would be better on an individual basis. I'd have trouble arguing either position really, beacuse ultimately I'd be arguing something I don't agree with. Following the logic back, first I'd have to question the need for public trials (or at least media publicised trials) in the first place, and then even further back - do we really need trials like this at all? I think there's a problem at the very route of the criminal justice system in our culture. The whole concept of trials determining guilt for punishment seems outdated and flawed to me. I think we'd be able to do much more for victims and potential criminals by scrapping the whole lot and starting from scratch. - I'm not entirely sure how, but I think it's a problem that needs to be tackled sooner or later.

[En_Route]

Let us assume that the object of any change to the law is to maximise the number of rapists who are convicted/ the deterrence of would-be rapists. Would Greer's proposal assist in this regard? I think not, because on the whole people do not want to publicise the fact they were raped. The fact that Greer thinks that they ought not to be so reticent is a kind of intellectual totalitarianism on her part. I think she is actually a clever woman who routinely espouses some very stupid ideas.

[Cormac]

I really enjoy watching Germaine Greer speak. And as you say, as she gets older she gets a more crotchety (but definitely very humorous!). I think with a lot of her arguments/positions she focuses on the broader picture and sometimes disregards the specific. This would be a case in that mould. In the broader picture, she is definitely right. But she finds herself in trouble from time to time from ignoring the individual.


(disclaimer: I haven't read the article yet...)

As regards the law - it is a big mistake to legislate for hard cases, rather than the general picture.

More often than note, the focus on individual hard cases is the realm of Faux News and Infotainment in general - who don't scruple to take advantage of a person's misery for their own benefit.

Faux news, and other misery peddlers like Ireland's afternoon radio talk show host and misery fetishist and fat cat self-styled "socialist" Joe Duffy:




(Note - this is a parody of a real world wanker who presents himself as a socialist, decries banker's pay, while he is one of the highest paid public servants in the country).

[Jason]

I imagine a lot of rape victims don't want to be known as 'the person who was raped' wherever they go (work, socializing, etc.); they probably want to move on with their lives as best they can and be treated as a normal person. Of course they have no reason to be ashamed, but they do have reason to want to remain anonymous.

[Audley Strange]

Good post. I continue to wonder how much the psychology of having rape as some extra-special category of sexual assault is in fact the problem, given it's heavily emotive and negative historical resonances. I'm not saying it should be considered any less of a crime, just perhaps the word itself adds problems.

[Rum]

Well there is the issue of insemination for women - still in many countries, not to mention disease. And the violation aspect applies to both sexes too. It is a nasty crime.

[Audley Strange]

Well there is the issue of insemination for women - still in many countries, not to mention disease. And the violation aspect applies to both sexes too. It is a nasty crime.

All Sexual assaults are violations, though I think what you're referring to is penetrations, which is fair enough, but why should penetration with a penis be considered extra special horror?

Sure you could use the pregnancy angle, but there is male rape and anal rape, so I'm not convinced that it is that. To me is seems that Rape is being defined as sexual assault by penis. I wonder if it is a good or useful definition at all and wonder if those who have been using Rape as a political motivator have not been self-defeating in regards to how we consider it.

Anyone who has been sexually assaulted may feel ashamed not because of cultural conditioning, just because, it's going to be humiliating, at the very least. In a culture where we do have trolls in real life, I cannot blame any man woman or child not wanting it to be public knowledge that some pitiful degenerate got their rocks off at their expense. We live in a culture where such vulnerabilities are sympathised but also used as ammunition. We need to get rid of emotive and weaponised words from our Legal system. Sexual Assault should be a crime. Nothing is gained from Rape being a special case, it makes things worse, for victims of the crime and for victims of false accusations.

And Rum you've pointed out twice the last week the insane increase in the reportage of abuse cases in child protection. Was this because it's was an emergent phenomenon or because what was defined as abuse was made clearer and more widespread do you think?

[Rum]

It was, I am sure, the raising of public awareness following a number of high profile child abuse cases in the late 70s/early 80s. Prior to that the public were pretty clueless that 'such things' really went on. Often they were dealt with in the way the catholic Church dealt with the issues more recently - move people on and brush it under the carpet sort of approach.

Social Services departments actually reorganises from around 81/82 onwards to reflect the rise in referrals and cases. It is almost impossible to say if numbers of actual instances rose and by how much or whether people (and children themselves) felt able to approach other adults to complain about their treatment.

It was a horrible time to be a social worker, because most of us simply were not equipped to deal with some of the issues. Lots of 'catch up' training was on offer.

Things are very different now though it is not a job I would or could do even now. Fourteen years burnt me out - more than.

Edit: I just remembered a case I was trying to dredge up from my failing brain cells. Maria Colwell's killing by her stepfather and subsequent inquiry led to the development of Area Child Protection Committees (ACPCs) in England and Wales and a real focus for the first time on the issue.

Edit #2: People may be surprised and shocked to know that referrals to social services departments concerning abuse of all kinds (physical, emotional, sexual) hovers around 40,000 a year.

[Tyrannical]

Anonymity is bad because it interferes with the discovery process in legal proceedings.

[hadespussercats]

Anonymity is bad because it interferes with the discovery process in legal proceedings.

I don't see how. It's not as though the victim isn't known-- the victim's name isn't released. And as I understand it, discovery refers to the defendant having the right to know what evidence will be used against him, so he can prepare a defense. Keeping the victim's name out of the press doesn't hinder that at all.

[Rum]

Anonymity is bad because it interferes with the discovery process in legal proceedings.

I don't see how. It's not as though the victim isn't known-- the victim's name isn't released. And as I understand it, discovery refers to the defendant having the right to know what evidence will be used against him, so he can prepare a defense. Keeping the victim's name out of the press doesn't hinder that at all.

Yep - and where children are involved it happens automatically - here anyway.

[hadespussercats]

Yet?

[Rum]

Yet?

Amended..