There is no greater reminder that sexism is a double-edged sword than in last week’s news. On Monday 5th of October, 21-year-old babysitter Jade Hatt, who had sex with an 11-year-old boy in her care, left court with a sixth-month suspended sentence. This is despite sentencing guidelines indicating that the rape of a child under 13 should take a 10-year sentence as a starting point. So, how can we make sense of this inexplicable leniency? No doubt the age and personality of the perpetrator played its part, but there is no way to interpret Judge Mousley’s decision without reference to the central role that gender stereotypes have played.
One of Hatt’s defenders was the child’s father, who said in court that the 11-year-old would see this as “a notch on his belt” and was “fully up for this experience.” Such rhetoric highlights that it is often the male attitude towards sex that stops female-to-male sexual assault being viewed with such urgency. This is not to say that men are unaware of when sex has been forced on them, but that they are more inclined to both justify its occurrence and deny its severity. The central offence in rape is lack of consent, thus forcing another into total sexual vulnerability, and we must question whether something in the male psyche is less disposed to accept, or admit, that this has happened to them. Though statistical evidence shows that male rapists far exceed female rapists in number, assigning gender stereotypes to the actors involved – ergo rapists as masculine and victims as feminine – is dangerous. Doing so constructs a unique notion of emasculation in the mind of the male victim, making self-denial ever more likely. Crucially, denial often materializes under the guise of ‘coping’, explaining why incidences of sexual assault against men are so critically downplayed – often by the victims themselves or those known to him.
(Photo Credit: hypertomb.com)
According to a 1992 survey conducted by Struckman-Johnson, the emotions of guilt and self-blame are equally reproduced in male and female reactions to rape. Although the sources of these emotions may differ – such that women often thought they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and men that they were sending off the wrong signals – both interpretations must be afforded equal importance, and served equal justice. Judge Mousley underpinned his sentencing with the argument that Hatt’s immaturity, relative to the victim’s maturity, “narrows the arithmetic age gap” between her and her victim, thus reducing her culpability. Yet, we must seriously consider whether any 21-year-old male would be similarly exonerated for being immature for his age?
A redress of ‘victim-blaming’ in cases of rape has long been a fight in the feminist battle. Yet, I fail to see the theoretical difference in equating short skirts with ‘asking for it’, and equating early maturity with “being fully up for it.” To glibly accept that an 11-year-old male must have consented to sex as he was ‘mature for his age’ takes agency away from a boy who himself stated that he thought the act was wrong, and did not enjoy it. Male or female, this victim was a child, could not have had the emotional maturity (much less the legal capability) to consent to sex, and will likely suffer in later life because of this experience. The accepted defence in his case takes a critical assumption about the male propensity for sex, and uses it to distort the deserved justice of a child victim.
As feminists and defenders of total equality, the process of equalising attitudes to sexism needs considerable overhaul. We should feel pride in having achieved such a dynamic and successful anti-rape movement in the UK, but to date these movements remain unmatched in the protection of vulnerable boys and men. This void cannot be defended with the argument that male-oriented sexism and sexual assault is so rare that it fails to be politically salient. Rape is a gender-neutral concept and crime, and the ruling in Jade Hatt’s trial must be seen as an affront to this standard.