This stupid, stupid article by David Cox on rape convictions (only published in the Comment is Free section on the Guardian website, which suggests it didn't make the cut for the print version) would really get me down if it weren't for the responses by super lovely great feminists here, here and here. Go feminists!
(Also I love how they all say 'don't even bother to read the comments'...)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The previous article on men and women's use of language is fascinating on the allegations that women 'aren't clear' when they tell men they don't want to proceed with sex (hence all those poor confused men who simply continue and are then prosecuted for rape by EVIL HARRIDANS who want to ruin their lives).
The article makes it clear a) that men DO understand and use indirect language in all kinds of social contexts, so there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be able to interpret 'I have a headache' or 'I should go home now' as 'I don't want to have sex'. And also b) women use indirect language in these situations not because their poor fluffy little brains can't cope with saying 'no' directly, but because they assess, correctly, that an outright 'no' will be seen as insulting and will provoke violence.
A bit like the recent study of the glass ceiling... Earlier studies had found that women are promoted less, and receive smaller pay rises, but also found that they ask for less and negotiate less aggressively. Guess what a recent study found? Women who negotiate their salary in the same manner as men are perceived, by male employers, as 'aggressive people I wouldn't want to work with'.
Shockingly enough, behaviour women have been blamed for turns out to have been a reasonable assessment of the circumstances.
Good post.
Post a Comment