Sexual Assault

The Dilemma of Disclosure, The Question of Conviction

Rita F. Gunn, Candice Minch

• Publisher: University of Manitoba Press
• Year: 1998
• eBook ISBN: 9780887550409
• Topic: Sciences sociales
• Subtopic: Études relatives au genre

Only a small percentage of all cases of sexual assault are reported to the police. Why do so many women decide not to report an assault? And what happens to the assailant when a case is reported and charges are laid? In this volume Rita Gunn and Candice Minch explore the answers to these questions, basing their analysis on the most comprehensive data available on sexual assault in Canada.Through interviews with victims of sexual assault, they analyze the factors that influence the women to report an attack or keep silent. Society still places the responsibility on women to avoid being sexually assaulted, so the victim is caught in a dilemma when deciding whether to disclose an assault.The authors then look at what happens when a sexual assault is reported. They follow a sample of assaults from the initial police report through to the final disposition of the case, demonstrating that: only 10 percent of the original charges resulted in conviction; 20 percent were reduced to lesser charges; over 70 percent of the charges were filtered out of the criminal justice system before trial; and societal attitudes which blame victims for the offence extend into the legal system.Finally, the authors offer an assessment of the effects of the 1983 sexual assault legislation on the processing and ultimately on the reporting of sexual offences. They conclude that law reform is necessary but not sufficient in itself. "The law is only as innovative as the individuals who use, interpret, and apply it."This volume provides a valuable analysis of sexual assault as it affects the victim and the assailant.

CHAPTER I

The Social Context of Sexual Assault

THE widespread belief that women have made great strides toward equality with men is epitomized by the commercial cliché, “You’ve come a long way, baby!” It is a popular misconception that women have attained full freedom of choice and that authentic equality, based on ability and ambition, exists. Men are still at the helm of our economic, political, legal and religious institutions, making decisions that affect the lives of women.

The success of the women’s movement in effecting social change through political pressure has been limited. Although advances have been made in the social, political and economic spheres, these changes have had little effect on the day-to-day lives of most women. The theoretical perspective that has guided and informed our inquiry on sexual assault focuses on the concept of “patriarchy’’ and its implications. Patriarchy refers to a gender-based differentiation of roles which becomes defined as a “natural” right of males to make decisions and monopolize positions of authority in society and its dominant institutions. This is not so much a deliberate, conscious effort on the part of males to control as it is a historically bound phenomenon in which women have been viewed as the property of men. Implicit in the concept of patriarchy is the notion of the power of males over females. If there is consensus in the assumption that sexual assault is a violent act involving power and dominance, then we must look at the differences in power between men and women in society.

The notion that women have achieved equal status in relation to men is contradicted by their continued subordination in virtually all spheres of social life. Men are still making the decisions that control the lives and the consciousness of women.

An important part of this reality and, hence, a real limitation is that women continue to occupy the traditional, low-paying, female-dominated occupations; that is, women’s jobs are concentrated in the areas of sales, teaching, service, health and clerical work. In fact, their participation rate in these occupations rose from 71 percent in 1971 to 74 percent in 1981 (Statistics Canada 1984). The federal minister responsible for the status of women reported in 1986 that the wage gap between men and women for full-time work has persisted.

According to a 1987 Statistics Canada report, women currently earn 66 cents for every dollar earned by men, only a slight improvement over the 58 cents for every dollar figure they earned in 1967. This translates into average full-time salaries of $19,000 for women and $30,131 for men. Education is found to reduce the differential in wages, with a university degree resulting in women earning 19 percent less than their male counterparts. Although education may reduce the disparity somewhat, women in general continue to earn less than men.

Most part-time workers are women. Among the 1,477,000 part-time workers (13.5 percent of all workers) in the Canadian labour force in 1985, 71 percent were women. In general, part-time workers receive fewer benefits in terms of pensions, unionization, and job security and are paid less than full-time employees, even where there is no disparity in educational levels. While one-fifth of all part-time workers would prefer full-time employment, 70 percent of these dissatisfied workers are female (CACSW 1985a). Yet attitudes persist that women are taking jobs away from men and that this is a crucial factor in the Canadian unemployment situation. In fact, unemployment rates are consistently higher for women than men (NCW 1985).

These circumstances persist, in large part, because of the belief that women are secondary earners who are working, not out of economic necessity, but because of a so-called “boredom” with their domestic role. This idea, reinforced by the belief that the foremost obligation of women is within the domestic sphere, causes working women an enormous amount of self-doubt and guilt. If they have children, they bear the additional burden of being accused of maternal neglect. Delinquency is seldom attributed to working fathers. A Senate Committee report, “Child at Risk,” claims that “maternal deprivation has a detrimental effect on character development” (1980, 33). It is a wretched double bind for women when nearly 61 percent of Canadian families would be living below the poverty line if wives and mothers were not contributing to the household income (CACSW 1985b). At the same time, although more men are claiming to be involved in household tasks, their participation remains relatively small. In a Gallup Poll taken in 1981, there was no significant change in the distribution of housework from an earlier poll taken in 1958 (Boyd 1984). Thus, while more women are required to work outside the home to supplement the family income, societal expectations still dictate that they retain the major responsibilities within the home.

These adversities are accompanied by the fact that most of the people who live at or below the poverty level are women. In 1984, according to a survey of Canadians by the National Council on Welfare, 43 percent of single women were found to be poor in contrast to 32 percent of single men. The gap widens with families headed by a female or male parent. Here, poverty levels for women are at 43 percent compared to those for men at 11 percent. The report describes Canada’s elderly women as the most poverty stricken: 80 percent of women over the age of 65 are poor, compared to 29 percent of men (NCW 1985).

In political life, women are still found in the “housekeeping” tasks. With few exceptions, they participate in party organization and support functions at the citizen level, as opposed to acquiring true political authority. In 1983, for example, out of 1,018 members in federal and provincial politics, there were only 67 women, a representation of 6.6 percent. Federally, in the spring of 1988, they occupied 29 out of 282 seats in the House of Commons, with no representation from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories or the Atlantic provinces. This is clearly inadequate, as women constitute slightly over one-half of Canada’s population. As a result, women retain minority status and have minimal input into the passing of laws, while men make the decisions that control the lives of women as well as their own.

Those women who do penetrate the male domain of politics and are elected members of government are often fielded into the area with the least power and status — the back-benches of government. Here women have little power, and primarily serve to raise regional or local concerns and to support the positions and decisions taken by the party’s hierarchy. Positions of power in government are rarely accorded to women, whose portfolios usually include those that are less desirable and therefore less sought after by men.

A few women who have achieved some measure of political status have complained that voicing concern for women’s issues causes them to be labelled “radical feminists” and results in the tendency for male colleagues to dismiss their opinions on that basis. This is the sort of disparagement that women find defeating and frustrating when they rise to a position of some power. The quandary they face is how to maintain political effectiveness in establishing rights for women and still retain the respect of male colleagues who are less concerned with human issues when they relate to women. Until female representation in politics is increased and there is a corresponding sensitivity to the rights and needs of women, there will continue to be little concern for realizing real equality and enshrining it in the law.

While parliament legislates, the laws are interpreted and applied by the legal profession. This has traditionally meant that laws made by men have been interpreted and applied by men. It appears that women are advancing in this institution, as shown by law school enrollments and bar admissions which indicate that more women are pursuing law degrees. But these gains are not found among practising lawyers. Statistics obtained from the provincial law societies list 7,049 women out of a total of 46,036 practising lawyers in Canada, as of July 1985 (Manitoba Bar Assn. 1986). This translates into female representation of only 15 percent in the legal profession.

The low status of women lawyers is reflected in an analysis of their placement within the legal hierarchy. At the top of the pyramid are judges, the large majority of whom are male. In 1979 there were 18 federally appointed female superior court judges out of a total of 630 in Canadian courtrooms (CACSW 1979). In 1985, female federal appointees rose from 18 to 28, a 36 percent increase in six years, but still only an insignificant proportion overall (Egan 1985). A 1982 survey of provincial judges in Canada (except Quebec which did not provide data) shows 22 women out of a total of 572 in the six provinces with at least minimal female representation (Zwarun 1985). As of 1988 there have been three women appointed to the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, with two assigned to the Family Division. A woman’s place, even in the courtroom, is found to be in the realm of the family. Women’s nature is assumed to be intrinsically bound up with domestic life and the courtroom is no exception. Of a total of 77 Manitoba judges in spring 1988, there were 6 women.

It is evident from the above data that women are still largely excluded from the major roles outside the home, relegated to domestic life and the responsibilities associated with the family. There is no denying that these duties are honourable and essential, but little status is bestowed upon those who perform them. Patriarchy does not provide choices. A society that places a high value on economic reward and achievement does not allow freedom to decide one’s role. Free choice is illusionary when social expectations and social structure designate roles. Competition for high status and lucrative positions is limited to persons (mainly male) who can afford the time and dedication that is demanded of them. We are aware of the rising number of “superwomen” who manage, albeit with guilt, stress and exhaustion, both family and career. But major advances in the economic and political spheres cannot be achieved with a half-time commitment. It is apparent that men have had the freedom to pursue power and claim access to most of the resources that perpetuate their power, because of a notable biological difference: they cannot give birth to children! While the dictionary defines the term parent as a mother or father, parenting is mainly performed by the child-bearer — the mother.

Although child-bearing is a biological fact associated with women, the assignment of child-rearing has been socially designated to females. One of the major ways in which patriarchy is perpetuated is through the existence of the traditional nuclear family, consisting of a father, mother and children. The role of the female as wife and mother within this framework involves the provision of domestic labour and sexual services, as well as the reproduction and care of children. These services are provided for men and are controlled by men. This work differs substantially from paid male labour in the public sphere, as women provide these services for social, not financial, rewards. Male control of women’s labour (production/reproduction) enhances their dominant position and maintains women in a dependent role.

The preparation of the sexes for their respective roles in a society dominated by a male power structure is accomplished through gender-based socialization. The most reliable predictor of future behaviour is likely the assignment of gender at birth. It is the categorization of expectations that accompany being “male” or “female” that will define the path of the socialized person. In general, females are encouraged to be nurturing, deferring and dependent, while males are taught to be aggressive, strong and independent. Such pre-defined behavioural traits become a blueprint for what is considered “normal” behaviour. Males and females are treated differently, are subject to differing expectations, and get rewarded for responding appropriately. That is the way the world unfolds for each human as they learn the norms of society. In this way, our reality and our world are socially constructed and we learn to interpret our experiences according to a prescribed frame of reference.

One of the obvious vehicles for perpetuating the prevalent image of males and females is the media. Given the pervasiveness of its influence, the media plays a crucial role in socialization. Sex-role stereotyping is actually a technique which is purposely used by advertisers in the media to create an idealized image of reality (Supply and Services Canada 1982). Not only are adults having their harmful and inaccurate beliefs validated, but children are being indoctrinated and absorbed into patriarchal society. Relatively few attempts have been made to reverse roles and balance the portrayal of males and females and these have been insufficient to ward off the cumulative effects of yet another male-dominated institution.

The roles we enact, then, are socially created and reflect accepted patterns of behaviour in society. For example, in Canadian society, as in others, it is appropriate for females to defer to males. This “norm” is supported by the social structure through, for example, the family and the legal system, so that learning through interaction in society is supported and perpetuated by its institutions.

Organized religion, another major social institution, offers a system of beliefs and values irreconcilable with the principle of women’s equality. Therefore changes to improve the status of women are inhibited by religious beliefs which are culturally bound and only applicable to the historical context of their origin. Portrayal of the deity as male and the ideology of male supremacy in the nuclear family perpetuates restrictive gender roles. This is not surprising, since religious laws, like secular laws, have been written, interpreted and primarily enforced by men. This can be seen in the way that churches still retain control over women’s bodies with women often having little or no voice in matters pertaining to birth control and abortion.

We have provided an examination of institutions and the power base in society in an attempt to understand the social context in which sexual assault occurs. Institutional inequality and rigid roles based on gender maintain and perpetuate the inferior status of females. The traditional definition of female behaviour as subordinate has been strengthened by the training we give our female children to be passive and nurturant. Male superiority, on the other hand, has been enhanced by the way we train male children to be aggressive and to succeed in the economic and political spheres. This extends to their interpersonal relationships with females. Male sexuality is linked to the role of aggressor and some degree of force or coercion is acceptable; importance is placed on the end result, reaching an objective. There is sufficient evidence now that assures us that sexual assault is not motivated by uncontrollable sexual desire. Sexual assault has been exposed as a violent offence involving power and domination (Brownmiller 1975; Clark and Lewis 1977). Whether females are accosted on the street, harassed in the workplace, or fondled at home by their fathers, there is one common theme — an imbalance of power in which violence is implicit. Sexual exploitation, in any form, exemplifies the vulnerability of females because it involves acts that are primarily directed at females in a male dominated society. As such, it is a method by which males can exert control over females in an extreme form along a continuum of male aggressiveness.

CHAPTER II

Understanding Sexual Assault

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM

ONE of the primary obstacles in viewing sexual assault as a significant social problem has been the absence of accurate information on its occurrence. It is a crime that is grossly under-reported. Since it is clear that statistics do not reflect the actual incidence of the crime, it has been impossible to view the severity and extent of the problem in a realistic light. Our work, which examines incidents reported to a crisis centre as well as to the legal system, supplements official statistics by providing information on assaults that have not necessarily been reported to the police. An examination of the criteria differentiating women who make official reports from those who attempt to deal with the assaults in other ways shows that unreported cases are not necessarily comparable to those reported. As stated by Clark and Lewis, “We cannot hope to have anything like a complete picture of rape until all victims are willing to report the crime” (1977, 41).

A victimization survey of 551 women in Winnipeg revealed that one out of every four females had been sexually victimized at some point in her life (Brickman et al. 1980). If this proportion holds for the rest of the country as well, then just over 3 million Canadian women are, or will be victims of sexual assaults. The victimization survey, while more representative than official statistics, nonetheless is not comprehensive and reflects rates based on the sample used. Moreover, it should not be assumed that all the respondents would admit having been sexually assaulted. For the victim who has never disclosed the incident, it might be easier to deny it happened than to allow the stigma and emotional pain associated with the offence to surface. The result is that the least conservative estimates of sexual assault are probably the most representative in gauging its incidence.

PERPETUATION OF MYTHS BY THE PRESS AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM

There is a double standard of sexual behaviour f...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Introduction
• Chapter I The Social Context of Sexual Assault
• Chapter II Understanding Sexual Assault
• Chapter III The Effects of Socialization
• Chapter IV The Response of the Victim
• Chapter V The Response of the Criminal Justice System
• Chapter VI The Role of the Prosecutor
• Chapter VII The New Sexual Assault Legislation
• Chapter VIII Conclusion
• References
• Index
• Back Cover