May 12, 2009 Anyone care to clear this up for me?
So, a 2002 allegation of sexual assault against Matthew Johns and other Cronulla players (Rugby League for the non Antipodeans) has been in the papers again, due to a Four Corners Report aired last night in which the woman was interviewed.
I found this article in today’s SMH, titled “Our game apologises unreservedly’, which contained this paragraph:
Although there was no suggestion the woman had been sexually assaulted, Johns and Firman were named by Four Corners as being the first players to have sex with her. Asked why she had waited until now speak out, the woman said: “I wanted at least their wives or girlfriends to know what they had done at the very least. Part of me wanted them to know because I was so angry and I wanted their lives destroyed like mine was and part of me wanted them to know so that they could go and meet the better people that wouldn’t treat them like that.”
Two things. She’d gone to the police in 2002, so she’d waited “til now” to ‘speak out’ (cos apparently her police report doesn’t count) only in the sense that she’s now spoken to interviewers for the Four Corners programme that waited til about now to start their report.
Second:“there was no suggestion the woman had been sexually assaulted”
I’m trying very hard here to understand what they mean. That the programme didn’t suggest it? That no one is suggesting it? Because quite fucking clearly she is suggesting it, nay indeed asserting it quite vigorously. And the fact that the police investigation got dropped means nothing when you look at the stats. And also, this seems to misunderstand what is and is not a sexual assault. Even *if* she had agreed to sex with Johns and another man or two, there were allegedly twelve men in the room, laughing, groping and fondling her. If those men were not invited in, for the love of all that’s good and holy how is that NOT sexual assault?
So…on the off chance that someone else made themselves sit through that Four Corners report, and can see some way to clarify what these guys mean by no suggestion the woman had been sexually assaulted please help me out here.
Cos right now this seems like a spectacularly misogynist and wankish FAIL in reporting. And I’d LIKE to know that I’ve been fair before I go branding these guys massive fucking rape apologising FUCKWITS more vested in clearing the name of footy than accuracy in journalism.
Edited to add: While I am told that the Four Corners report used the phrase ‘no suggestion’ (ie they weren’t suggesting) several times, I still think the reporters in the SMH/League HQ article should have said something along the lines of ‘While the report did not suggest…’ rather than there is no suggestion. Her allegations are indeed a ‘suggestion’.
And then this: in an article in SMH over the use of League personalities to promote a greyhound racing event tagged ‘doggie style‘:
On Four Corners last night, a New Zealand woman identified only as Clare said her life had been ruined and she had considered suicide after having sex with Johns and another Cronulla player while up to 10 of their teammates and club staff watched on during a tour in 2002. Johns and another Cronulla player while up to 10 of their teammates and club staff watched on during a tour in 2002.
Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but MY understanding is that she said her life had been ruined by being raped. If you’re going to fucking cite HER then do it properly please.
Tags: Cronulla, Four Corners programme on NRL and the 'code of silence', Matthew Johns allegations, reporting seems confused, SMH article again dismissive of women's point of view in rape claims
- 29 comments
- Posted under Uncategorized
Fuck Politeness 
Permalink #
Rachel Hills
said
I spent a couple of hours last night going through all the background material on this (I’m writing on it for a women’s mag), because I was finding the recent media reports confusing. To read a lot of them, you’d think the footballers were in trouble for having a consensual gangbang (which, apparently, is inherently degrading) – not for sexual assault.
From what I’ve read, my understanding, like yours, is that she’s pretty clear that it was sexual assault from her perspective. In this article, the most comprehensive I’ve found, the clear implication is that she didn’t want to have sex with any of them. The interview in question took place in 2002, but wasn’t printed at the time, and reads:
“The woman said she had been told by police that the Sharks players were arguing it was consensual. “If it was consented, they did nothing wrong. It was morally wrong, but not criminally wrong if I consented. It’s all of them saying it was consented, against me,” she said.” Ie, she’s saying she didn’t consent, but that they did.
So the framing of this story is similar to a lot of other alleged rape cases, where the media uses the word “sex” instead of “rape” for legal reasons (ie, just in case it turns out it wasn’t rape), much as the word “alleged” was peppered all through the Rihanna/Chris Brown media coverage. In this case it’s even more bizarre though, because the fact that this woman says she didn’t consent is not really being reported at all.
Permalink #
Tricky
said
I completely agree with you – I found it nauseating to sit through the whole show. The NZ policeman stated she clearly was a very young and naive girl at the time. These disgusting and despicable men do need public humiliation. It WAS sexual assault. I was noted that not one of the slimey creatures asked about the welfare of the girls when they were contacted. I can never watch The Footy Show and those men give off that creepy misogynistic vibe all the time.
Unfortunately I think 4 Corners would have been legally advised that they couldn’t use those specific words as official charges hadn’t been laid or prosecuted – legal speak for you can’t call a spade a spade or we will sue the crap out of you.ergo; It interferes with our rape denial culture.
Permalink #
Sharmilla
said
I thought the media coverage was strange too – it all seemed to be about the terrible impact that this was having on Matthew John’s family etc… and not on the fact that a group of footballers ‘allegedly’ raped the poor woman. If it was a false allegation, then yes, of course it would have a shocking impact on a person and their family. But the focus just seemed to be on this woman getting media attention. Fuck that shit
Permalink #
GJM
said
I thought the editing of John’s apology on The Footy Show and Vaughton’s slap on the back and ‘Well done mate..’ was used very well through the story and each time it was used it just got more and more ugly.
I’m sure the ABC were advised as to what they could say and what they couldn’t but it was quite clear that the girl said that although she went back with two players, she never consented to the rest of the people entering the room.
Did I hear someone, either the victim or the police officer, say that in the end it was her statement versus 12 other statements, implying that there was no point pursuing it legally?
Permalink #
CJ
said
What about the disgraceful Danny Weidler column in the Sun-Herald in Sydney, claiming insight into the incident. Apparently, the woman wanted it and used strong language. I also can’t believe that NRL players believe group sex is a bonding experience. How can parents allow their children to play this so-called sport amid entrenched misogyny and sexism?
Permalink #
fuckpoliteness
said
GJM, I haven’t seen the Footy Show clip. I am unsurprised.
Yeah I think that the victim said something along those lines, there’s a quote where she basically says it’s their word against hers (implying she knows she’s outnumbered etc)
CJ – I didn’t see it. I’m not sure I care to read it. I’m currently blasting “Live Through This” in the office (Hole) – there’s a song where Courtenay Love is screaming ‘Was she asking for it? Was she asking nice? Was she asking for it? Did she ask you twice?’. A song full of rage. Decent therapy.
Permalink #
Tricky
said
Something I really don’t get with this “tradition” in some male groups to use group sex as a team bonding activity.
How is a group of men “having sex” with one woman a group bonding exercise????? Seriously????????
Is all of them rooting one women (object) really just a way to have sex with each other without being seen to be gay?
Is all of them raping a women(object) just a way to say “look how macho I am, I can hate women and treat them like scum too.”
i .just .don’t .get .it
What is the psychological /social payoff for these “men”.??
Permalink #
kimpowell
said
Tricky, I’m with you. Must be the whole ‘because I’m a woman’ thing, but I don’t get how sharing sex with your mates is a heterosexual bonding thing.
As for using the term sexual assault and not rape, I read somewhere the police prefer the first term to describe all assaults that are sexual as they don’t want to reveal evidence or be gratuitous. Which I get from a procedural point of view, but I don’t think it helps because all sexual assault stories get picked up by the media and so, like sexual harrassment, it tends to be belittled.
Permalink #
KM
said
I watched 4 Corners.
Tricky – yeah, I wonder about that too. Apart from the issues of consent, it just seems so WEIRD to me that a group of men would be so explicit in displaying their sexuality to each other, in a way that doesn’t involve them having sex with one another!
It was Four Corners that said ‘we don’t suggest that what happened in that room at the Racecourse Hotel was sexual assault’ – probably, as others have said, for legal reasons (bleh). But it was COMPLETELY apparent from hearing ‘Claire’ speak that she’s deeply traumatised. She bawled her eyes out and said; “I just wish they were dead, I hate them so much.” It was horrible – and then to see the clip of Matthew Johns, apparently trying to elicit sympathy for himself and his family… Gah!
Another thing I had a hard time coming to grips with (and I’ve been talking about this at work this morning), was the footage they showed of young players attending a lecture about consent. They just had no freaking clue. And more sinisterly, my experience informs me that their attitude towards sexually active women isn’t confined to league players… So many young guys believe that casual sex is okay for THEM, but inherently degrading for women. So basically, any female who acts with sexual agency has automatically degraded herself, and it’s a free-for-all to do whatever you like to her.
What’s wrong with people?
Permalink #
fuckpoliteness
said
Whoops, Sharmilla, missed your comment. Yes, the focus on the family says to me that no one believes this woman, that they feel utterly comfortable rejecting outright her responses, her accusations, her feelings, her viewpoint. It’s all ‘poor Johnsy’s wife’. And yes, there is a chance it’s a false accusation and his wife is upset. But is ANYONE in the media going to focus on the woman in New Zealand and her feelings?
Tricky, I don’t get it either. And it’s not that I don’t get people queering the idea of hetero monogamy by group sex in a consensual and safe space, it’s that that’s NOT what this appears to be. It appears to be more sport. A friend once told me about Army initiations whereby (TRIGGER WARNINGS) men played a game in which they attempted to ‘ride’ a woman and stay ‘on’ while she ‘bucked’ ie/ tried to get the raping fuckwit arseholes OFF HER BODY. THAT seems to be the point. We’ll all abuse chicks together.
And KP – yeah. But the thing is they’re all using ‘sex’ and NOT sexual assault. 😦
Permalink #
fuckpoliteness
said
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I still think the guys in the paper could have said “While the programme was keen to deny that they were suggesting” or ‘There was no suggestion from the makers of the documentary’ or something. Because there *is* a suggestion. But thanks.
And you’re right. The rest of society condones it, or at least cares little enough not to demand the heads of the footy players (figuratively not a capital punishment fan). The ‘fun’ of their beloved sportsman, and their ‘right’ to get that fun at the expense of anyone seems to trump concerns for justice or the welfare of women and girls.
Yes that virgins/whores thing plays all through this doesn’t it? And I don’t *konw* what’s wrong with people, I wish I did. 😦
Permalink #
banalasanything
said
Yeah, I found the Footy Show statement absolutely appalling. Jones, with the affected solemn tone, apologises for the ’embarrassment’ and ‘pain’ felt by his family. He refers to the pain felt ‘on both sides,’ as though the incident was a shared event of regrettable engagement and nothing more. Then Vaughn pats his shoulder, congratulates him and says, “Alright mate. Let’s get on with the show.”
The violence of this kind of public statement is in its redressing of the assault as a trangression of morality in terms of extramarital sex, etc., and nothing more. The victim is completely effaced and the game goes on. It’s unbelievable.
I also agree with Rachel’s comment about the odd refrain in the 4 Corner’s reporting that group sex is inherently degrading — it seems a problematic assumption that the degradation is the act of group sex itself and not in the misogynistic, violent and abusive assaults that occur in any act.
Permalink #
fuckpoliteness
said
A world of yes, on all points. The focus on the pain caused by marital infidelity is fucking INFURIATING given the seriousness of the accusations.
And yes, the problem here is not group sex, it is the allegation that she was raped, and the ‘come one come all, isn’t degradation and pain of women fucking HILARIOUS’ attitude of the players in the room.
Permalink #
kimpowell
said
And then in a day or two we’ll have articles/”news” reports about his wife “standing by her man”. Bleurgh, those pieces make me sick.
Permalink #
Linda Radfem
said
This whole thing had me in tears just now, watching the news. Some young footballer was making the point, which I assume was supposed to represent the “right” attitude to women. It went something along the lines of:
“Yeah it’s really how you treat ’em afterwards that counts, like you know call ’em a cab bla bla bla…”
In other words rape ’em sure, but see they get home alright afterwards.
Seriously nauseating shit.
Permalink #
fuckpoliteness
said
KP – yeah that whole ‘a good woman stands by her man through anything’ bent is sick.
LR – yeah, it’s really upsetting. My partner made the same point, that after all the training, the showing of rape videos etc, that you call them a cab and that helps cover it up. 😦
Permalink #
ot
said
The Four Corners Transcript
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2567972.htm
Permalink #
fuckpoliteness
said
Thanks OT
Permalink #
Aileen Wuornos
said
Linda RadFem:
Funnily enough, I was just reading
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,25474577-5005361,00.html
which is what you just mentioned.
I think one of the things that enrages me the most is the fact that they’re more concerned this guys just gone and muddied up their image further than what’s coming out of his mouth disturbs me greatly.
Permalink #
Linda Radfem
said
“And then in a day or two we’ll have articles/”news” reports about his wife “standing by her man”.”
Didn’t take long. See Miranda Devine today.
Permalink #
Linda Radfem
said
Actually it’s the ACA interview. Devine’s column doesn’t look too bad on first glance.
Permalink #
Rachel Hills
said
Devine’s column doesn’t look too bad on first glance.
Until you get the to the second page, which suggests it’s too confusing to try to distinguish between consensual group sex and non-consensual gang rape and, my favourite part:
It is unfair to expect men to bear full responsibility for sexual mores as the boundaries of acceptable practice are blurred. Young women are told they can act and dress any way they please, and it is men, alone, with their supposedly filthy, uncontrollable sexual desires, who must restrain themselves.
It turns biology and the history of humanity on its head, and creates particular problems in multicultural societies. Our era’s turning point in sexual politics confuses women as much as men.
Permalink #
kimpowell
said
I thought I’d watch Nine news last night to see how they handled it. They played a TRIBUTE PACKAGE to Johns, of his best Footy Show and movie appearances, and then sports reader Ken Sutcliffe said: “We’re all gutted this has happened”. Am guessing he meant Johns being stood down, not that he and his former teammates have a very flimsy understanding of consent.
Permalink #
fuckpoliteness
said
Man that woman talks some utter SHIT. Turns biology on it’s head? How? Because biology says that men ought NOT to have to curb their impulse to rape? Turns humanity on its head? How? By denying that women ought to be the virginal guardians of public morals and bear the blame when they are rapes? What are the PARTICULAR problems it creates in multicultural societies? What is the turning point? How is it confusing women? How men?
Not to mention it’s a nice piece of woman bashing as fucking per.
KM…oh, a tribute package. Nice.
Permalink #
Tricky
said
What I’m finding really REALLY heartbreaking is the number of women in around different blogs saying she brought it on herself. A “nice girl” wouldn’t have put herself in that position. BLAH BLAH BLAH
Take the comments on this thread of a horse owner’s forum I visit occasionally.
I know that 99% of the posters on this forum are women.
http://www.eques.com.au/discus/messages/14039/404343.html?1242281817
It is obvious some people are thick as bricks when you are trying to describe a basic value like empathy toward another human being.
God I just want to go find a cave and not have anything to do with the human race anymore.
Permalink #
Linda Radfem
said
“Devine’s column doesn’t look too bad on first glance.”
“Until you get the to the second page, which suggests it’s too confusing to try to distinguish between consensual group sex and non-consensual gang rape and, my favourite part:”
Ack. I was right not to read too far into it. She makes no sense at all. Women can behave how they want but it’s men who are expected to control themselves?
Have I missed something? Are there gangs of slutty groupies prowling around the streets gang-raping poor innocent men and getting away scott-free with it?
Permalink #
KM
said
I knew it wouldn’t take long before all the discussion came out regarding; ‘Oh she went back to their room, was she really thinking everybody was going to sit around sipping G&T’s and discussing literature?” as well as this morning’s news story reporting that ‘Clare’ was bragging about the event as a conquest after the fact.
Even the girls I work with seem to be missing the point somewhat (and these are smart, empathetic young women). One asked me yesterday; “But I don’t understand… Was it consensual or was she attacked?” And that question seems to sum up a LOT of what is wrong with the way that we, as a society, discuss rape. There’s a lot of room for non-consent between an informed collective of adults agreeing to group sex, and a pack of men attacking a woman and dragging her back to a secluded room to pin her down gang-rape her. I mean, I frequently used to get ‘female safety’ lectures from well-meaning friends if I was catching public transport late at night, or walking somewhere by myself. And I would have to say; “Look, I’m not reckless, of course I travel near the guard’s compartment/switch carriages if I feel uncomfortable/stick to well-lit areas, but the likelihood of me being raped by a stranger in the bushes is WAAAAAAAAY down on me being raped by a partner, or a work colleague, or a mate of my brother’s etc etc.” (Yes, I know there’s a huge number of problems in those issues in terms of the onus being on me to ‘not get myself raped’ but anyway…)
As far as Clare is concerned, and everybody going; “Well of course *I* would never do anything so silly as being alone with league players” – well, I think, I can’t say for sure that I wouldn’t. When I think back to who I was when I was nineteen years old, I would probably have been very flattered and excited that famous and nominally attractive men were paying me that kind of attention. And I might, under such circumstances, have been excited to be singled out with an invitation to go to their room. But NO WAY would I have had the cognitive follow-through to imagine that that would lead to twelve men being present and a revolting sexual assault to ensue. But NOOOOooooooo, we’re girls, and if we have ANY INTEREST IN MEN AND/OR SEX at all then we must somehow EXPECT TO BE RAPED!!! And don’t go crying about it afterwards!
As for that whole issue of her apparently bragging about the event afterwards… Ummmm, isn’t it not particularly unusual for sexual assault/abuse victims to sometimes frame their experiences in this manner, as a way for them to reassert some feeling of control over events they really had no control over? And then to still show all the psychological damage that one would objectively see as a result of rape? I’m not 100% on that one, but I’ve read it somewhere, and it kinda makes sense…
Permalink #
fuckpoliteness
said
Tricky, that ‘nice girl’ stuff is pernicious. Why is it that to be the wronged party a girl has to be ‘nice’ and a guy to be believed and supported just has to CLAIM he wasn’t a rapist. His behaviour doesn’t have to be ‘nice’ in any way.
KM – good point. Where girls are encouraged to believe that men’s perception of them is the most IMPORTANT THING EVER, that to be considered a HOT CHICK is the prize goal, then to be asked by wealthy famous sportsmen to have a chat or even to have sex would be dizzyingly flattering to many.
Permalink #
Linda Radfem
said
So true, and that’s like the elephant in the corner that not many people acknowledge when they ask the question “Well what did she EXPECT??”
When women, particularly when we’re very young, engage with men, we kinda hope the sexual attraction is just about signalling interest and relationship availability, and that once they’re alone with us they will also get to know us as human beings and see all our wonderful other qualities. We hope that this will lead to a connection of the minds and mutual respect and affection as WELL AS a sexual relationship. THIS is what we expect.
Women don’t actually aspire to being treated the way these guys treated Clare, nobody HOPES for that.