recalim the what night where night?

Tacks "in it to win it"
Posts: 4723 Joined: 08-11-05
Submitted by Tacks on 21 November, 2007 - 16:39.
Quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>Woman! Reclaim the Night<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>Saturday, November 24, 2007 at 6:00pm Trafalgar Square<<<<<<<<<<

Reclaim The Night 2007 is a women-only march against rape and male violence. It will be followed by a mixed rally and party for men and women at the University of London Union, with speakers, bands, DJs and dancing until 1am. Reclaim your right to party!

According to the British Crime Survey (2001) there are an estimated 47,000 rapes every year, in the UK, around 40,000 attempted rapes and over 300,000 sexual assaults. Yet our conviction rate is the lowest it has ever been, one of the lowest in Europe, at only 5.3%. This means that more rapists were convicted in the 1970s when Reclaim The Night marches first started than they are now. Did you know that the maximum sentence possible for rape is life imprisonment? Probably not, because rarely are rapists even reported or convicted, let alone with a realistic sentence. This situation has to change. We march to demand justice for rape survivors.

Tell everyone you know and also….• Do pass the flyers to your friends and contacts and put them up in your place of work, library, etc.• Do publicise the march at your trade union and get support for it to be discussed as an agenda item.• Give out flyers at your Uni, women's group, book group, school, college, place of worship, party political group, etc., etc.

Let's try and make this march bigger than last year's, which had 1,200 women!

For more info and to download flyers….
http://www.reclaimthenight.org/why.html

i really don't get this, what is being reclaimed? How does the march effect rape conviction figures?

This made sense during the Rippers one and two (yorkshire and the one last year) but this is just random to me.

what am i missing? Does anyone here go on this?

123456next ›last »
Rob Ray "Used to be Saii"
Posts: 3075 Joined: 06-11-03 Location: England
21 November, 2007 - 16:47

The march was prompted by the Suffolk red light murders, so there’s a link there, kind of. It was inspired by a march in Ipswich highlighting that women shouldn't be told to ‘stay in for their own safety’, which was mostly organised by Tumbleweed (a guy) who was told off by these Londoners for making it inclusive of men – presumably he should have banned himself.

I don’t see a problem with it not being connected to a specific sensational series of murders though, brutality towards women (or indeed men) doesn’t just happen where the cameras are switched on…

Steven. ""Best hair at Unison conference""
Posts: 1728 Joined: 27-06-06 Location: London
21 November, 2007 - 17:01
Saii wrote:
I don’t see a problem with it not being connected to a specific sensational series of murders though, brutality towards women (or indeed men) doesn’t just happen where the cameras are switched on…

To me it looks like it's strengthening the inaccurate idea of "stranger-rape" that happens in dark alleys, when of course most perps are known to the victims. Furthermore lone men are more likely to be attacked than women on the street. And add to that the sensationalist rape conviction stats, which don't tell you anything relatively because other countries reporting rates aren't mentioned, not to mention that most cases are 1 word against another and with the presumption of innocence you'll never get a conviction like that. And you can't do without the presumption of innocence.

Rob Ray "Used to be Saii"
Posts: 3075 Joined: 06-11-03 Location: England
21 November, 2007 - 17:10

Depends what you take from it and how it’s presented I guess. There’s no doubt that a prevalent attitude in many sectors of society is that women are somehow to blame if they do get attacked outside (be it an acquaintance or a stranger who does it) for not being ‘safe’ enough, or by ‘acting provocatively’, and I don’t have a problem with that attitude being challenged, along with street violence in general.

I do have a problem with how the organisers of this seek to segregate a woman’s right to walk the streets in safety and a man’s right to do the same though, which is just mindless segregationist shite, and yeah their presentation is disingenuous.

Tacks "in it to win it"
Posts: 4723 Joined: 08-11-05
21 November, 2007 - 17:10
Saii wrote:
The march was prompted by the Suffolk red light murders, so there’s a link there, kind of. It was inspired by a march in Ipswich highlighting that women shouldn't be told to ‘stay in for their own safety’, which was mostly organised by Tumbleweed (a guy) who was told off by these Londoners for making it inclusive of men – presumably he should have banned himself.

I don’t see a problem with it not being connected to a specific sensational series of murders though, brutality towards women (or indeed men) doesn’t just happen where the cameras are switched on…

thts what i'm saying though, this march happened BEFORE the one in ipswich that Tumblweed did last year, through central london. In the context the ipswich one made sense, it empowered people etc.

What sense does this make in general?

Boy s and young men from about 14 to 24 (maybe 18 actually) are the overwhelming victims unprovoked assaults and physical harrassment. This is not comparable to rape at all, but following the same logic they should have a big march.

jef costello "Beautiful, just like Nuremburg"
Posts: 9675 Joined: 09-02-06 Location: It's not time for beer Nigella.
21 November, 2007 - 17:25
Tacks wrote:
Boy s and young men from about 14 to 24 (maybe 18 actually) are the overwhelming victims unprovoked assaults and physical harrassment. This is not comparable to rape at all, but following the same logic they should have a big march.

Think of the carnage if they ran into the women's march.

Tacks "in it to win it"
Posts: 4723 Joined: 08-11-05
21 November, 2007 - 17:31

humanity is the overwhelming victim of everything.

To the streets!

jef costello "Beautiful, just like Nuremburg"
Posts: 9675 Joined: 09-02-06 Location: It's not time for beer Nigella.
21 November, 2007 - 17:33
Tacks wrote:
humanity is the overwhelming victim of everything.

To the streets!

Tacks I've warned you about how irresponsible it is to cal for men and women to be in the street at the same time. IF you do not stop this vile incitement to rape then I will ask for the admins to ban you.

madashell "KSW, LOL"
Posts: 3081 Joined: 19-06-06 Location: Merseyside
21 November, 2007 - 17:33
John. wrote:
To me it looks like it's strengthening the inaccurate idea of "stranger-rape" that happens in dark alleys, when of course most perps are known to the victims.

I asked somebody involved in last year's London RTN about that. I didn't understand the answer but it had something to do with me hating women.

Quote:
And add to that the sensationalist rape conviction stats, which don't tell you anything relatively because other countries reporting rates aren't mentioned, not to mention that most cases are 1 word against another and with the presumption of innocence you'll never get a conviction like that. And you can't do without the presumption of innocence.

Hmm, Isn't it the case that even in cases where it's one word against another, conviction rates are still lower in rape cases?

Tacks "in it to win it"
Posts: 4723 Joined: 08-11-05
21 November, 2007 - 17:40
madashell wrote:
John. wrote:
To me it looks like it's strengthening the inaccurate idea of "stranger-rape" that happens in dark alleys, when of course most perps are known to the victims.

I asked somebody involved in last year's London RTN about that. I didn't understand the answer but it had something to do with me hating women.

Not you madas - all men, especially those with so called 'opinions'. Even over an internet forum they can still use their innate aggression to shout down and belittle womyn. Its not in womyns nature to fight, all 'discussion' (read: physical abuse in word form) is inherently patriarchal.

Thrashing_chomsky
Posts: 150 Joined: 03-06-07 Location: Leeds
21 November, 2007 - 18:08

To be fair, it was during the Ipswitch murders, and the police line was "Women- stay at home for find a big butch male friend to hnag around with." Which doesn't do much for self-image, (and deprived sex workers of their bread and butter)... the march on the otherhand did... who knows what started that night in the way of new networks and ideas.

And to counter the argument that Tumbleweed [RIP] should have banned himself, I was close to Tumbleweed, and he was about as male as my mum.

*throws can of worms marked 'genderqueer identity politics' into fast-flowing river before anyone has a chance to open it.*

Tacks "in it to win it"
Posts: 4723 Joined: 08-11-05
21 November, 2007 - 18:23
Thrashing_chomsky wrote:
To be fair, it was during the Ipswitch murders, and the police line was "Women- stay at home for find a big butch male friend to hnag around wi

as i have pointed out, the RTN march was BEFORE tumbleweeds ipswich march, in central london.

Thora "differently ethical"
Posts: 1572 Joined: 17-06-04 Location: London, England
21 November, 2007 - 21:15

God, these same threads get recycled every year.

Tacks "in it to win it"
Posts: 4723 Joined: 08-11-05
21 November, 2007 - 22:38
Thora wrote:
God, these same threads get recycled every year.

if the march happens every year, yes smile

i;ve only seen it once before. An A.W.L.ful friend of mine invited me to it saying the feminist movement was back on its feet or something. Back in the 80's more like.

arf
Posts: 1345 Joined: 25-11-06
22 November, 2007 - 14:16

The march happens every year. It's main aim is to bring attention to the issue of violence against women, which generally goes unrecognised and hushed up.

The first TBTN marches were in the seventies, they died out during either the 80s or 90s, and a London feminist group brought them back again some years ago. The point of it being women only, is that women are not generally 'allowed' to go out without male protection. Well, they're allowed to by law, women in other places arent, but if any violence happens to them they are considered to some large extent to have brought it on themselves by daring to step outside without male protection. So it's a case of, yeh legally youre allowed outside love, but if you get raped beaten and/or murdered, youve only got yourself to blame.

You can see that sort of shit in the media, in rape courts, and in general public opinion. Amnesty found that a large amount of men and women, i cant remember the stats but i think it was a third of women, said that they believed that women were at least partly to blame when they get attacked by men, because of their behaviour and their clothing. And provocative behaviour would include "going out at night without male protection". Or indeed during the day, although juries are maybe slightly less likely to think that merely stepping outsde is an invitation for trouble during daylight hours.

Taking back the night also refers to the violence done against women in their own homes, in more complicated ways. But the point of the big women only march is pretty much "we women are together out walking through our streets without male protection tonight, and we should be able to do do this any night, any of us, without being under threat of violence from men, and without being blamed for any that does occur. Male violence against women should be recognised as a hate crime and its time we started doing something about it".

Tacks "in it to win it"
Posts: 4723 Joined: 08-11-05
22 November, 2007 - 14:25
Quote:
is that women are not generally 'allowed' to go out without male protection.

really?

damn.

That must suck.

Steven. ""Best hair at Unison conference""
Posts: 1728 Joined: 27-06-06 Location: London
22 November, 2007 - 15:44
Tacks wrote:
Quote:
is that women are not generally 'allowed' to go out without male protection.

really?

damn.

That must suck.

Well I know I don't let my woman out on her own

arf wrote:
Male violence against women should be recognised as a hate crime and its time we started doing something about it".

Hold on, are you actually supporting the concept of "hate crime" here? (As being more serious than a normal crime) I hope I'm misinterpreting you...

Lone Wolf "Is There a Banana Beneath that Horse? "
Posts: 4333 Joined: 01-03-06 Location: E. London UK
22 November, 2007 - 19:14
John. wrote:
Tacks wrote:
Quote:
is that women are not generally 'allowed' to go out without male protection.

really?

damn.

That must suck.

Well I know I don't let my woman out on her own

Ah come on you have made it abundantly clear to us before that it is the other way around. wink

Lone Wolf "Is There a Banana Beneath that Horse? "
Posts: 4333 Joined: 01-03-06 Location: E. London UK
22 November, 2007 - 19:20
madashell wrote:
John. wrote:
To me it looks like it's strengthening the inaccurate idea of "stranger-rape" that happens in dark alleys, when of course most perps are known to the victims.

I asked somebody involved in last year's London RTN about that. I didn't understand the answer but it had something to do with me hating women.

Quote:
And add to that the sensationalist rape conviction stats, which don't tell you anything relatively because other countries reporting rates aren't mentioned, not to mention that most cases are 1 word against another and with the presumption of innocence you'll never get a conviction like that. And you can't do without the presumption of innocence.

Hmm, Isn't it the case that even in cases where it's one word against another, conviction rates are still lower in rape cases?

Yes exactly so.

Rape is the only crime where it is the victim that is on trial and not the perp.

And why can't we still be horrified by the conviction stats without nec. having to know other countries??

Steven. ""Best hair at Unison conference""
Posts: 1728 Joined: 27-06-06 Location: London
22 November, 2007 - 19:34
Lone Wolf wrote:
Ah come on you have made it abundantly clear to us before that it is the other way around. wink

You what? confused

Lone Wolf wrote:
Quote:
And add to that the sensationalist rape conviction stats, which don't tell you anything relatively because other countries reporting rates aren't mentioned, not to mention that most cases are 1 word against another and with the presumption of innocence you'll never get a conviction like that. And you can't do without the presumption of innocence.

Hmm, Isn't it the case that even in cases where it's one word against another, conviction rates are still lower in rape cases?

Yes exactly so.

really? where's the evidence for that?

I'm not saying I don't believe it, I know that some people - and jurors - have fucked up attitudes to rape, but a lot of the hysteria about this issue is bullshit.

For example the "uproar" when this happened:

Quote:
o In 2005 the court case of R v Dougal (Swansea Crown Court) received wide-spread condemnation when the Judge directed the jury to enter a ‘not guilty’ verdict when the prosecution informed the judge it did not propose to proceed further because it was unable to prove that the complainant had not given consent because of her level of intoxication. The prosecuting counsel’s statement in Swansea Crown Court included the remark that “drunken consent is still consent”. The complainant stated that she could not remember whether she gave consent to sexual intercourse or not.

The idea that someone could be convicted of rape if the victim was too drunk to remember if she consented or not is fucking ridiculous.

Quote:
Rape is the only crime where it is the victim that is on trial and not the perp.

Right so the (alleged) perpetrators aren't on trial either are they? FFS I know it's traumatic and victims are bullied, but to claim it's not hard on the accused as well is bollocks. False accusations of rape ruin people's lives as well you know.

Quote:
And why can't we still be horrified by the conviction stats without nec. having to know other countries??

I'm not saying you can't be outraged, I'm saying the relative conviction stats for other countries are meaningless without reporting rates.

arf
Posts: 1345 Joined: 25-11-06
22 November, 2007 - 20:32
John. wrote:
arf wrote:
Male violence against women should be recognised as a hate crime and its time we started doing something about it".

Hold on, are you actually supporting the concept of "hate crime" here? (As being more serious than a normal crime) I hope I'm misinterpreting you...

I was explaining the point of the march, which seems to have escaped you. I thought id also explained why i said women arent really "allowed" out here - because despite having the legal right to go outside, we are told if we do go out we provoke men into committing crimes against us, that we bear the responsibility for this "risk", which does mean that womens movement is not as free as men's.

As far as i can tell, the main point behind identifying certain crimes as "hate crimes" is that they are directed at specific groups of people by other specific groups of people. It's about recognising patterns and systems as opposed to looking at each crime as if it is unconnected with the next. Incidences of male violence against women should be seen as connected like a giant dot to dot instead of being seen as isolated cases.

But we dont do that, because everytime a woman says "rape" some guy pipes up "oooh but what about the false accusations". Which, btw, is such a bullshit tactic for many reasons, one of the most obvious being that false accusations are estimated to be less in rape cases than they are for most other types of crime. But you dont hear any deluded boys piping up about false accusations when mugging or burglary or vehicle theft or whatever is brought up. Funny that. I've also never heard any discussion about male victims of rape where 'false accusations' are brought up. It's specific to violent crimes against women, that we're considered to be liars, or to have brought it on ourselves, or to have wanted it really, or to somehow benefit from reporting rape, as if there's a prize.

Anyway, thats the point of the march. To take back the night. There were several photos and reports doing the rounds of last years march, women reported groups of men shouting at them, threatening them, even spitting and throwing stuff at them. The level of resistance to women organising is pretty intense, from the guys who make threats and carry out violence, to the guys who bang on about false accusations and how the women are making a fuss about nothing.

thugarchist "Warning: This poster is recuperating our struggle!!!11"
Posts: 4129 Joined: 26-11-06 Location: Seattle, WA US of A
22 November, 2007 - 20:49

Why is a take back the night march a bad thing exactly? I'm missing the point here maybe.

j.rogue "Not as good as cops."
Posts: 1446 Joined: 08-04-07 Location: Not Texas
22 November, 2007 - 20:50
thugarchist wrote:
Why is a take back the night march a bad thing exactly? I'm missing the point here maybe.

Everything organized by feminists is bad.

thugarchist "Warning: This poster is recuperating our struggle!!!11"
Posts: 4129 Joined: 26-11-06 Location: Seattle, WA US of A
22 November, 2007 - 20:51
j.rogue wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
Why is a take back the night march a bad thing exactly? I'm missing the point here maybe.

Everything organized by feminists is bad.

Oh. Well then.

arf
Posts: 1345 Joined: 25-11-06
22 November, 2007 - 20:52

Everything organised by women is frivolous and probably a result of some hysterical overreaction.

Thora "differently ethical"
Posts: 1572 Joined: 17-06-04 Location: London, England
22 November, 2007 - 20:55

And why aren't they out marching for all those men who are the victims of violence? Eh? EH?

thugarchist "Warning: This poster is recuperating our struggle!!!11"
Posts: 4129 Joined: 26-11-06 Location: Seattle, WA US of A
22 November, 2007 - 20:56

I'm glad to know only feminists are against rape. It takes the pressure off.

redyred "A Jitney Elopement"
Posts: 865 Joined: 20-02-04 Location: Ruritania
22 November, 2007 - 20:59

Arf - what is your stance on Tumbleweed (a man) organising the march in Ipswich?

arf
Posts: 1345 Joined: 25-11-06
22 November, 2007 - 21:06

I was supportive of the march in Ipswich and promoted it to other feminists and feminist groups i'm in contact with.

thugarchist "Warning: This poster is recuperating our struggle!!!11"
Posts: 4129 Joined: 26-11-06 Location: Seattle, WA US of A
22 November, 2007 - 21:08
arf wrote:
I was supportive of the march in Ipswich and promoted it to other feminists and feminist groups i'm in contact with.

1. Whats your stance on people calling themselves tumbleweed?
2. Do they have tumbleweeds in england?

Thora "differently ethical"
Posts: 1572 Joined: 17-06-04 Location: London, England
22 November, 2007 - 21:12

Arf, what's your stance on men?

123456next ›last »