Note: this article discusses sexual assault.
After a week or so of madness, there is time to pause and reflect. I have spoken with a vast array of media people as the Christian Porter story unfolded, been asked 1000 questions and mostly replied with: “I can’t comment on that.”
I have some observations.
Like all society-shaking stories, this one is playing out at two levels: cognitive and emotional. The media’s open narrative has focused on the true crime saga, the attendant morality play and the deeply and deliberately confused debate over the rule of law.
Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial and get Crikey straight to your inbox
Beneath that has been a clash of the subconscious, almost precisely gendered. On one side of the media’s gender divide: barely concealed rage, frustration and determination to call out the culture of acceptance around sexual violence. On the other, what I’d describe simply as mystification. Why, the men ask rhetorically (because they’re not listening to the answer), are the women so angry and upset?
Of course, not all women, and not all men. The patriarchy has its female supporters, just as the revolution has male allies. And the men v women dichotomy both obscures the equally entrenched and unexamined problem of male-on-male sexual violence, and ignores completely the non-binary population.
However, the media is binary and there is a clear (albeit slightly generalised) divide between its male and female parts on this subject. That, anyway, is my observation from what I’ve experienced.
I don’t speak for any women and will not attempt to mansplain their emotions. What I can say is that, of all the visceral impacts I have felt over the past week, the most profound has been the surfacing and resurfacing of traumatic experiences, coming from pretty much every woman I’ve encountered.
What I detect, I think, is an undercurrent of unreported trauma, which gives me a clue to the scope and scale of the endless pandemic of sexual violence in our society, almost exclusively perpetrated by men and overwhelmingly inflicted on women.
Among men of the media, and not just the old ones, I have seen and heard expressions of dismay. Yes, they say, we abhor sexual violence wherever it appears. But surely we must resist the temptation to let loose the vigilante mob? Our very civilisation is at stake, all we have built since Alfred the Great.
Being a patriot to the rule of law myself, I get that. However, there’s an emotional content in the male response which is obscuring the logical argument. It’s called privilege, or rather the fear of loss of privilege.
The system — by which I mean all systems, legal, political and media — was designed and built before women had a pass to get into the building. To take one example, the criminal justice system was not designed with rape in mind, because men don’t much get raped.
The system entrenches male privilege and operates organically to shore it up. Women, being half the population and currently quite angry, represent an existential threat to the system. Men, who have always effortlessly thrived in the system without ever having to contemplate that their progress might be stalled or stopped by such a random element as their gender, are feeling suddenly somewhat at risk.
Thus the resort to shibboleths like the rule of law. The irony, that these same men routinely discard such sacred cows whenever it suits them but now insist that they have sacred force, is only infuriating the non-privileged half all the more. The result is a lot of shouting.
So it is that a perfectly rational male journalist of wide experience and solid sensitivity can sincerely say that, while he understands and supports the call for change in how we listen to and address the experiences of sexual violence survivors, what about if the man being accused was him? Shouldn’t we all spare a thought for him?
Well, no. For two reasons. First, there is no evidence that false reports of rape are more than a negligibly tiny phenomenon. Second, the best research indicates that if a man commits a rape there is a 0.71% chance that he will be reported, arrested, prosecuted and convicted. This means, in statistical reality, that it is a crime he will almost certainly get away with.
Those are the facts of system failure. Men built the system and still, by and large, run it. We have forfeited our right to resist its demolition and replacement with something better. We should get out of the way.
If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault or violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au.
Michael Bradley was the lawyer representing the woman at the centre of historical rape allegations against Christian Porter. Porter denies the allegations. The women took her own life last year.
Leave a comment
I hear the tramp of the Monstrous Regiment. I’ve been waiting long enough.
I hope you have your socks ready.
It is the unshakeable attitude that is so galling. Morrison won’t call for an independent inquiry because he ‘knows’ he is right. He is a man and trusts the words of another man – politically and emotionally this is the best way forward for him he thinks. But women are not buying it.
Morrison doesn’t know he is right, or even care. He won’t have an enquiry because it will damage his party’s image – whatever the outcome
It looks to me like his party’s image might already be damaged beyond electoral repair.
An independent inquiry is the best hope of clawing back lost ground. Scromo, mate, where the bloody hell are you?
And only an independent inquiry asap could remove suspicion so our AG could fulfill his lifetime ambition to be PM one day… so what’s stopping him?
Hmmm.
The election is won and lost in Queensland. And then Western Australia. I fear that the critical votes in these states will not be lost over these issues.
Bloody good piece Michael. Thank you.
Excellent. Got ’em right where it hurts. And men are the only ones with them. They never learn.
Excellent piece Michael, thank you
Report the rape we are told. Why would you risk the resulting trauma on a 0.71% chance of a conviction? Police either don’t believe you, slow walk taking a statement until your mental health deteriorates and you withdraw from the process, everyone tells you it’s your fault because of alcohol, clothing, being alone etc. You lose your job, friends take sides. Heaven help you if it’s a family member. This is a systemic issue and yes we are angry. Now Morrison is saying Porter is an innocent man as the police have closed an investigation that took over a year without even getting the victim’s statement. The system is so weighted against victims that it is no wonder we try to suppress it instead of reporting it. The problem arises when we just can’t suppress it anymore but by that point we are damaged and unreliable witnesses. Thanks very much for this article Michael. Until the system changes, women and children will be held responsible for their own safety and be offered no justice if they fail to keep themselves safe. Men (Unless survivors themselves) can remain blithely unaware that they have perpetrators as friends and family members and can believe any vigorous denials they choose without any further investigation.
It’s the belief system and the power over that is very resistant to change. Morrison says that gains for women should not be at the expense to men. Morrison is so ignorant of the power dimension because he has shown over and over his addiction to power. Unfortunately he doesn’t understand the concept of power being used as a servant of people and not power over to control. There is no hope for any cultural change whilst the chief minister of the country has a belief system that only damages. He also does not appear to understand that competencies of various kinds are required for leadership and other tasks. He is blind to his own lack of competencies abd to the competencies that women can bring. He wastes not only financial resources but Human Resources as well.
Yes—-how the Libs can defend the ‘meritocracy’ as the deciding factor for leadership is beyond belief when we end up with Scott Morrison as our PM. He is so deeply under qualified but so certain of his entitlement. I’d laugh if it was a film but sadly it’s my country.
Exactly. I supported a relative through something eerily similar, and I was frankly appalled – especially by the tactics applied by the defence lawyers. The police were the best part in the process.
A rapist that escapes justice often becomes a more cunning and dangerous rapist.
It was supposed to have been stamped out years ago, but it keeps coming back with every generation of young lawyers, the proposition that:
“If you devalue the victim, their reputation, their humanity, their emotional stability, their lifestyle, then you devalue the crime.”
This was the same in the 80s when my then wife was destroyed in the witness box as a matter of course after a sadistic attack by a man just released after serving 10 years for rape. He went to jail again his 3rd rape conviction and prison sentence; she crawled into a wardrobe and didn’t come out for a week and took years to recover from her treatment by lawyers and police. She lived in terror for YEARS of her attacker being released.
And it’s the same now, with Porter’s “alleged” victim being portrayed as a suicidal basket case, and with Brittany Higgins being vilified as a “lying cow”.
Tell your wife, she is amazing. There are so many women chewed up by the legal system. Its so easy to point a finger at a woman and label her. Crazy, witch…same energy.
Is there no set of circumstances where Brittany is a lying cow and the allegations are baseless? Is asking this really being guilty of not taking the crime seriously? Are accusations of not taking the crime seriously being used to advance allegations that are baseless, or at least without evidence? Are we setting ourselves up for weaponized compulsory outrage ostensibly sincere but purely to distract or score political points?
I think these are serious questions, even though they’d be posed disingenuously by some people.
In Brittany’s case in particular, hell no. What more do you need? There is video footage of her being too intoxicated for consent, security reports and a stain on the couch.
Sure, not all women are saints, but would you go public and claim you were anally raped for some vexatious reason? A lot of hassle, pain and shame for very little gain.
Too intoxicated for consent? I’m not sure that’s a thing, and if it is, it’s tendentious. Any spontaneous sex with someone who’s been drinking heavily means you’re in the frame for rape charges. That’s not going to work.
As far as the anally raped thing: it’s not the same for men. That’s a dumb equivalence. Men report rape far less, statistically, and for utterly different reasons. A man who publically spoke about being raped wouldn’t be called amazing for not committing suicide.
I promise I’m not being contrary or devious here, the evidence looks trash and the compulsory outrage seems confected.
Of course there is such a thing as too intoxicated for consent. Your dismissal of this is alarming. People who are a little drunk can want to have sex but a person who is passing in and out of consciousness, as you can when more than a little drunk, cannot consent. Not being able to say “yes” means “no”.
xyaeiounn, there is a definition which says “affected by intoxicating substances” means that the person does not have the legal capability to consent to anything.
This means a drunk or drugged person can’t sign/ witness a legal document, dispose of property and so they are considered unable to understand consent, let alone give it.
Well said, totally agree!
S one people have no actual understanding of the process and when asked admittedly tough questions at the statement stage get angry and withdraw. This is not done to doubt you but to try to cover off for court. You can bet the offenders lawyers are going to ask them and worse. The fact is your evidence will be examined in depth and you will be heavily cross examined. As any other assault victim is. The difference is their is generally more physical evidence with a everyday assault. Semens not that helpful if he’s smart enough to say sex was consensual. Victims always ask. Wil I win. You consider all the facts and it’s chances of convincing a jury beyond reasonable doubt and then you answer honestly. Does not mean you don’t believe them
0.71% chance of conviction? Really? 99.29% of rapists get away without conviction? That sounds like a different story than systemic or cultural problems.
You seem confident in the stats re men but not re women. What gives? The stats being quoted say women rarely report rape at least partly because of all the additional trauma. The conviction rate is low. Why would a woman make it up? The PM says we have to start believing women. But apparently only till its too inconvenient. If a woman says she was raped we need to take it very very seriously and investigate. We slso have to make the process less traumatic so more women will report rapes.