A CULTURE THAT WON’T LISTEN:
CREDIBILITY DISCOUNTING AND THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN GENDER, MENTAL HEALTH, AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE.
The Dissolution Advocates NW | LLC
"What? You shouldn't believe her. She’s behaving irrationally."
Time and time again we tend to doubt women just because they're women and labeling them as "crazy" is a way to dismiss their credibility regardless of whether or not they actually have a mental illness. However, it's important to note that these women are not universally doubted in all aspects of their lives. The doubt surrounding their credibility is particularly strong when they have mental health issues such as abuse-induced PTSD and report incidents of sexual violence either because we suspect they might be lying or because we question their perception of events. Or because believing the perpetrator is easier.
When allegations of sexual violence arise, questions about credibility often come into play. Perpetrators of sexual violence enjoy a built-in defense of “he said, she said" and a factfinder must decide which storyteller is more believable. Unfortunately, women tend to be at a disadvantage in this regard. But why?
The problem of credibility being undermined goes beyond this scenario. It affects how gatekeepers like the police and prosecutors perceive women’s credibility even before they have their day in court. It also impacts disputes such as child custody determinations that rely on fallible judgments of credibility.
This analysis examines the phenomenon of doubting someone’s credibility at the intersection of gender, sexual violence, and mental health. This doubt affects every stage of the process. From deciding whether or not to file a sexual assault lawsuit to the ability to win the case and even determining the amount of damages awarded.
Credibility discounting occurs in both the court system and the court of public opinion. In the case of sexual violence, law and culture reciprocally influence understandings of what is and what is not the crime of rape.
Women’s credibility is often dismissed without thought. Adopting a nuanced standard of reasonableness that explicitly takes into account abuse-induced PTSD and acknowledging that it can coexist with rationality must be argued in every sexual assault case.
Imagine a woman who has experienced the trauma of sexual assault. After she begins to notice symptoms of a mental health condition, she finds herself dealing with episodes of depression and anxiety. When she confides in her psychiatrist, she expresses difficulty in remembering details. Memories intrude upon her thoughts, accompanied by feelings of fear and shame. She continues her therapy sessions. Eventually, she decides to take action by filing a sexual assault lawsuit. As she appears in court, it's evident that she is nervous, shaken and visibly agitated. Perhaps some may perceive her as erratic or unstable. She struggles to recall all the details surrounding the incident. The unique aspects of her story make it appear as if she is overly sensitive - was she too sensitive about everything? Can't she take a sexual joke? Was it really rape? But did she actually say "‘NO"?
The alleged damages include emotional distress, which leads to scrutiny of her history. Experts offer diagnoses to explain what she has experienced. However, does assigning a psychiatric label account for everything that she experienced? Feeling unheard, despite knowing the truth behind her words, self-doubt starts creeping in.
Sexual assault victims know their credibility will be doubted and undermined, and as a direct result many never come forward.
Disbelieved, misunderstood, and silenced. Inanimate objects aren't meant to speak. Once they do, they are seen as objects rather than humans, which undermines their credibility. Being disbelieved diminishes one’s worth and adds to the burden of those who have already been harmed and suffering.