"Women are partially responsible for being raped"

CLAIM
A woman is totally or partially responsible for being raped if she “behaved in a flirtatious manner”, “is drunk”, “is wearing sexy or revealing clothing”, “has had many sexual partners”, “has failed to say ‘no’ clearly to the man” or “is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area”.

EVALUATION

According to a recent survey commissioned by Amnesty International, a significant proportion of British adults consider a woman partially responsible for being raped in each of these contexts. The details are summarised below.

Source: Amnesty International Sexual Abuse Survey, October, 2005

The publication of these statistics was widely covered in the media on Monday, both in the UK and internationally, generating headlines such as “Women ‘to blame’ for being raped”, “1 in 3 Brits blame rape on women”, and “Rape victims were ‘asking for it’ - Shock Report”, but it is far from obvious that this emphasis on 'blame' actually constitutes a fair interpretation of the views of the survey’s respondents, an interpretation that was almost universally accepted in the media and which has its origins in the original press release issued by Amnesty in which their UK director Kate Allen is quoted as saying “It is shocking that so many people will lay the blame for being raped at the feet of women themselves”, referring to it as a “sexist blame culture”.

The wording of the questions featured in the survey leaves the views of respondents open to a number of interpretations. By holding the victim (partially) responsible in a particular context, some of the respondents might have meant that she deserved to be raped or that the rapist should receive a more lenient sentence. Others might have meant simply that a woman is more likely to be raped if she puts herself in the stated situation. But a respondent is very unlikely to interpret ‘responsibility’ in terms of deserving to be raped if they consider it unthinkable that this depends on the context. Why would the survey be asking about the level of responsibility if it didn’t vary from condition to condition? Given this, it is plausible that a significant proportion of respondents interpreted ‘responsibility’ in terms of whether the woman had placed herself in a situation in which she was more likely to fall victim to rape. This is regardless of any attribution of blame that might go along with that. There is an empirical question about whether there is actually an increased risk of rape in the contexts examined in the survey. Indeed, there is a distinct question for each scenario. But if there are measures that a victim could have taken to reduce the risk in a particular case, would that justify “lay[ing] the blame for being raped at the feet of women themselves”?

Taking measures to prevent becoming a victim of a crime is normal and uncontroversial in other domains. We take precautions when using our credit cards online, we ensure that valuables aren’t visible through our car windows, we leave a light on at home if going on a holiday. It is therefore not grossly implausible that there are things that a woman could do to prevent becoming a victim of rape. She can for instance, refuse to accept a drink from an unknown man under conditions where he could have drugged it (go here for more advice on date rape drugs).

Most of us would of course prefer a world in which there were no criminals so that we wouldn’t have to take such precautions. When we compare this ideal world against the reality, the person who takes no precautions is behaving exactly as we would all like to be able to, but the criminal is not behaving as we’d want. This is why we attempt to deter the criminal with threats of punishment and not the victim even if the victim could have prevented the crime by behaving differently. Our desire to change the behaviour of the criminal is motivated by idealism, whereas our desire to change the behaviour of potential victims is motivated by pragmatism. The notions of blame and punishment are only compatible with the former.

As for the specific claims in the survey, it would be deeply irresponsible for Amnesty to give the impression that these factors do not carry any risk if they in fact do. On the issue of drinking, studies do support a strong link between rape and alcohol use both on the part of the rapist and the victim [source, source]. There is also a correlation with the number of sexual partners a woman has had [source, source]. On the other hand, the risk associated with walking alone in a dangerous or deserted area may not be as large as many assume. According to UK Home Office statistics, 92% of rapes involving female victims are committed by people known to the victim (45% by current partners). Given this, it is unsurprising that more than half of all rapes (55%) actually occur within the victim’s own home, with a further 20% occurring in the perpetrator’s home. 13% occur in public places, often in the vicinity of licensed premises [source].

The extent of risks associated with dressing provocatively, flirting, and sending mixed signals are more difficult to quantify because of their subjectivity. It is often suggested that rape is not carried out with a motive of sexual gratification, but rather a desire to have power over the victim. If so, the way a woman is dressed would be irrelevant. To make this case convincingly, it would be necessary to show why perpetrators choose sexual means to this end rather than other conceivable forms of degradation. There are also difficulties reconciling this view with many cases involving date rape drugs where the rapist’s intention appears to be to get away with the crime without the woman having any clear indication that it occurred. There is some sense in which the rapist has power over the victim in these cases, but the victim is not necessarily aware of being subjugated.

While there are certain kinds of behaviours that appear to be correlated with rape, a rational response is not necessarily to avoid these behaviours, since a woman may judge these activities to be rewarding enough to warrant exposing herself to the associated risks. Being informed of the risks allows a woman to make this choice. The British Crime Survey estimate for the year 2000 was that approximately nine in every thousand women between the ages of 16 and 59 is the victim of some form of sexual victimisation every year, four of these involving rape [source].

Amnesty International also used the publication of their report to publicise the fact that the conviction rate in rape cases is extremely low, citing the “sexist blame culture” that the survey allegedly highlights as the reason that juries fail to convict. However, there are genuine difficulties in demonstrating guilt in rape cases that could at least partially account for the low conviction rates. Demonstrating whether consent was given often comes down to one person’s word against another’s. It is also far from obvious what the optimal conviction rate should be since there will be some presumably small proportion of cases that are based on fabricated charges that should not result in convictions.

Amnesty’s report could have a number of serious negative consequences aside from giving the false impression that women are powerless to reduce the risk of being raped. Publicising how low conviction rates actually are could plausibly embolden rapists, who now believe their chances of getting away with it are much better than they previously thought (I won’t repeat the statistics here). It might also discourage rape victims from reporting incidents, victims who are now convinced that they will be treated unfairly by the courts. If so, it would be grossly irresponsible for Amnesty International to do this, especially if the low conviction rate has nothing to do with a “sexist blame culture”. It would of course be equally irresponsible for the media to repeat these claims uncritically. Due to the difficulties inherent in convicting rapists, it may be more practical to reduce the incidence of rape by focussing on changing the attitudes of potential perpetrators.

By making casual claims about prejudice, we run the risk of generating cynicism about similar claims that are made in a more measured way. The potential damage that reports like Amnesty’s can do therefore extends well beyond the reputation of any particular organisation.

What is prejudice?

Given that accusations of racism, sexism and so on are usually denied by the accused, it is quite likely that people disagree about what exactly counts as prejudice and how we could decide when a view does or does not meet the definition. In the Oxford English Dictionary, it is defined as “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience”. If we work with this definition, then disagreements about whether a view is prejudiced can in theory be settled by determining whether it is or is not “based on reason or actual experience”, but this is not necessarily easy to achieve in practice. To get a sense of the difficulties, consider the challenges of applying this criterion to the following examples, some of which may involve prejudice and others not.

1. Employing a more attractive person over a less attractive person for an office job
2. Employing a more attractive person over a less attractive person for a customer service job
3. Employing a more attractive person over a less attractive person for a modelling job
4. Not employing someone with a disability that would affect that person’s capacity to do the job well
5. Not employing someone with a disability that would affect that person’s capacity to do the job well unless the employer provided resources to compensate for it
6. Not employing a person from an ethnic minority because you would be likely to lose business from important customers who are known to be racist
7. Not employing a woman who is thinking of having a baby because it likely that she will need to take maternity leave
8. Believing that people who are receiving benefits don’t contribute to society
9. Believing that it is better for children to grow up with two parents
10. Believing that a mother should get custody of her children in preference to the father if they separate
11. Believing that “a woman is totally or partially responsible for being raped if she behaved in a flirtatious manner, is drunk, is wearing sexy or revealing clothing, has had many sexual partners, has failed to say ‘no’ clearly to the man or is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area”
12. Believing that men are incapable of controlling their sexual desires
13. Believing that immigration should be reduced because “it erodes the country’s cultural traditions”
14. Patriotism
15. Being suspicious of African Americans because “more crimes are committed by them than white Americans”
16. Setting minimum quotas of school places for particular groups to ensure that they are adequately represented even if that means that people with lower scores on entry examinations get a place above those with higher scores
17. Being suspicious of Muslims because of Islamic terrorism
18. Disliking Americans because of the US occupation of Iraq
19. Disliking the US government because of the US occupation of Iraq
20. Disliking Jews because of Israeli policies towards the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories
21. Disliking the Israeli government because of its policies towards the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories
22. Comparing Jews to concentration camp guards
23. Comparing a particular Jewish person to a concentration camp guard
24. Comparing any particular person to a concentration camp guard
25. Believing that homosexuality is immoral “because it is unnatural”
26. Believing that air travel is immoral because it is unnatural
27. Believing that air travel is immoral because it is heavily polluting
28. Finding blondes more attractive than brunettes
29. Finding members of one race more attractive than another
30. Being heterosexual or homosexual rather than bisexual
31. Finding one person more attractive than another
32. Caring more for your own children than for other people’s
33. Exploiting animals for food, animal products or experimentation
34. Exploiting plants for food, plant products or experimentation
35. Being suspicious of people who you don’t know
36. Being suspicious of atheists because “they reject the moral teachings of the bible and the church”
37. Being suspicious of people who adopt alternative lifestyles
38. Being suspicious of people who take drugs
39. Disliking fat people because “they are lazy”
40. Being suspicious of people who suffer from mental illness
41. Preferring to be around people you know over people you don’t know
42. “I have nothing against A – I just prefer B”
43. Believing that people who speak with a non-standard accent are less intelligent
44. Believing that a person’s family history is indicative of his or her moral virtue
45. Believing that classical music is superior to rock music
46. Believing that there is such a thing as good taste
47. Preferring apples to oranges
48. Loyalty to other people of your race
49. Loyalty to other people of your nationality
50. Loyalty to other people of your height

The issues raised by the above list are among those that I will attempt to confront over the next months in this blog. It may be that we all inevitably exhibit some prejudices, but this does not mean that we should fatalistically accept them as part of human nature and make no attempt to minimise them unless we wish to argue that it is occasionally desirable to hold views that are “not based on reason or actual experience”, which you may notice comes very close to the definition of faith.

Welcome to Walls and Mirrors

This blog is about real and perceived prejudice. It is intended to be a place where you can arm yourself with arguments you may never have heard before and come to “know your enemy” (those who you charge with prejudice or those who have charged you). The normal format of the entries will be to present a claim that someone has made and to examine whether it does or does not satisfy the definition of prejudice.

I should warn the reader that, in some cases, I will examine claims that most people agree are extreme. In so doing, I risk giving the impression that these are worthy of more serious consideration than they are usually given in the media. However, merely dismissing a view and labelling it ‘prejudiced’ is not likely to convince those who hold it of anything. The approach taken here will be to spell out arguments that are otherwise skimmed over. With this in mind, I hope that the material presented will provide some helpful resources for those attempting to overcome prejudices they encounter (“walls”) as well as provoking some personal reflection (“mirrors”). Unless otherwise stated, the conclusions presented here are of course my own and subject to revision.

If prejudice arises from irrationally held beliefs, then it may seem like an exercise in futility to construct detailed rational arguments about why these beliefs are wrong. I agree that this is unlikely to make much difference unless the counterarguments can be made so dramatically as to leave no room for the opposing view. Realistically, prejudice is more likely to be overcome by addressing the fears and anxieties that these rationalisations provide cover for.