|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 13, 2009 21:15:33 GMT
SWL, the Rape Crisis movement is NOT treating raped men in any particular way.
It is just expelling from its network those services which do not restrict their services to women, in line with their charitable aims.
It's the centre they're expelling, not men.
And so far as I know it is publicly known information and has been for some time. The disagreements in the Rape Crisis movement between those who wanted to stick to their original aims and those who wanted to broaden out their services to include men have been going on for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 13, 2009 21:16:51 GMT
Get some perspective anyway. While I fully accept that sexual assaults on men are desperately under-reported, the extent of them is unlikely to warrant large numbers of specialist services. Generic victim support services DO exist for such victims and are happy to help them. That's why this comment reported by Everso made me see red: We did not cater for men at all. When I queried this I was told "If the men feel the need for counselling then let them set up their own centre".It was exactly the same attitude expressed in the 1970s by golf clubs who didn't want to admit women. I mean, what a daft attitude. The rape crisis centres have the specialist staff already there. It would have served them right if men had set up male rape centres in every town and demanded it had same specialists available to women - and the funders had felt obliged to divide what is probably an already-tight budget. Housey, that argument might have some merit were the extent of assaults on men and women equal in number and nature. They're not. |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on May 13, 2009 21:25:01 GMT
I don't agree. There are fewer women drug addicts than men and some say they don't like attending clinics and groups where men are in the majority. Centres have adapted, and now offer women more one-to-one counselling and our local branch of Addaction now runs a women-only group.
Ther is absolutely no reason why a rape counsellor could not also see a male, is there?
Of course, if the same services are available elsewhere, the man won't have suffered any detriment by being turned away from the women's centres. But are they?
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 13, 2009 21:29:03 GMT
I don't agree. There are fewer women drug addicts than men and some say they don't like attending clinics and groups where men are in the majority. Centres have adapted, and now offer women more one-to-one counselling and our local branch of Addaction now runs a women-only group. Ther is absolutely no reason why a rape counsellor could not also see a male, is there? Of course, if the same services are available elsewhere, the man won't have suffered any detriment by being turned away from the women's centres. But are they? Rape Crisis counsellors work from a particular perspective (as do all counsellors) and their skills/expertise could not be simply transferred to male victims. And yes, the same services are available elsewhere, just not from a branded organisation. Rape Crisis is a specialist service for women. What's wrong with that? |
|
|
|
Post by swl on May 13, 2009 21:43:05 GMT
From the Rape Crisis definition of rape
"Rape is rape regardless of the relationship or the context."
Also, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 broadens the definition of rape to include oral penetration.
There is absolutely nothing on that page that implies or infers that rape is a gendered crime (http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/law/definitionofrape.html).
For any male survivor reading that page, he would not see anything to discourage him from seeking help at a rape crisis centre.
You say Riot, that it is public knowledge that Rape Crisis refuses to deal with male rape survivors. I dispute that. I'm a member of the public and I never knew. You are a career professional with a professional interest.
Yes it is. It's telling them to fuck off. And it's telling any member group who deals with them to fuck off too.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on May 13, 2009 21:43:58 GMT
Riot, there is nothing wrong with a service being available to women only provided an equally appropriate and accessible service is provided for men. The quote from Everso's earlier post just suggested not only that no such service was available, but tough luck. It was an appalling remark to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 13, 2009 21:48:29 GMT
Yes, I've already said the law has changed in E&W but not yet in Scotland.
Of course rape is a gendered crime.
Hundreds of years of our language and legal tradition is based on 'rape' being the penetration of the vagina by the penis. The penetration of the anus by the penis was known as 'sodomy'.
Over the past 10 years the term 'rape' has been redefined in some circumstances to include sodomy.
There are arguments for and against such redefinition.
But the idea that 'Rape Crisis' services should somehow suddenly be made available to men as a result of this redefinition doesn't really show much understanding of the crimes we are talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 13, 2009 21:51:17 GMT
Riot, there is nothing wrong with a service being available to women only provided an equally appropriate and accessible service is provided for men. The quote from Everso's earlier post just suggested not only that no such service was available, but tough luck. It was an appalling remark to make. But male victims are not being DENIED something previously available to them. Services were set up for women for the reasons I have outlined. There were no specific services for men because the crimes like rape they were victims of were uncommon, and different in nature. However, as with all victims of unusual crimes without their own specific support networks, generic services catering for all victims exist. |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on May 13, 2009 21:52:46 GMT
Presumably though the centres won't turn away a woman who has suffered sexual abuse which isn't rape?
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 13, 2009 21:55:11 GMT
Presumably though the centres won't turn away a woman who has suffered sexual abuse which isn't rape? I was just wondering that very point myself. I don't know the answer. But sexual assaults on women and rapes on women are not wildly different things. Rape of women and rape of men are different in so many ways, that it would be impossible to have a 'specialist' service that catered for both. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 13, 2009 21:56:26 GMT
And Centres which now want to provide services to both genders, i.e. more generic services, will no doubt play a vital role in helping some people to rebuild their lives.
But they no longer meet the criteria to be part of the Rape Crisis branded network.
|
|
|
|
Post by swl on May 13, 2009 22:04:10 GMT
Arguing your case with semantics doesn't make it any stronger Riot and trying to imply ignorance on my part is a bit provocative. Let's inject some reality here. There are "Women's Groups" and there are "Women's Groups". There are some women who get involved with rape groups because they want to help survivors and there are some who want to help women. My wife was in a women's drama group in Dundee. She really enjoyed it until they got a new leader and some new members joined. Suddenly, as she put it, "the women who liked cock were made to feel uncomfortable". Even shaving armpits was roundly condemned and criticised. Eventually she left and formed her own group. In a two-fingered salute she called it "The Baldy Oxsters Women's Group".  I've also worked with women's groups in the theatre. Most were perfectly ok, but there were some who clearly resented me being in the building. Tough shit really because I was the only one qualified to operate the equipment but they did everything they could to make me uncomfortable. A coleague told me they treated him the same. As the staff told me yesterday, some of these groups have "an agenda of their own" and it's nothing to do with helping survivors. |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on May 13, 2009 22:10:30 GMT
I was away in Inverness on business. Elsewhere here (where you might not have ventured of course) I did remind you to take your camera. As you were going abroad! Ach well, never mind. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 13, 2009 22:11:37 GMT
Arguing your case with semantics doesn't make it any stronger Riot and trying to imply ignorance on my part is a bit provocative. Let's inject some reality here. There are "Women's Groups" and there are "Women's Groups". There are some women who get involved with rape groups because they want to help survivors and there are some who want to help women. My wife was in a women's drama group in Dundee. She really enjoyed it until they got a new leader and some new members joined. Suddenly, as she put it, "the women who liked cock were made to feel uncomfortable". Even shaving armpits was roundly condemned and criticised. Eventually she left and formed her own group. In a two-fingered salute she called it "The Baldy Oxsters Women's Group". I've also worked with women's groups in the theatre. Most were perfectly ok, but there were some who clearly resented me being in the building. Tough shit really because I was the only one qualified to operate the equipment but they did everything they could to make me uncomfortable. A coleague told me they treated him the same. As the staff told me yesterday, some of these groups have "an agenda of their own" and it's nothing to do with helping survivors. But SWL, I wouldn't deny that some womens groups have agendas of their own. Nor would I deny that some of the women who work at Rape Crisis have an agenda of THEIR own - a point Everso has already made and illustrated from her own experience. I just really am at a loss to identify your source of outrage about a group being excluded from a network of similar groups when it no longer shares its aims. Or are you trying to make some wider point about gender? |
|
|
|
Post by everso on May 13, 2009 22:12:05 GMT
Riot, there is nothing wrong with a service being available to women only provided an equally appropriate and accessible service is provided for men. The quote from Everso's earlier post just suggested not only that no such service was available, but tough luck. It was an appalling remark to make. Just to make it clear: I would have been more than happy to speak to any men who happened to phone, rather than pass them on. Unfortunately, that wasn't what the centre approved of. As I said, to be fair, I had very few calls from men anyway. At the same time, I don't really think it's up to a women's group to organise a rape counselling service for men. If that is something men need then there must be men out there who would organise it? Just Googling 'Rape Crisis for men' brings up a raft of different websites dedicated to just that. Some of the sites cater for both men and women as well. The centre I worked for was Rape and Sexual Abuse, not Rape Crisis. I didn't run the place so I'm not certain as to the exact figures for public funding, but I can tell you it was pretty piss-poor because we were always fund-raising. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 13, 2009 22:13:51 GMT
I was away in Inverness on business. Elsewhere here (where you might not have ventured of course) I did remind you to take your camera. As you were going abroad! Ach well, never mind. I nearly took some photos inside Inverness Town House today, as it was quite an interesting building. But it wasn't really the company for me to be doing it. We got there about 8, dinner was from half 8 followed by a very VERRY long after dinner presentation so got to bed (sober!) at 12, then was in meeting from half ten today onwards. Apart from a swim in the hotel swimming pool this morning, it wasn't really much of a holiday! |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on May 13, 2009 22:26:51 GMT
Swimming Pool! Not a Travel-lodge I take it then!?  |
|
|
|
Post by swl on May 13, 2009 22:28:19 GMT
Arguing your case with semantics doesn't make it any stronger Riot and trying to imply ignorance on my part is a bit provocative. Let's inject some reality here. There are "Women's Groups" and there are "Women's Groups". There are some women who get involved with rape groups because they want to help survivors and there are some who want to help women. My wife was in a women's drama group in Dundee. She really enjoyed it until they got a new leader and some new members joined. Suddenly, as she put it, "the women who liked cock were made to feel uncomfortable". Even shaving armpits was roundly condemned and criticised. Eventually she left and formed her own group. In a two-fingered salute she called it "The Baldy Oxsters Women's Group". I've also worked with women's groups in the theatre. Most were perfectly ok, but there were some who clearly resented me being in the building. Tough shit really because I was the only one qualified to operate the equipment but they did everything they could to make me uncomfortable. A coleague told me they treated him the same. As the staff told me yesterday, some of these groups have "an agenda of their own" and it's nothing to do with helping survivors. But SWL, I wouldn't deny that some womens groups have agendas of their own. Nor would I deny that some of the women who work at Rape Crisis have an agenda of THEIR own - a point Everso has already made and illustrated from her own experience. I just really am at a loss to identify your source of outrage about a group being excluded from a network of similar groups when it no longer shares its aims. Or are you trying to make some wider point about gender? I'm questioning the real motives of some groups given their modus operandi. I hate discrimination in any form, however it may be dressed up in pretty language. Society changes and if support groups cannot react to these changes and start to resemble the institutions they initially opposed, it's time to shut them down and move to more inclusive approaches reflecting the reality of modern life. If they want to continue to be discriminatory, at least let them be open about it and re-brand themselves as "Women's Rape Crisis Centres". |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 13, 2009 22:28:40 GMT
Swimming Pool! Not a Travel-lodge I take it then!? Four stars Triple bed all to myself. Bedroom twice the size of my bedroom at home. Bathroom separate and down a small corridor in my mini-suite. Luxury. Came home to endless troubles and tears and hassles. So it was nice . . . |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 13, 2009 23:48:44 GMT
Charities might get involved but special provision for female rape victims carries overtones of traditional special provision for women and of sex as a special sort of offence. The ideal would be that the police offer links to the kind of support service appropriate to them. An unthought-of side-effect to victim support is that it allows the victim to admit to need for support instead of feeling obliged to prove their survival by taking revenge on the aggressor.
There does seem to be very traditional elements about rape crisis implying that sex is something a woman would (and should) find exceptionally horrific compared to any other kind of assault and that the weaker sex need support where big strong men do not. The difference from the shame of not being a virgin sounds to me far less than is often claimed.
Unfortunately, I suppose the kind of woman who can say that she's been raped but it's not a crisis or she hasn't been raped but has been traumatised with threats to take a blowlamp to her breasts doesn't fit some very traditional attitudes that still survive clad in trendy new language.
When a girl says that she lost her virginity unexpectedly aged fourteen in a hedge being told not to "Follow me back for five minutes so people won't guess what we've been doing" it sounds pretty disgusting. But she didn't think so even if she shagged every male she could get hold of thereafter and once boasted of "Running this twelve-year old virgin down to give him a blow job in front of my mates". (She didn't catch him).
It is true that sodomy has been redefined as rape. That is fundamentally wrong since the anus is not necessarily a sexual organ. Rape means unwilling vaginal intercourse, so of a man means a woman sitting on him. He is usually immune: it hurts enough to lose anything to sit on! To class enforced male anal intercourse as rape ignores that that is often the situation with women too, with all the implication of rejecting them as women with a sex organ for the purpose, to degrade them as boys.
|
|
