So the Jimmy Savile scandal continues to generate media frenzy. Brendan O'Neill has published yet another article telling victims they should STFU http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brendan-oneill/jimmy-savile-child-abuse_b_2017326.html (it makes you curious to know why he's so annoyed by victims speaking out about their victimisation), Claire Fox, the director of the Institute of (probably idiotic and juvenile) Ideas, has told the rest of us to STFU http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/can-everyone-please-calm-down-about-child-abuse-8226955.html and the Daily Mail and News International are pretending that it's all because the BBC was a bad'un and Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter were the only men raping and assaulting girls in the seventies and no other institution had or has a systematically sexist approach to life. Oh wait, maybe Leeds Hospital which gave Savile keys to the nurse's quarters so that he could take girls there and rape them in comfort and Stoke Manderville which gave him his own room for the purposes of raping children were also institutionally sexist, but they're both one-offs like the BBC, just isolated cases with no connection doncha know.
The Sun conveniently ignores the fact that it used to print photos of 15 year old children with naked breasts on Page 3 until the law actually stopped them doing it; it ignores the fact that it did a countdown to Charlotte Church's 16th birthday (16 being the age of consent in England and Wales) so that men would know it was wrong to wank over pictures of her on one day but they could all get their todgers out the next; the chance for anti-BBC santimony is too much for these tossers to resist so they ignore the beam in their own eyes in favour of jumping up and down about the mote in that of their brother's.
And still, after nearly a month of discussion, programmes, earnest debates, nobody in the mainstream media will grasp the nettle and get to the real issue: mens' attitudes to women, children and sex and the media's failure to address that. Jimmy Savile is being held up (along with his mate Paul Gadd, AKA Gary Glitter) as being specifically nasty pieces of work who were not representative of anything other than their own individual perversion. Hours of crap has been talked about how better child protection procedures etc, will stop this sort of thing happening at the BBC now, but we still need to work out how to stop it in cases like the Rochdale one. Well-meaning people talk about how we must change the culture of institutions to ensure that children are protected.
No-one will face the fact that these institutions are products of the wider culture and these men are not just awful one-offs, they simply did what many men in our culture would do if they had the resources and untouchability Savile and his friends had, to do it and get away with it. 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted, up to and including rape and most of that sexual abuse happens before the age of 20 - ie at a time when they are vulnerable, inexperienced and just learning about how to conduct sexual relationships. Abusive men know that if they target women at this life-stage, they are more likely to get away with it than at any other life-stage. A 30 year old has more experience and confidence than a 20 year old and is more likely to speak out, complain and cause trouble. The old idea that rapists go for younger women because of some kind of Evo-Bollocks, is wrong: they go for younger women and girls, because the chance of being caught is lower. It is deliberate targeting of a vulnerable group.
This is not a few bad apples; although it's true that rapists are repeat offenders, it's not a tiny number of very prolific sex maniacs who are raping and sexually assaulting a quarter of all women; it's a large number of very entitled men, most of whom genuinely believe that they've done nothing wrong or at least nothing illegal and are supported in that view by nearly everyone around them and nearly every message they ever receive.
This brilliant post here: http://princessparadox.tumblr.com/post/34583689737/what-its-like-being-a-teen-girl really brings home the culture of male entitlement that girls are inducted into when they hit puberty and of course by the time they are in their mid-teens, they have learned that if they complain, no-one will back them up. Their complaints will be characterised as aggressive, over-reacting, intolerant, humourless, unsophisticated, blah blah blah - just STFU girls and women, we don't want to hear your complaints. That's what those articles by Brendan O'Neill and Claire Fox are all about: just another silencing technique, making it clear to victims that they should just STFU. After all, if we listen to the victims, we might have to think about this and change things and some of us are doing very nicely thank you, from the way things are. And those of us who are doing nicely are actually more important than those of you who aren't and our lives and concerns matter more than your's, so stop with your annoying noise already.
Already by the age of about 14 or 15, girls know that raising their voices in protest at male abuse of them, results in mockery and undermining at best and punishment, maybe violence, at worst. When they are angry or upset by men overstepping their personal boundaries, they are told to stop being drama queens, or punished for being liars. It isn't just the perpetrators who ensure that victims of male violence don't speak up; it's all the people around them, who support the perpetrators by ensuring that those girls and women who do speak up, regret having done so. Even those who don't actively participate in silencing the victims of male violence, passively participate by remaining silent themselves and not raising their voices. Not because they are evil and want to support male abuse; but because if they do speak up, they themselves will be victimised for it.
And none of that is really seriously being discussed. Yet. We have to keep banging on about it in the hope that someone somewhere in the malestream media, will notice and run with it.