Rape, Responsibility and the Media

Fri 28 Mar 2008

In a recent highly-publicised nationwide survey, people were asked whether a woman was partly, totally, or not at all to blame if she became the victim of rape in a variety of circumstances, including situations where she was drunk or drugged, walking alone in deserted places, wearing provocative clothes, had gone home alone with a man, etc etc. The published accompanying comments were very unbalanced. In general the whole project seems more focussed on assigning blame than on reducing the incidentce of this uniquely horrible crime. The commentator brushed aside the majority opinion revealed that where a woman has voluntarily placed herself in a dangerous situation, she cannot escape a portion of the responsibility. Yet this is routine in insurance claims. One party may be said to be 20% responsible, and the other party 80%, and so on. This is applied common sense.

Is a driver in an accident given a lighter sentence because he is drunk or on drugs? On the contrary, the sentence might actually be increased because of his contributary negligence.

A learner driver is taught not to presume an oncoming car is really going to turn left if the indicator is on; he must do a Reality Check to see whether the blinker was left on accidentally. Likewise, if he has the right of way at a dangerous junction, he must still check that no lunatic is coming out at him. He is unwise - to put it mildly - to simply charge ahead and later blame the oncoming driver from his hospital bed. He would be equally unwise to think he need not modify his behaviour so long as there is a nationwide campaign that says “Left Blinker Means Just That”.

In countries where there are wild animals on the loose, we do not think highly of somebody who ventures out alone, hoping for the best and declaring “I have a Right to walk down this footpath”.

Now, most unfortunately, there are wild animals out there in the real world. Yes, young people of both sexes must be taught right from wrong, and self-discipline must be instilled. But to teach young girls and women that they may disregard prudence in dress and placing themselves in vulnerable situations, in the meanwhile expecting all males to accept a “No” in each and every situation, is hopelessly out of touch with the real world. We are not excusing the man if we warn women that, in point of fact, some men are not going to follow the rules. Women have known since the beginning of the world that certain situations - walking unattended after dark, being alone with a man in a private situation, not to mention being drunk or insensible - can lead to a life sentence after an assault. As they used to say, it’s no good crying ‘rape’ in the morning. Yet the survey shuns the least suggestion of reminding women that their own behaviour might be a contributory' factor: instead, we are all to be “educated” to ignore this possibility.

This is not in any way to extenuate the circumstances of a man’s criminal behaviour. It is to remind everybody that warning of these realities is not to condone the crime, and to remind women that contributory negligence cannot be brushed aside in this one single case. Of course men are wrong to take advantage of vulnerable women. Likewise, women, for their own protection, must avoid certain situations where they place themselves in greatly heightened risk of assault.