blokes, would you be willing to accept restrictions on your behaviour...

[toggle]

... in order to more effectively protect women and children from male sexual violence?

if, for example, you were mistakenly considered a threat to children*, but it couldn't really be proved anyway, would you shrug and say, well, i wasn't planning on hanging around in schools anyway? or would you consider it to be indicative of a failed system and campaign for system to be changed?

or perhaps there are more nuanced ways of doing things - i'd be interested to hear some ideas, both real world and theoretical.

secondly, how do we balance the need for strong evidence with the lack of strong evidence in sexual violence cases and still protect women and children. evidence is clearly a requirement in justice, but at the same time, our current system means that we have millions of rape victims but a surprising lack of actual rapists. many feminists take the position that rape is basically legal, and only stupid or unlucky men actually get caught. how do we fix this?

this ties in a lot with some other threads that have been going on recently, but because i've been a bit combatative in some of them, i thought i'd start a thread where in people can discuss it without me calling them names whilst still getting some answers to think about!

so i'm going to stay away from this until later and use this thread to get some ideas to consider, rather than to have a fight on if there's stuff i disagree with.


----

* case in question is a bloke whose credit card was used to by child porn. police didn't take it further as he claimed his card had been cloned. but they advised that he shouldn't be allowed in schools, he's throwing a tantrum.

I know the case, and I also know the reputation for competence of some of the people involved, and I'm not sure temper tantrum is the right way to describe what he's doing.

The council have confirmed that their investigation is based solely on an incident from 2006 where he was arrested after his credit card details were found on a child porn site. he was investigated, no evidence to refute his claims were found and no action was taken.

and this is where you are delving into local politics. Alex Folkes became a councilor in 2009 which included an enhanced CRB that revealed the arrest. he explained then and no further action was taken. then a short while ago, allegations about him related to this incident were emailed anonymously to various councilors, journos etc. and the council issue a statement advising clubs not to let him near kids.

the council have known about this issue for 5 years and done squat.

then 5 years later they initiate a process they know will result in trial by media. on a man that does seem to be a particular favourite target for media misrepresentation.

so they have either started hounding a man for something not his fault, or let a dangerous man have access to children for years. either way, someone is cocking up something really badly there.- business as usual tbh.

i'm inclined to believe him atm. mainly because I've seen some of the shit that has been thrown over the past few years and the misrepresentation. and while there may be a case for holding a long delayed investigation into whether someone arrested on child porn charges should have continued in that role, and I don't think statements that he's innocent should be described as a temper tantrum

 

[weltweit]

But you said it just simply wasn't done. I don't agree. And there's nowt wrong with watching kids play either. They can be a joy to watch.

But if they are not your kids and you have a camera you have to be wary.

And anyhow what a strange concept, "your kids" we don't own them, we just care for them till they fly the nest!

 

[weltweit]

Thing is, me restricting my behaviour and for example not taking photographs of children, or walking behind women at night or any of these other worthy things will not make the world safer for children or women because I am not a child molester or rapist.

So how will me modifying my behaviour, which I do, make the world safer?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Thing is, me restricting my behaviour and for example not taking photographs of children, or walking behind women at night or any of these other worthy things will not make the world safer for children or women because I am not a child molester or rapist.

So how will me modifying my behaviour, which I do, make the world safer?

Being considerate and helping to provide peace of mind for others, that's all. No, you're not making the world safer, but you're doing your best not to discomfort others.

It is a fair point, though. You're not actually reducing the risks. If only it were that simple.

 

[kebabking]

...And anyhow what a strange concept, "your kids" we don't own them, we just care for them till they fly the nest!

in my experience, describing kids as 'my kids' is a bit like a dog saying 'my lead'...

i have some sympathy with littlebabyjesus view - if my kids are with me then i'll happily interact with other kids, but if i'm on my own i'm afraid i actively avoid them. the risks are just too great - i've noticed myself being eyed up by the Noncefinder General when i'm with my own children (three girls between 11 and 2 months), i'm simply not prepared to run the risk of being screached at or thumped for talking to a child.

this is not the world as it should be, nor what i think is healthy for children, merely the inevitable consequence of the attitudes that have been allowed to become mainstream. if you want to know why so few men are willing to teach in primary schools, or why a policeman wouldn't go and comfort a five yo who fell off her bike outside his house, then read the open post to this thread. and weep.

 

[ViolentPanda]

... in order to more effectively protect women and children from male sexual violence?

if, for example, you were mistakenly considered a threat to children*, but it couldn't really be proved anyway, would you shrug and say, well, i wasn't planning on hanging around in schools anyway? or would you consider it to be indicative of a failed system and campaign for system to be changed?

No proof = no sanction. A way to get around any possible threat to children with regard to "stranger danger" around schools is to render them "exclusion zones" outside of start and end of school day, but then "stranger danger" isn't the real problem with regard to child sexual assault, so such policies wouldn't prevent very many assaults.

or perhaps there are more nuanced ways of doing things - i'd be interested to hear some ideas, both real world and theoretical.

Perhaps we need an approach to sexual offences and their victims which isn't primarily driven by the media, and by party politicians scoring points off of the opposition, and which isn't obsessed with "stranger danger" to the exclusion of the more prevalent danger at home.

secondly, how do we balance the need for strong evidence with the lack of strong evidence in sexual violence cases and still protect women and children. evidence is clearly a requirement in justice, but at the same time, our current system means that we have millions of rape victims but a surprising lack of actual rapists. many feminists take the position that rape is basically legal, and only stupid or unlucky men actually get caught. how do we fix this?

Our legal system, though still evolving, was formulated by men for men. The best way to address the lack of balance this causes between parties would be to re-write the laws to reflect the particular vagaries of sexual offences, so that a rapist isn't gambling at odds of 10 to 1 of being caught, but evens.
This wouldn't, as has been claimed (when it's been proposed before), bias justice in favour of women, it would merely assure that a complainant had a better chance than presently of justice.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Let be very clear on one thing. Rape is not legal.

There are many crimes that are hard to prove because conclusive evidence is hard to obtain. They are still illegal too.

It is dangerous to suggest otherwise.

Don't be a twat. He hasn't said that rape is legal, he's said (to paraphrase) that some commentators have stated that given the low rate of prosecution, it might as well be legal, which is a different thing altogether.

 

[ViolentPanda]

there's got to be a third way - obviously tearing down the current system and replacing it with something nicer is a great idea but its not going to happen any time soon?

surely there's something else?

The problem being that in terms of the criminal justice system post-offence - i.e. the police and the courts, even legislative change doesn't have the immediate effect it should. I've mentioned before on threads on the subject of serious sexual offences that over a decade ago legislation was passed to protect vulnerable witnesses in such crimes ("vulnerable" meaning either adults at threat of violence as well as child witnesses), and yet even unto this day, some courts don't have the procedures in place as a matter of course, but only at the discretion of the presiding judge. With that amount of "judicial discretion" being allowed to be exercised, and with the majority of senior judges being male, that isn't going to change any time soon unless we stick a metaphorical cattle prod up their bewigged arses.

 

[ViolentPanda]

for example, lowering the evidence requirement bar for rape and sexual abuse cases would make it more likely that rapists and sexual abusers could be imprisoned.

I'd say that it would depend on what you mean by "lowering the bar". If you mean getting away from a purely "he said, she said" approach to sexual offences, then I'd agree, because apart from anything else, neither our criminal justice system or most of our media acknowledge a single obvious truth: That because of patriarchy and its' effects, a woman's word is held to have less validity, even though men and women are equal before the law. Establish that equality by legislating watertight procedures with regard to the "policing" of sex crimes and we might achieve something without the need to lower the bar.

as in the other thread, injunctions regulating the behaviour of suspected but not proved abusers etc etc.

do you not think those things would help?

The issue there is whether you can establish the potential threat as serious enough to warrant such a sanction, and as ever, the person doing the establishing is likely to be a cog in the criminal justice system, saturated in the institutional attitudes common to that system. This will sometimes militate against them looking at such cases with their eyes open.

 

[JTG]

My dad has brought up five children and spent a lifetime working with them (and all other ages/backgrounds too). He'll strike up conversations with children and has a genuine interest in what they have to say/their welfare etc. The idea that he 'shouldn't' talk to them is ridiculous and offensive

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My dad has brought up five children and spent a lifetime working with them (and all other ages/backgrounds too). He'll strike up conversations with children and has a genuine interest in what they have to say/their welfare etc. The idea that he 'shouldn't' talk to them is ridiculous and offensive

In certain circumstances, I would say that he and everyone else should show caution, yes, in order not to cause concern. A public park might be one of those circumstances. The point is that other people don't know who he is. It's not a personal attack on him.

 

[JTG]

A man talking to a child in public does not cause me concern, no. If there is no touching, coercion etc etc then concern isn't warranted

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A man talking to a child in public does not cause me concern, no. If there is no touching, coercion etc etc then concern isn't warranted

Well you're being naive if you think it doesn't in certain circumstances cause others concern.

 

[Orang Utan]

This paranoia is unfortunate. Something needs to be done about the paranoia, not the talking.

 

[Orang Utan]

Well you're being naive if you think it doesn't in certain circumstances cause others concern.

It does but that concern isn't warranted. People's perception of danger needs to be challenged, not accepted.

 

[Pickman's model]

It does but that concern isn't warranted. People's perception of danger needs to be challenged, not accepted.

 

[Orang Utan]

Indeed. One man's behaviour colouring people's perception of all humanity.

 

[Pickman's model]

Indeed. One man's behaviour colouring people's perception of all humanity.

it's michael jackson challenging people's perception of danger

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It does but that concern isn't warranted. People's perception of danger needs to be challenged, not accepted.

Yes and no, I would say. I will cross the road to avoid following a lone woman at night. There is no danger to her from me, and me crossing the road does not make her any safer on her journey home - it might objectively make her less safe, in fact, as me being there might deter someone who was a danger - but I do it because there is a chance it will make her feel safer.

I would apply the same thinking to not potentially alarming parents in a park by approaching their child when the child has strayed a little away unless I thought the child was in some kind of need, in which case, I would be actively seeking out the parents in any case. A debate about imagined dangers is for another place and time.

The point isn't whether or not I'm a good person who wouldn't harm anyone. The point is that they don't know me.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I wouldn't be phased by it, my mind doesn't work like that but a whole lot of women would be frightened in that situation

I've been followed in not very nice circumstances, by someone who was clearly doing it with ill intent in mind. It made me very wary of that particular street, down which I hate going alone if it's dark (even though it was daylight when this incident happened). I don't automatically feel worried if there is a man behind me, context matters. But if it's a lonely place, if there's no one else around, if he is walking very close, if he doesn't pass me, etc., I'm going to feel worried. I think it's a good thing for men to be aware of how their presence might be construed, even if they are the nicest, kindest, loveliest man alive - because when I'm walking down that lonely street and he's a few paces behind me all the way, I don't know him from Jack the Ripper.

Men generally being more aware of the ways in which their actions might be perceived is a good thing in general. For the most part, this kind of thing is heaped at the feet of women to think about and come up with plans for. It'd be nice if the work was shared.

 

[JTG]

Well you're being naive if you think it doesn't in certain circumstances cause others concern.

I realise it does, you've just said so for one thing. I think it's silly though.

As far as the lone woman thing is concerned - I live in an area where women work the street night and day and my female housemates report harassment on their way home. I may well be aware of how my presence makes a lone woman feel but I'm also aware that I may well deter a genuinely dangerous male. What's more important?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As far as the lone woman thing is concerned - I live in an area where women work the street night and day and my female housemates report harassment on their way home. I may well be aware of how my presence makes a lone woman feel but I'm also aware that I may well deter a genuinely dangerous male. What's more important?

If they don't know you, it is best to keep your distance/ overtake/cross the road, I would say, if they have no way of knowing that you're not a dangerous male.

 

[lizzieloo]

I realise it does, you've just said so for one thing. I think it's silly though.

As far as the lone woman thing is concerned - I live in an area where women work the street night and day and my female housemates report harassment on their way home. I may well be aware of how my presence makes a lone woman feel but I'm also aware that I may well deter a genuinely dangerous male. What's more important?

You don't have to run away, in a city it's easy to just cross over, you'd still be around. A genuinely dangerous situation is a rare occurrence thankfully but a woman feeling unnerved is common.

 

[JTG]

You don't have to run away, in a city it's easy to just cross over, you'd still be around. A genuinely dangerous situation is a rare occurrence thankfully but a woman feeling unnerved is common.

Not on the main road I live on it isn't. Sure I can keep my distance but it isn't so easy or practical to just cross the road is it?

 

[lizzieloo]

No, do as you like, just pointing out it can be scary, you'll notice I originally said "if poss"

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not on the main road I live on it isn't. Sure I can keep my distance but it isn't so easy or practical to just cross the road is it?

This has come up before on here. I'm still pretty sure that what I said before is the right thing in certain circumstances. There are ways of overtaking someone that signal an absence of threat. Making sure you keep a certain distance as you do so and you are not showing any interest in the person you're overtaking. It's hard to put into words, but I think I do this where required in a way that minimises any potential for alarm. I hope so.

Trying not to alarm someone isn't the same as ignoring them, either. As said above, nothing to stop you keeping half an eye. I might have been taken a bit the wrong way earlier. I'm not advocating minding your own business and ignoring others. I stopped to check the girl was ok in the park, for instance. Maybe I was being overcautious or even paranoid, but I wasn't not giving a shit.

 

[JTG]

...from in front of them?

See, I'm not even close to denying that these feelings are important and that we should be aware. But in an area that I know to be not entirely safe given the verbals my housemates report, how is it preferable to go out of my way to make it harder to see anything untoward?

In short, I don't see how avoiding potential alarm trumps being better placed to avoid real harm

 

[lizzieloo]

Because real harm is very rare

 

[littlebabyjesus]

sometimes you might have to overtake. I've been in situations where I have sensed that a woman has been slowing so that I could overtake, or is walking so slowly that I have little choice given that I'm generally a fast walker. In which case, I'll do so as expeditiously as possible.

My first choice is to discreetly cross the road.

None of this is ideal, either.

 

[Orang Utan]

None of this is addressing the real problem.