Not the war on men you’re looking for

It’s headline news: Labour supports re-starting a Law Commission review initiated by Simon Power to investigate possible changes in our judicial system including the option of adopting an inquisitorial approach in cases of sexual violence. Shocking stuff!

Hang on, why is that headline news? Because the Herald and David Farrar have chosen to spin this story into a tale of Labour’s continued War On Men.

Tom Scott has helpfully illustrated the debate with a cartoon in which the personification of Justice is clearly asking for it with her slutty attire and manhating ways.

There are so many things I want to say but just can’t find the words for. The statistics are all out there: the utter everyday common-ness of sexual assault. The under-reporting. The horrifyingly low level of prosecutions, much less convictions. The trauma and pain that survivors go through on a routine basis just to get a smidgen of justice.

All I can really focus on are these two incredibly ignorant statements from DPF’s hysterical little post:

Bear in mind that even if you are married to them, that is not proof [of consent].

If it is what you say vs what they say, you will lose.

And all day today, I’ve seen men on Twitter and Facebook say things like “if this happens men will be afraid to be in a room with a woman without a witness!” or “what if my ex suddenly decides to attack me with a false accusation?” or “how can I possibly prove my innocence when it’s their word against mine?”

Here’s the thing, men. If those ideas horrify you, you need to understand one thing: that’s how women feel all the time. These are the thoughts we’re already having. The reality is that somewhere between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 women will experience sexual violence in her lifetime – and that’s an overall statistic, because it’s far higher for women of colour, for example.

I can appreciate that when the only version of this story you hear is the David Farrar “Labour will murder everything you hold dear” spin, you might start to get worried, and you might decide to completely ignore the realities of how our justice system treats sexual violence (9% estimated reporting rate, 13% conviction rate, awesome!).

But the only thing Labour is guilty of is considering an expert, independent review of our justice system. That’s all.

On the other hand, after a day of reading awful, heartless comments like “this is just about protecting victims’ feelings” I have to say this. If it were the radical man-hating straw-feminist outrage that the Herald and DPF are trying to sell you, you know what? It’s about damn time that the people who commit sexual assault are held to account for their actions, and far beyond time that we stopped persecuting their victims by putting them in the impossible situation of proving they never consented.

(Hat-tip to DawgBelly: 1, 2)

3 Replies to “Not the war on men you’re looking for”

  1. If you think it okay for men to be convicted based solely on a woman’s say-so, feel free to make it clear instead of just resorting to shaming tactics.

    Reporting and conviction rates exist within the status quo; common sense dictates the number of rape allegations will skyrocket if the burden of proof is reversed. It’s impossible to know what percentage of that will be made for malicious reasons. True, the majority of women would never make a false accusation, but it only takes one vindictive or mentally ill person to put someone in jail for up to 7 years and destroy what remains of their lives with an undeserved stigma. Perhaps you assume that by worrying about the obvious possibility, I don’t care about women; the kind of antagonistic thinking typical of a mindset primarily concerned with ‘payback’ in any form.

    1. Thanks for commenting on a month-old post, Destructo! Here are the problems with your comment:

      1. You’ve started off with a boring old “man-hating-feminist” allegation which I won’t even bother refuting because it’s that stupid.
      2. “Common sense” is a silly basis for any argument, especially one which is based on boring old man-hating-feminist tropes.
      3. Your fantasy about a dystopic misandrist future where innocent men have their lives snatched away on an evil woman’s say-so is completely irrelevant to the actual policy being proposed.
      4. Assuming that mentally ill people are more likely to do violent, harmful or malicious things than anyone else is inaccurate and gross and promotes ableist stigma.
      5. It looks a bit silly to spin an elaborate fantasy of evil women trying to bring down men, then claim that I’m the “antagonistic” one “primarily concerned with payback”.

      If you try very hard to avoid this kind of rubbish in future I’ll do my best not to fire your comments into the sun.

What do you reckon?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: