Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: rape and robbery -- somebody is lying
Message-ID: <463@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 16:36:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.463
Posted: Mon Jun 10 16:36:35 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Jun-85 05:02:46 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 30


>In article <2515@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes:
>>
>>A short while back there was a comparison of robbery with rape.  The
>>comment was made that rape is much harder to prove than robbery.  I
>>think this belief is a perfect illustration of this myth-based attitude.

>One major (maybe THE major) problem with proving rape is that there are
>very often NO WITNESSES.  If I go to the police and say that you robbed
>me and had no bruises to show and no witnesses that you robbed me, they
>would say 'sorry 'bout that, bub'.
>                        geoff sherwood

No, if you went to the police to say I robbed you, they would take a report
from you, and perhaps check your pocketbook for fingerprints.  If there
were no other evidence than your report, at the very least they might
file it under "regard" and discover that there were 10 other such reports
against me, and check up on my comings and goings until evidence were
found (assuming I was guilty).

How often do you suppose someone reports a robbery and is accused of lying?
As often as a person who reports rape?  After all, if you had something
against me it is just as easy to accuse me of robbery as it is to accuse me
of rape.  Robbery also doesn't often have witnesses.

So why is rape a doubtful call, and robbery isn't?  Because of all those
unstable, overemotional women whose brains aren't functioning at this time
of the month?  I don't think so.

Adrienne Regard