What Causes Rape? Anatomy of a rape culture
| February 11th, 2004What causes rape? How can we change our culture so that it happens less often, or not at all? I’d like to give my opinions on this - at, perhaps, some risk of pissing some folks off.
Alas readers who know me know that I’m a font of statistical evidence about rape; there was a year or so in which I didn’t read about much other than quantitative research about rape. But of the hundreds of stats about rape I’ve read, the most essential one is the most obvious: the overwhelming majority of rapists are male. If we want to discover how to reduce rape, we have to be willing to figure out what the hell is wrong with men, and how to change it.
(Okay, ass-covering time: when I say “what the hell is wrong with men,” I do mean all men in our culture - even men as “enlightened” as the more feminist men on this board. But I don’t mean that all men rape, or even that all men are potential rapists. Rather, I’d say the things in our culture which screw up men so much that rape becomes a widespread problem affect all men to some degree - even those who never rape.)
Unfortunately, I think feminism - and especially radical feminism - has been limited in increasing our understanding of rape, because feminism is (generally) focused on women, whereas rape is mostly about men. You will never find the cause or cure for rape by examining women, because rapists are overwhelmingly male.
So what does cause rape? Or, put another way, if we can agree that we live in a “rape culture” (defined as “a culture in which rape is prevalent and is maintained through fundamental attitudes and beliefs about gender, sexuality, and violence”), then what are those fundamental attitudes about gender, sexuality, and violence?
I’d identify three interrelated candidates: the myth of masculinity, cultural disdain for women, and our society’s conception of sexuality as something possessed exclusively by women. If we want “24 hours in which there is no rape,” then we have to destroy these three warped cultural ideas.
1) The Myth of Fragile Masculinity.
From early boyhood, men are taught that their masculinity must be protected above all else, or else it will be lost. Men who have lost their masculinity are objects of contempt, derision and violent abuse, and have lost the right to be loved or respected by their fellow men and by their fathers.
Boys are also taught that masculinity is fragile and high-maintenance; you work to get it and to retain it, and the slightest slip can cause it to be altogether lost. You can slip instantly, with no transition, from the most popular boy in the room to the butt of everyone’s jokes: all it takes is a moment’s lapse in which you say or do anything that can be interpreted as feminine.
This is essential: Masculinity is fragile. The man who has lost his masculinity is, in the eyes of male culture, less than nothing, worse than dead. Therefore, force in defense of masculinity - like beating up a boy who accuses you of being a faggot - can feel to boys and men like a form of self-defense.
Masculinity is defined by what it is not. Being masculine means avoiding the feminine. Being feminine, even for an instant, means risking loss of masculinity. Empathy, in our culture’s warped conception, is feminine; thinking about other people’s emotions is feminine. Boys are taught to avoid empathy.
Masculinity is also defined by power-over. The man who is overpowered by others is less then a man; the man who has power over others is a man among men. Remember, masculinity is fragile: if you don’t have power-over, you’re in danger of losing your manhood.
Once boys become teens, masculinity is additionally defined by the absolutely crucial task of getting laid. Once again, masculinity is fragile: he who isn’t getting any ain’t a man.
So there are a myriad of ways in which boys and men can lose the status of “being a man.” But at the same time, boys and men feel absolutely entitled to becoming men.
Masculinity comes wrapped around a sense of entitlement. Men don’t feel grateful when the women in their life (mothers, wives, maids) prepare meals, make beds, or whatever: in our society’s warped view, the women are just doing what they’re supposed to, and men are just getting what they’re entitled to. (Statistically, it’s interesting that virtually everyone in our culture who decides to blow up a building or machine-gun a crowd is white and male. The main reason for this, I believe, is that white men feel so entitled to high status in society, some of them take revenge if they don’t their rightful entitlement.)
There is one bit of good news - for most men, issues about masculinity are more extreme in the first thirty years of men’s lives then thereafter. For someone still in school - be it the 6th grade or a college frat house - the social enforcement mechanisms for not maintaining masculinity can be extreme. Those who can’t “be men” are social pariahs, are taught to be ashamed, and are not-uncommonly the subjects of beatings. But that’s not as true in most adult environments (although it’s true in some adult environments, like prison). Perhaps once we’ve been away from those sorts of environments for five or ten years, most of us begin to feel that our masculinity isn’t so threatened, after all.
Statistically, environments which tend to have the most rape - middle and high school, frat houses, prisons - are also the environments which most emphasize masculinity, and where boys and men have the most reason to fear losing masculinity. If we could change the culture of such environments, we’d go a long way towards reducing rape.
2) Low regard for women.
The fact is, women aren’t respected as equals, by and large. To some degree this is a self-perpetuating cycle: why aren’t women in more of public life’s highest-respected positions (Presidents, CEOs, Senators, movie stars, cartoonists :) , etc)? Because women aren’t seen as capable of holding society’s highest positions. Why aren’t women seen as being as capable? Well, just look around: there are almost no women are doing those things.
Women’s lower pay - and lower status generally in most of the overtly powerful and materially rewarding aspects of our culture - is both a cause of and a result of the low regard in which our culture holds women. That the huge amount of unpaid caretaking work our society requires to get by is overwhelmingly done by women, and accorded almost no respect (”stay at home moms just sit around watching TV all day, right?”), is both a cause of and a result of the low regard in which our culture holds women.
Women get paid less. Women get promoted less. Women get out of the house less. The work women do is worth less. In our society, women are less. This must change if rape is to be eliminated.
Remember how masculinity encourages lack of empathy? Well, low regard for women also encourages lack of empathy. Social scientists have shown that people (regardless of sex) are less empathic towards those who are below them in the social hierarchy. Bosses are less empathic towards secretaries than vice-versa; owners less empathic towards slaves than vice-versa; men less empathic towards women than vice-versa.
Why do men rape women? It’s not because they hate women, by and large. Do hunters hunt because they hate animals? No, they hunt because hunting is fun, because they like the meat, and maybe because hunting is a way of male-bonding, They don’t hate the animal; they just consider empathy for the animal’s feelings irrelevant, less important than their desire for meat or fun. (I’m ignoring the ecological arguments for hunting for the sake of the analogy).
Men who rape women don’t do it because they hate women, but because they don’t give a fuck about women (at least, not the women they rape). They want something, they take it, and they’re by-and-large indifferent to how the person they “take” it from feels.
This is why the “rape isn’t about sex, rape is about violence” analysis falls short. It’s not true - not from the point of view of many rapists - and it denies the true horror of the situation. Many rapists don’t rape because they hate and want to hurt women; it’s not that personal. Rapists rape because they want sex; they don’t consider the woman’s feelings at all, because a woman’s feelings aren’t worth considering. They’re just women, after all.
Which brings me to my third point….
3) Sexuality is something possessed by women, which is given to (or taken by) men.
That’s our society’s view of it. Look at the magazines on the racks - it’s pretty obvious why men’s magazines, wanting to sell copies with a sexy cover, usually use photos of mostly-undressed women. But why do women’s magazines do the exact same thing? Because to do a sexy magazine cover, you generally have to show a photo of a woman. Sexuality equals women in our culture; it is something possessed by women, not by men.
That’s also why women are taught to wait to be asked for a dance (or for a date), while men are taught to do the asking. Women have it; men ask for it. That’s why porn-like images of women are so common they’re impossible to avoid, while porn-like images of men are (outside gay male culture) relatively infrequent. Women have sex; to show a picture of sex, show a porn-like image of a woman.
Why do men rape, while women virtually never rape? Because sexuality is something possessed by women, in our society’s warped view. In our society, women don’t rape for the same reason rich people don’t mug.
This connects to the first point, too - the fragility of masculinity. Men who have lost their masculinity are, in our culture’s view, less than men, less even than women. They are the lowest of the low. One way to lose your masculinity is to be unable to “get” sex from a woman. This also breeds resentment of women (in much the same way that poverty can sometimes breed resentment of rich people): “how dare women not give something to me that I need so desperately? How dare women withhold from me the masculinity that I’m entitled to?”
If there’s nothing worse to a man than losing that fragile masculinity, and if one way of retaining masculinity is to use masculinity’s power-over to take sex from the owners, and if the owners are only women, anyway, rather than being anything important - then rape is frequently the result.
Hell, looking at how twisted and sick our culture is, sometimes I’m surprised rape doesn’t happen even more often.
* * *
Obviously, I’m not saying that this is right. It’s sick, warped, and twisted. But that is the truth about our sick, warped, and twisted society, in my opinion. People talk about a “rape culture.” I’d argue that these three things - Masculinity, Low Regard for Women, and Sex is Owned by Women - are the three main ingredients of that rape culture. And if we want to create a world without rape, finding ways to change those three things is where we should start.
February 11th, 2004 at 7:18 am
Great read!
Just a quick comment.
You mention gay men in reference to pornography, but you don’t account for the amount of rape that occurs in the gay community by men. I don’t think it discounts much of what you are saying. I’m just curious if you have an idea of how to account for it; especially since you downplay the ‘rape as violence’ assumption.
This comment was written by yvelle.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 7:45 am
I’d say that it fits reasonably well into the same paradigm, with some alterations. Gay men are still raised in our culture — while they are more likely to question masculinity, they have still been raised with the same expectation that masculinity is (a) an entitlement (b) fragile and (c) something that they maintain by getting sex from someone else. A gay man becomes more ‘masculine’ by getting laid, despite the fact that he is having sex with other men; the incentive to rape in order to maintain his masculinity is the same.
There are obvious differences between the hetero and homosexual situations with respect to rape; none of the arguments about sex as something possessed by women who are perceived as lesser beings are relevant. Still, the masculinity mechanism Ampersand describes works for both situations.
Excellent post.
This comment was written by LizardBreath.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 8:53 am
What do we do about women who think that abusive behavior toward them is a sign of love? I know women who seem to think this, and it kills me to try to convince them that they deserve better, because they don’t believe me. Hell, at one point I thought that violence in a relationship, toward me, was normal. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you how I realized that that attitude was sick, because I don’t know.
So, I guess I would say that eliminating all the problems you talk about above would only solve half the problem. Most of the women I know don’t really believe, deep down, that they deserve better than the assholes they get. How do we change that?
This comment was written by corwin.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 9:00 am
Obviously, I’m not saying that this is right. It’s sick, warped, and twisted. But that is the truth about our sick, warped, and twisted society, in my opinion.
Ah, a leftist who admits he hates America.
What a refreshing change of pace!
This comment was written by anon.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 9:05 am
Well done, Amp.
This comment was written by Cleis.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 9:59 am
we have one thing going for us, i guess. Our courts won’t throw out a rape case if two men didn’t witness it. How twisted of us. And sick, for that matter.
This comment was written by pril.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 10:01 am
This is why the “rape isn’t about sex, rape is about violence” analysis falls short. It’s not true - not from the point of view of many rapists - and it denies the true horror of the situation. Many rapists don’t rape because they hate and want to hurt women; it’s not that personal. Rapists rape because they want sex; they don’t consider the woman’s feelings at all, because a woman’s feelings aren’t worth considering. They’re just women, after all.
I don’t disagree with this, but I’d add that the act, specifically, of overpowering somebody to get this thing that they want (as opposed to having it genuinely offered) is part of what is desired, specifically because it feeds into part I of your argument. In other words, they take the sex that they want, but they also help prop up their fragile masculinity by the show of both virility and specifically of power/strength. It may not help with the boss/frat brother (although it may, in fact, with the latter), but it helps with the self-image of self as strong and manly…
(How can we undermine the idea that taking advantage of weakness is anything but manly, anything but admirable? Is it too simplistic to think that diffusion of bullies in the schoolyard is a place to start?)
This comment was written by acm.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 10:02 am
Anon inadvertently raises an interesting question: what does that “our . . . society” comprise? Can’t much of amp’s analysis can be applied to Japan, the UK, Mexico, &c.? Where can we go to see a non-rape culture?
This comment was written by Mr Ripley.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 10:02 am
Hey Anon,
What a useful and enlightening comment you made on a such a serious issue. Forget that Amp is talking about a real issue that affects real people…all you hear is that he hates America (and by the way, he didn’t even MENTION the US - and this applies just as well in Canada and in fact in most of the world.)
Did you even have a point??
This comment was written by Julia.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 10:10 am
Amp, you rock. That was brilliant. And you know, I agree with your contention that rape isn’t so much about violence and hatred as it is about entitlement and dehumanization–esp. WRT date rape/aquaintence rape. I want it, I will get it, and who gives a fuck what you want?
Anon–maybe he meant human society. Or maybe he was talking about American society because that’s what he knows best. No need to fly off the handle and have convulsions just because someone isn’t singing God Bless America.
Pril, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to criticize a society that shows the misogyny that ours does. We might not have the same type of draconian laws that other nations do; Amp wasn’t discussing that. He was discussing attitudes, which are still pretty backwards in regards to women. And yes, when it’s popular to use the word “bitch” as a synonym for a woman, and using woman as an insult, that’s sick and twisted.
(Somewhat OT, rape in Japan isn’t reported all that often because the plaintiffs get dragged through the mud worse than here before the rape shield laws.)
This comment was written by neko.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 10:14 am
Amp-
They don’t hate the animal; they just consider empathy for the animal’s feelings irrelevant, less important than their desire for meat or fun.
Do you have research on rapists’ attitudes toward women to support this? I have always been under the impression that most rapists actually enjoy the emotional pain and fear of their victims. And since such emotions can be experienced by both male and female victims, it would seem to be a better explanation of why both men and women get raped than your “women are worthless” theory. Also, it shows the critical psychological difference between men who rape and men who don’t. In short, it’s not that rapists hate women, it’s that they hate people.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 10:17 am
One other thing. Your theory seems to presuppose that only men whose masculinity is threatened rape. How to explain men who have willing sexual partners who then also rape? To use your analogy, how to explain the rich person who embezzles or commits tax fraud?
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 10:32 am
Do you have research on rapists’ attitudes toward women to support this? I have always been under the impression that most rapists actually enjoy the emotional pain and fear of their victims.
I completely disagree. I have (unfortunately) met a number of people who have been on both sides of the rapist/rape-ee scenario. Hell, I’ve through it personally, and the “rapist” couldn’t understand why I was so upset. He didn’t hate me… he was convinced that he loved me, actually. He didn’t understand why his actions caused me pain, and could never really grasp that *his* actions *hurt* me. He simply didn’t seem to be capable of that cognitive leap.
As for the pain and fear comment… at the actual time of “the incedent” I don’t think I was in pain or in fear… I was in shock, confused, at war with myself over what to do, how to get out from under… it wasn’t until afterwards that it really sunk in, how it made me feel, and that waking up in the middle of it (literally, and I wasn’t drunk or drugged or in a strange hotel room with a man I didn’t know, thankyouverymuch) did NOT consitute consent.
That last part took months to realize, by which point things had disintigrated. Because after that first time, there was his sense of entitlement and the ever present “well I just couldn’t help myself!” excuse, despite my frequent, tearful pleas to not start again. I had been trained to be powerless, and it took a long time to shake those chains. And here we see how my socialization as a woman comes into play.
Not very many people HATE other people. They don’t understand how what they do can affect someone else. Maybe this is an emotional immaturity thing, like a 2 year old not understanding that “When I hit my friend in the head with a dump truck, it hurts them”, but at a much more insiduous level.
So yes, amp’s theory is something I’ve seen echoed in my own experience, and in others I have known since. However, I’m not a researcher, so my experience is limited and my opinion just as prone to error as anyone elses.
This comment was written by wookie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 11:06 am
Great analysis.
This comment was written by glossomania.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 11:20 am
Well thought out, Amp.
This comment was written by Elayne Riggs.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 11:52 am
This is EXCELLENT.
This comment was written by Jennifer.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 11:54 am
Hey Barry,
Lots of food for thought here. One thing that always makes me a little anxious about this kind of analysis is that overemphasis on the culture might seem to diminish the reponsibility of the individual rapist. Clearly, you’re not trying to do that, so I was curious as to how you understand the individual’s agency in this context? Perhaps part of it would most obviously come from the fact that men do not receive one clear culture message. They also are told that rape is terribly wrong. Would you say that individual agency and responsibility come in deciding what message one is going to listen do?
Also, I think there are many myths of masculinity in our culture, not just on the one you describe. The one you describe is certainly very pervasive and pernicious, but there are others. Conservative Christians are big on gender roles, but they don’t see masculinity in the same way frat boys do. For example, conservative Christians aren’t so big on sex as a way of proving one’s masculinity, particularly when it takes place outside of marriage. So when you say “environments which tend to have the most rape…are also the environments which most emphasize masculinity” it seems to me that those are environments which emphasize one particular dangerous masculinity. Does this make sense/seem legitimate? If it does, do you have any thoughts about how different masculinities in our culture interact?
Thanks for the thoughtful and thought-provoking post.
This comment was written by Sara.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 12:09 pm
Mithras wrote:
“One other thing. Your theory seems to presuppose that only men whose masculinity is threatened rape. How to explain men who have willing sexual partners who then also rape? To use your analogy, how to explain the rich person who embezzles or commits tax fraud?”
That was the question in my mind, too.
This comment was written by Amy S..Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 12:09 pm
Once again, Amp, profound and thought-provoking. Bravo!
It seems to me that hate requires something of an emotional attachment, either to an idea (ie, “I hate people who are rich because they have money and I don’t” to use an example) or a person. I still think the reasons behind rape are multiple and somewhat individual. To me, from personal experience and the experience of my friends, there is DEFINITELY that sense of entitlement and a stunning inability to understand WHY it was hurtful. The fact that that seems so prevalent leads me to think that there is an underlying social component there- perhaps tied to the insiduous and “unspoken but practiced” idea that women are less than men.
But how to explain men with partners who rape, indeed? Is it an even more egotistical sense of entitlement? Or is it a desire for control beyond the control exerted in the every day?
Rape has existed for millenia. I do agree with Amp that attitudes should change, MUST change, if we are to reduce sexual assaults. But I also think there will remain a segment of society that no matter how much we enlighten and educate, will still rape. Somehow, it seems inextricably woven into the human fabric to cause pain to others.
This comment was written by Lachlan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 12:27 pm
Men who rape do so out of a feeling of entitlement. Some serial rapists–the ones who commit stranger rape–may be total sociopaths, and they may feel like real men when they dominate women. These guys probably do get off on the pain and fear of their victims; others like the idea of being domineering. Some of these guys may also force their so-called willing partners into sex. Some men who have committed acquaintence rape may have done the same thing to their partners, who have willingly had sex with them before.
Wookie, you’re right on. I know plenty of women who were assaulted by their boyfriends/husbands, and said boyfriends/husbands didn’t understand what the big deal was. So *what* if you were passed out or asleep? So what if you said it hurt and told me to stop? So what if you were crying in pain? The reaction wasn’t joy at the woman’s fear (often, they didn’t feel fear, more helpless and angry). They were irritated if she said *anything* and/or bewildered that it was even an issue. What they wanted, they took, because they saw it as their “right”. It’s entitlement.
This comment was written by neko.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 12:29 pm
Also, Mithras, a man with willing sexual partners can still feel as if his masculinity is threatened. Especially if the measure of masculinity is determined by how many sex partners a man has, or how often he has sex. And, I would wager that if he rapes, he may have raped some of those supposedly “willing sex partners.”
This comment was written by neko.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 12:36 pm
I’m not Amp, but I’ll posit an explanation for why men with partners still rape. Actually, I have two explanations that I don’t think are contradictory…
My experience has been that the social pressure for men to have sex is geared toward not merely having sex but toward having sex with multiple partners. The man who has sex with the same woman every night for a week is, according to some, much less manly than the man who has sex with a new woman every night for a week. Men in monogamous relationships are considered “pussy-whipped,” or tied down to one woman and her genitals (that’s an odd image), thus unable to go out and “pick up chicks.” Popular cultural images bear this out. To take just one example, James Bond is not studly because he only has sex with one woman.
By this explanation, the rapist who has a willing partner could still feel his masculinity threatened by virtue of his being “tied down” to a single partner.
My other explanation is that Amp’s paradigm doesn’t explain, or, I believe, seek to explain, all rapists, just most rapists. As such, there are some rapists who get off on the fear/powerlessness of their victims, some who get off on the violent aspects of rape, and so some who rape for reasons other than their masculinity feeling threatened by not being able to have sex. I would posit that these people are most likely to commit stranger rape, while those persons who fall into Amp’s paradigm are most likely to commit acquaintance rape, which is the most common form of rape.
This comment was written by PinkDreamPoppies.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 12:36 pm
And neko beats me to it… Damn my slow fingers.
This comment was written by PinkDreamPoppies.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 12:45 pm
I agree with many of your points so I will only comment on a minor disagreement of your first point about the “myth of masculinity”.
* “From early boyhood, men are taught that their masculinity must be protected above all else, or else it will be lost. Men who have lost their masculinity are objects of contempt, derision and violent abuse, and have lost the right to be loved or respected by their fellow men and by their fathers.”
I think you have it mostly backwards. I don’t think we are taught masculinity; I think it is mostly genetic predisposition. And I think it is perfectly natural in a primitive way: Rivals are beaten into submission, or driven out of the tribe. Brute force wins the day. The strongest leads, and gets the mate. That worked great for a long time and still works for lions, and many other mammals. The problem is that we are not the primitives without language scraping for survival and living in caves anymore and our genetic code hasn’t caught up.
But we are not slaves to our genetic dispositions of personality. The culture at large and especially parents that are supposed to civilize their children. So instead of teaching us masculinity, as you believe, I believe we are naturally predisposed to it and should be taught strict limits and productive ways to channel the natural aggression and competitiveness. Such as sports, work, or maybe even the chess club, and such. I think the reason we have so many problems these days is that we don’t civilize our children enough anymore.
Back when my dad was a kid, it was common for boys to take their guns to school so they could go hunting after. There were still plenty of fist fights, but other behavioral limits just were not crossed. Random school shootings were unthinkable. Small anecdote, I know. But I believe something has happened to our culture in the last 30-40 years that has made people less civilized in many ways than previous generations. I think our mass culture of permissiveness and hedonism wars directly against the positive influences, if any, of the family. “If it feels good do it” becomes “if I want it I will take it”. Maybe the breakup of the American family has something to do with it, or that may be a coincidence, or even a symptom of something larger.
Also regarding the “myth of masculinity”, I think many stereotypes of masculinity are reinforced by women. I believe many women are attracted to “the bad boy”, “the winner”, “the leader”, “the quarterback” (who is both the winner and the leader), etc. All of those archetypes are part of masculinity. As most guys will tell you, when it comes to getting dates, nice guys really do finish last. Maybe its another genetic disposition? Who knows?
This comment was written by Larry.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 12:49 pm
Amp,
I think your analysis has a large amount of validity and I hope it helps to open people’s minds.
I do have some points of discussion/disagreement for you:
1) blaming society may lead rapists to say that they are not at fault for raping women - they are “just” doing what we “program” them to do.
2) I understand what you are saying about the possiblity of rape being connected to sex. However, I think that the point of the theorists who say that it isn’t about sex but about violence and power fits into your theme - they have the power to take what they want and since sex is what they want they just take it without consequences.
3) Men need to be held more accountable for rape and its long-term psychological and psyco-social consequences.
4) My largest point of disagreement is when it come to the “specialized” form of rape which is incest. I do NOT believe that a man who moletests his two-year-old daughter (a common age for father-daughter incest to begin) is doing it for sexual pleasure. The sick bastard is doing it because he can.
I look forward to your response.
This comment was written by Leah.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 12:57 pm
Rape Culture
This comment was written by writingwomen.Peripherally related to the course, as we were talking about female sexual vulnerability in Aphra Behn’s “The Unfortunate Happy Lady”: An excellent post by Ampersand on Alas, A Blog about the elements that make up (our/everyone’s?) “rape culture.” Be s…
Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 1:01 pm
Rape Culture
This comment was written by scribblingwoman.An excellent post by Ampersand on Alas, a blog about the elements that make up (our/everyone’s?) “rape culture.” Be sure…
Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 1:02 pm
Also regarding the “myth of masculinity”, I think many stereotypes of masculinity are reinforced by women. I believe many women are attracted to “the bad boy”, “the winner”, “the leader”, “the quarterback” (who is both the winner and the leader), etc. All of those archetypes are part of masculinity. As most guys will tell you, when it comes to getting dates, nice guys really do finish last. Maybe its another genetic disposition? Who knows?
At this point I feel I must point you towards www.heartless-bitches.com and to their “nice guy” section.
Women don’t want “nice guys” (many nice guys are rapists). Women want a man who is kind. Big difference.
And Leah, it’s been said in a couple of spots that Amp doesn’t seem to be “going for all” rapists, but aquaintence rapists, which are the most common kind.
I believe incest falls under the sociopath box… although I’m sure if that specific subset of rape were to be dissected, you’d find the sense of entitlement and the disbelief that their actions (raping their 2 year od) could hurt that child. I don’t think being a sociopath excludes the last sentence from being true, but I think there is a word that is more accurate than sociopath.
This comment was written by wookie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 1:14 pm
Great post, Amp. I sent a link to my husband, who likes to call himself a feminist, but he really isn’t. Are you aware of the 1996 book, _Transforming a Rape Culture_? It contains 34 essays on this topic by various writers. Here’s the blurb from Amazon:
“The contributors to this invaluable sourcebook share the conviction that rape is epidemic because our society encourages male aggression and tacitly or overtly supports violence against women. Cumulatively, these 34 essays by such figures as Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin, Ntozake Shange, Michael Kimmel and Louise Erdrich situate rape on a continuum extending from sexist language to pornography, sexual harassment in schools and the workplace, wife battering and date and marital rape. Most of the selections were written for this volume. Highlights include a proposal to make rape a presidential election issue, an analysis of the churches’ ambivalent response to societal violence, guidelines for raising boys to view themselves as nurturing, nonviolent fathers and inspirational visions of personal or institutional change. Buchwald is publisher/editor of Milkweed, Fletcher an English professor at North Hennepin Community College in Minnesota and Roth edits the feminist quarterly, Hurricane Alice.”
I own the book, and it rocked my world when I read it. I am a rape/incest survivor, and he’s still denying he hurt me, 18 years later.
Your blog is on my daily must-read list. Keep up the good work!
This comment was written by Mychelline.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 1:15 pm
**”Women don’t want “nice guys” (many nice guys are rapists).”
Hmm, I think we are talking about two different things. I am using “nice guy” as the antithesis of the “the bad boy.” A rapist might use the cover of a “nice guy” to get close to someone. But by definition, a nice guy would never rape a women.
This comment was written by Larry.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 1:18 pm
Larry, I’m not going to argue the biological determinism of masculinity/femininity, however, even if we accept that masculine traits are determined by biology, then the concept of losing masculinity is such a logically absurd concept it can only be due to societal influence.
Leah, you mention that rapists should be held accountable, and you are absolutely right. But rapists are too often not held accountable, and it is for the same reasons that rape exists in the first place, so if we change the aspects of society that foster rape, then it would follow that those who still rape will be held more accountable for their crimes.
Amp, it seems to me that sections 2 and 3 are redundant in that they are sort of extensions of society’s view of masculinity. I’m saying this from a pragmatic angle. If we want to eliminate the rape culture, it seems sufficient to remove society’s myths regarding masculinity.
Anyway, this was a quickly written and to the point post. I’ll see if I can get a more elegant response after I’ve eaten something.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 2:12 pm
“Also regarding the “myth of masculinity”, I think many stereotypes of masculinity are reinforced by women. I believe many women are attracted to ‘the bad boy’, ‘the winner’, ‘the leader’, ‘the quarterback’ (who is both the winner and the leader), etc. All of those archetypes are part of masculinity. As most guys will tell you, when it comes to getting dates, nice guys really do finish last. Maybe its another genetic disposition? Who knows?”
Look, I’m probably going to go off here, but I’ve been hearing this a lot from the guys I know, and I’ve about had it.
A leader or a quarterback could be very considerate and kind. And I dated plenty of “bad boys” who treated me like a queen, and had no compunction about stopping anything sexual if I didn’t feel comfortable. They were bad boys to everyone else, they were great boyfriends to me. I dated someone who was known for being nice. I soon realized that he was only nice in public. He was anything but nice in private–the guy was a total closet misogynist. By the time we officially split, I was scared of him.
Thing is, a lot of these self-proclaimed “nice guys” are their own worst enemies. They won’t give anyone who’s not skinny with a supermodel’s looks a chance–the rather plain woman who’s really nice? Forget it! The woman who’s slightly over/underweight? No way. The woman who’s actually interested in them? Run for the hills! A woman who’s their age? Uh-uh.
They go for unattainable women (either way too young for them, seeing someone else, lesbian, or recently broken up and not into the dating scene). They will date women who routinely treat them like garbage, and then complain that women don’t appreciate nice guys (well, duh, not the ones they’re dating).
They will do something nice for a woman they are interested in, and then get huffy when she won’t go out with them–apparently, she’s obligated. (And that’s not nice.) A friend of mine complained that he couldn’t figure women out, since the woman he liked wasn’t interested in dating him. (She’d been involved with someone else when he started paying her some attention. She wasn’t eager to see anyone right away after the breakup. Go figure). But he wasn’t the only person to get rejected, I get exasperated when someone uses their disappointment in love as an excuse to blame an entire group of people.
Who the heck calls themselves nice, anyway? Isn’t that kind of a default? Shesh, there’s no challenge in being *nice*. I hope my boyfriend isn’t seeing me just because I’m *nice* since plenty of people out there are nice, and it would be easy for him to get attracted to someone else. I hope he’s seeing me because he thinks I’m smart, interesting, funny, inquisitive, and a whole bunch of other things. If niceness was was the only reason why I’d go out with him, *he’d* have an awful lot of competition. I like him because he’s smart, well-traveled, interesting, compassionate, interested in the world around him, and all that good stuff. He’s fun to be with. And yeah, he’s nice, but again, who isn’t?
I’ve never felt like I owed him for what he does for me (something many self-proclaimed “nice guys” have done–I got you a birthday present! You HAVE to date me! Or you don’t like nice guys!!!).
Look, I don’t mean to dismiss people’s angst, but rejection happens all the time. There is no magic combination to make someone want you. If I had a dime for every time someone didn’t return my feelings, I could retire in a Swiss chalet. That’s life–not everyone is going to be interested. It ain’t the end of the world.
This comment was written by neko.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 2:18 pm
Larry, I’m not going to argue the biological determinism of masculinity/femininity, however, even if we accept that masculine traits are determined by biology, then the concept of losing masculinity is such a logically absurd concept it can only be due to societal influence.
If you are saying what I think you are saying, I agree. As I said, we are not slaves to our genetic dispositions of personality. If I have a predisposition of having a bad temper for instance, then through proper discipline and influences from the parents and culture I can learn to control it.
This comment was written by Larry.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 2:21 pm
A couple of notes on the comments thus far (which have been pretty darned good:
Larry wrote: “But I believe something has happened to our culture in the last 30-40 years that has made people less civilized in many ways than previous generations. I think our mass culture of permissiveness and hedonism….”
While I’m sorta with you on a lot of your comment, this quote could be lifted almost word for word from any time within the last 500 years (at least). You may want to check some of the other recent comment threads for this statement quoted from works over the last 2 centuries.
I’m w/ Raznor on the comments about biological determinism - although Larry was talking more about genetic predisposition than determinism (I think).
Larry is also correct, to a certain extent, about the attraction to “bad boys” (vs. “nice guys”). There is no doubt that there are women who are self-destructive. But that doesn’t really explain the causes of rape. I think a better example would be the encouragement of the “myths of masculinity” by women. Which I don’t think attraction to “bad boys” is.
I also think, like somebody before me said, that rape will always be around. We can certainly do things to reduce it to a minimum though. I also think that part of why there are so many more men than women who commit rape is the physical aspects of the act. It’s much easier to stick something into an unwilling place than to get something unwilling to be stuck into a place. (Sometimes I amaze myself w/ my eloquence ;))
And lastly, I agree w/ everybody who has said that sex w/ multiple women is regarded as more masculine than sex w/ one woman.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 2:49 pm
Who Owns Sex?
This comment was written by Pandagon.Ampersand has an incredibly thoughtful post on rape culture, why it exists and how we can change it. I’m not sure I agree with all of the points, but his argument on who “owns” sexuality is, I think, spot on:Why…
Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 3:17 pm
“One other thing. Your theory seems to presuppose that only men whose masculinity is threatened rape. How to explain men who have willing sexual partners who then also rape? To use your analogy, how to explain the rich person who embezzles or commits tax fraud?”
That was the question in my mind, too.”
Well, it seems to me that there is more than one reason for committing rape. For some it may be a power thing, for some it may be sexual frustration, for some (date rapists come to mind) it may be an inability to recognize other’s pain. The reasons may very well all stem form culture, as Amp suggests, but that doesn’t mean that the individuals involved all have the same reasons for doing what they do.
Example form personal expirience:
I did drugs when I was young, and hung out with others who did drugs. Some of them did it for the kicks, some of them did it to escape the world. Same end result, unfortunately, but different paths getting there, starting form different places that were nonetheless at least partlly functions of our culture.
I don’t see why rape would have a radically different structure.
This comment was written by kevin.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 3:20 pm
Analysis of Rape
This comment was written by my so-called blog.Link to Amp’s Great Analysis of Societal Influences RE: Rape
Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 3:53 pm
Mithras: “Your theory seems to presuppose that only men whose masculinity is threatened rape. How to explain men who have willing sexual partners who then also rape? To use your analogy, how to explain the rich person who embezzles or commits tax fraud?”
I would throw that under the entitlement issue - if you have privilege and like that privilege, one wants to be more priviliged. Just a guess.
This comment was written by Ms Lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 3:56 pm
Also, while I disagree with some of Larry’s statement, I must say that I agree that hedonistic aspects of our culture add to and perpetuate entitlement to sex.
This comment was written by Ms Lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 4:02 pm
And last post before I go, regarding the term “nice.”
In Old English, nice meant several interesting things:
Of a person: foolish, silly, simple; ignorant; Of an action, utterance, etc.: displaying foolishness or silliness; absurd, senseless; Of conduct, behaviour, etc.: characterized by or encouraging wantonness or lasciviousness; Of dress: extravagant, showy, ostentatious; Fastidious, fussy, difficult to please, esp. with regard to food or cleanliness; of refined or dainty tastes.
This probably explains why the word nice is also used in close proximity to the word but, as in “He’s really nice, but…”
I dated a lot of “nice” guys too. And in general, they suck.
This comment was written by Ms Lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 4:32 pm
I think Kevin may have touched on something when he mentioned the inability to recognize others pain let me explain…
There may be two types of rape. intentional and unintentional
The first, I belive, is the result of culture, Violence and control.
the second is the result of an unfortunate mix of testerone and alcohol/drugs. Not all but, many Date Rapes fall into this category I believe.
I am not excusing the behavior of the rapist any more than I would excuse the drunk driver who killed some one.
But I think women should beware that the guy that seems so polite and caring when sober. may not recognize your pain at his actions when sufficiently drunk and arroused.
of cousre we are a “culture of drugs and alcohol” too.
This comment was written by mike.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 6:11 pm
Women “possess” sex! What a fascinating idea! Yes, I can see how men might feel that way.
Still, I think at least some of the women — is it 40%? some appalling number — who describe themselves as sexually dissatisfied would be interested to know where, exactly, it is.
This comment was written by Kyria.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 6:11 pm
Wow! A lot of comments. My apologies to everyone I can’t respond to individually. I read all the comments, and some of the ones I thought the most about I didn’t reply to at this time.
Yvelle, as LizardBreath wrote, I think that there are similar motivations for rape between gay rapists and straight rapists; gay men aren’t immune to receiving warped messages about masculinity. Obviously, the stuff about contempt for women doesn’t apply directly. (I wonder if gay rapists of men might have issues with internalized homophobia - but that’s just an idle speculation, and I might not be willing to stand behind it once I’ve thought through it more).
Corwin, I agree that there are women with self-esteem issues in the world. Nonetheless, I don’t think that’s a major cause of rape, much less “half the problem.” Rapists are male; to understand why rape happens, I think we need to concentrate on understanding men.
Anon, you’re reading the wrong post. Go read my post on patriotism, which is much more directly about my not feeling any special adoration for the USA.
The people who responded to Anon were all correct in saying that I’m a bit vauge as to where the bounderies of “our culture” are. I’m pretty sure things are pretty much the same in Austrailia and England and probably Canada; I’m not sure if things are really any different anywhere in the Western world. I’m too ignorant to suggest an opinion for beyond the Western World, however.
I know I live in this culture; I don’t know where its boundaries are. It’s like asking a fish to draw a map of the Atlantic Ocean.
Pril, I think we have a lot going for us. Obviously, things are a lot better here than they are in Saudi Arabia. Nonetheless, as Neko said, I still see a lot wrong that should be improved.
Mr. Ripley, I’m not sure if any non-rape cultures exist. However, 300 years ago no true democracies (i.e., ones with universal suffrage) existed; that something has never existed isn’t proof that they can never exist. (I’m not saying you necessarily disagree with me about this).
Mithras, I don’t have supporting research on that, just a lifetime of experience talking to men and being male in our culture, plus a lot of anecdotal evidence (such as wookie’s story).
However, I’m not the first to have suggested this view - at least one legal scholar of rape has made much the same argument in a journal article that influenced my thinking. Unfortunately, I don’t have my files handy now (they’re mostly in boxes - I still haven’t unpacked completely, sad to say), but if you want remind me and I’ll find you the citation info.
I’d also point out that research on rapists is usually on convicted rapists - a disproportionate number of whom are stranger rapists. I’m therefore not sure that the research is really representative of acquaintence and date rapists.
Mithras also wrote: One other thing. Your theory seems to presuppose that only men whose masculinity is threatened rape. How to explain men who have willing sexual partners who then also rape? To use your analogy, how to explain the rich person who embezzles or commits tax fraud?
Yet rich people embezzle and commit tax fraud pretty often. I’d say the drive to have more and more money - or to “prove” masculinity over and over again - isn’t a rational drive. Poor people aren’t necessarily more money-driven than Donald Trump, and the dateless geek isn’t necessarily more masculinity-driven than the captain of the football squad.
In fact, those who have the most outward markers of “masculinity” are sometimes the ones who are most driven to prove it, over and over. (To some degree, that may be why they have so many markers of masculinity).
A lot also has to do with one’s peer group, I think. Someone in a geeky peer group may be able to “show masculinity” to his wimpy peers just by collecting soft-porn images of women (Boris paintings, comic books featuring women with breasts larger than their heads, etc) and saying sexist things. In contrast, someone who is in a group that competes to see how many girls they can score with may feel that his masculinity is threatened if he has had sex with only one or two girls and his peers have five or six.
Neko and PinkDreamPoppies also addressed this question very well, I thought.
Wookie, thanks so much for sharing your story here.
Sara and also Leah (responding to her first question), I think it’s possible - even necessary - to have enough complexity of thought to simultaniously admit that our culture molds us and influences our actions, and a the same time to realize that we’re individually accountable for our actions.
(By the way, I think a lot of rapists resolve the “rape is wrong” problem by convincing themselves that what they did wasn’t rape).
The large majority of men go through life without ever committing rape. Yes, we’re all screwed up by society - but it’s up to us as individuals what we do with that. Someone who rapes is - well, I was going to say “an asshole,” but that’s not nearly strong enough. They’re goddamned rapist scum, and they chose that themselves at some level, and I think we all agree that they should be held responsible as individuals for their crime.
That said, I do think it’s probable that if we changed society, and in particular changed the way we raise boys into men, we’d have fewer men making the choice to rape.
As for different forms of masculinity, I’m not sure I agree with you or disagree with you. What you write makes sense, but then again, I’ve known women who have escaped conservative Christian communities with horror stories. Not having ever been a Christian Conservative myself, it’s hard for me to tell how much of the piousness is real and commonplace and how much is hypocripsy. (And don’t even get me started on the Mormons!)
I certainly do agree that there are multiple, competing visions of masculinity. Since there are multiple versions, probably some do less harm than others. I’m not sure that there are any that aren’t harmful at all, however. Look at the letters Margaret Cho got from self-described Christians - there’s a lot of woman-hating (and, I’d suspect, homophobia) lurking below the surface of Christian Conservative culture.
There are certainly visions of masculinity that I can see the value of - take Atticus Finch, for instance. But I think it’s more important to wipe out the entire notion that “being a man” is something that we have to aspire to, or fear losing.
Leah, I certainly wasn’t meaning to explain what’s going on with incest, and especially not with someone who molests a 2-year-old. As others wrote, I was trying to talk about the typical rapist, and I don’t think what I said applies to the sick bastard you describe.
Obviously, I agree that men need to be held more accountable for their actions.
Mychelline, I haven’t read that book and I should. I’ve done a lot of reading, and have read a few of the authors you mention discussing rape in other publications. My own views on rape probably come closer to Michael Kimmels’ than Andrea Dworkin’s, although I like both writers. (I’m particularly a fan of Dworkin’s “I Want a 24-Hour Truce During Which There is No Rape.”)
Thanks to everyone for responding.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 6:49 pm
“They will date women who routinely treat them like garbage, and then complain that women don’t appreciate nice guys (well, duh, not the ones they’re dating). ”
The same argument used to blame the women for being in abusive relationships.
Congratulations.
This comment was written by mister.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 7:10 pm
Very interesting, both the post and the comments to it. I think that you’ve got something here, Ampersand, but my own thoughts are in a bit of confusion about the issue. Have to think some more:).
The concept of masculinity as something fragile strikes very true, though, and explains quite a few other things as well, not just possibly rape. I’m thinking of the anger of many male blue-collar workers when the first woman joins the team. Where does this anger come from? If they think she’s no good, well, haven’t they had other not-so-great coworkers before?
Ineptness may well be the quoted reason, but I think the real reason is this fragile masculinity concept: If this job, which defines me as a man (provider and strong) can be done by women, or even one woman, am I still a man? Nobody likes to have such self-doubts, so I understand why this might be the reason for sexual harassment on the job, especially as such harassment itself might score one some male points. It’s still wrong, of course. Speaking as a one-time victim of such acts.
I still think (despite many good comments suggesting other reasons for this on an earlier thread here)that femininity is nowhere near as fragile, on the whole, because femininity is already at the bottom of the hierarchy hill. What seems to be fragile is the way to salvation for women, i.e., how to act to get out of the ghetto. Is it by getting bigger breasts or a face-lift? More revealing clothes? Appreciation of porn? Is it by being ‘one of the guys’ or ‘daddy’s girl’?
None of these work, though all of them are earnestly tried by many.
Sorry for getting off the path so much.
This comment was written by Echidne.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 7:37 pm
Sorry to join the Greek chorus on this one, but excellent work. Was particularly salient for me, as I go to an all guys’ high school, where the machoismo culture is omnipresent. I’ll also join the chorus on the innate/societal argument: it doesn’t particularly matter to what extent masculinity is biologically or socially derived, just what social changes we need to make to put an end to it.
The obvious question this begs is, though: how on earth _do_ we change this? Americans, by and large, would scream “social engineering!” or some similarly vacuous battle cry if there was a major effort by the government to do battle with Rape Culture rather than simply individual cases of rape. It’s the same paradigm that precludes us from winning the War On Drugs: our only solution to a problem is to boost penalties and talk about being “tough on crime”.
Or am I just so blind a liberal that I’m not looking at nongovernmental solutions to this?
This comment was written by theogon.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 7:38 pm
I’ve been looking around the internet for more resources on rape and this struck my attention:
CHARACTERISTICS OF ACQUAINTANCE RAPISTS
1. Acts immaturely, shows little empathy or feeling for others and displays little social conscience.
2. Displays anger or aggression either verbally or physically. May be displayed during conversations by general negative references to women, vulgarity, curtness toward others, and the like. Often views women as adversaries.
3. Acts “macho” and discusses acts of physical prowess excessively.
4. Displays short temper, physically abusive (slapping, grabbing arms, etc.)
5. Acts excessively jealous and/or possessive of you. Be especially suspicious of this behavior if you have recently met or are on a first or second date.
6. Ignores your space boundaries by being too close or by placing his hand on your thigh, etc. Especially when you are in public.
7. Ignores your wishes.
8. Attempts to make you feel guilty or accuses you of being “upright.”
9. Becomes hostile and/or increasingly more aggressive when you say no about anything.
10. Acts particularly friendly at a party/bar and tries to separate you from your friends.
11. Insists on being alone with you on a first date.
12. Demands your attention or compliance at inappropriate times such as during a class.
13. Asks personal questions and is interested in knowing more than you want to tell him.
14. Subscribes excessively to traditional male and female stereotypes.
[end]
All of these characteristics fit your analysis well, Amp, the entitlement, the adherence to gender roles, but not the position of women possessing sex.
While I agree that society generally believes that women possess sex, I tend to get the feeling that it is also assumed that men have the right to take sex.
I’m particularly troubled by the language of sex. I frequently hear my male peers refer to sex as hitting it, getting it, slamming it, fucking (which isn’t alogether bad, I suppose), women as pussy, men as pimps, shall I go on?
And as I see it, all of this adds to the culture of rape.
The other night, someone called me a pimp. A good thing. I said, “Well, I guess it’s good that you didn’t call me a bitch.” The guy was floored. “I never call women bitches.”
He gets half the point. He understands that calling a woman a bitch is disrespectful, but has never really thought out what it insinuates when one is called a pimp.
Hey, Echidne got off the mark. My right, too.
This comment was written by Ms Lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 8:20 pm
I’d like to suggest that rape is just an extreme form of the conventional asymmetry between aggressive men and passive women. Men desire, women are desired. Men ask for dates and pay the bills.
If we want to change the culture, we need to improve the status of women, which we are doing, however slowly. This is something we can achieve in the social and political arena.
In the cultural realm, we need to consider women equal partners in sexuality, and perhaps we could teach them not to consider masculinity fragile.
(Personally, I think Amp is overestimating the fragility and underestimating violence, but that is probably just my upbringing.)
This comment was written by bad Jim.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 9:58 pm
theogon: I cling to the belief we can change society for the better, through government controls and general activism. It’s not easy, nor is it clear exactly how this would be done, but as an example I consider lynchings in the south. Until recently, lynchings were commonplace, and now they’re not. There’s more to it than that, but that’s a distinct improvement that allows me to believe that the Herculean task of ending our rape culture will be accomplished.
But then that’s the optimistic humanist in me talking.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 11:34 pm
This whole theory is hard to reconcile when you find that rape is prevalent among animals.
This comment was written by Eric.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2004 at 11:52 pm
Eric, so is incest. And baby-killing. Doesn’t mean that it should or does influence human behavior.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2004 at 12:40 am
Is anything chimpanzee entirely alien?
This comment was written by bad Jim.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2004 at 1:54 am
The Culture of Rape
This comment was written by The Poor Man.Excellent post by Ampersand called “What Causes Rape? Anatomy of a Rape Culture”, where he proposes - quite convincingly, I…
Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2004 at 4:45 am
Reasons #1 and #2 are hard to argue with, but #3 is just plain silly. Only an extreme social constructionist could possibly believe that women’s power over men to decide if and when sex happens is just a “myth” with no basis in the objective reality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, and everything logically follows from this.
It would be just as silly to claim that “power is something possessed by rich people, in our society’s warped view”, even though I bet rich people would love it if they could persuade the others to think that they don’t really have any power over them. After all, what difference does it really make to anything if in the bank’s computer, person A’s account has a few bits on that are off in person B’s account? Nothing! It is just a myth!
Is it also just “a myth” that employers have more power than employees? Is a job something that an employer has and can choose to give or decline to an applicant? Why, of course this is just a myth! Employers and employees are perfectly symmetrical partners in a job relationship! Therefore there is no need whatsoever for unions, workplace safety legislation or anti-discrimination laws.
(I can’t help but add: “That’s also why employees are taught to wait to be asked for a job interview, while employers are taught to do the choosing. Employers have it; employees ask for it.”)
This comment was written by Ilkka Kokkarinen.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2004 at 5:58 am
Rape does not exist amongst animals. Forced copulation does. There is a world of difference between the two; why for example, is there stigma associated with being a rape victim in human society? Clearly, there are characteristics and consequences associated with forced copulation in human societies that transform it into rape. For a more detailed explanation of the distinction, Anne Fausto-Sterling has a really good discussion of forced copulation in mallards in Myths of Gender.
To the biological determinists generally; please can you explain the cultural differences in the treatment of rape and female sexuality in genetic or biological terms, between say, Saudi Arabia and the US? Or feel free to address how it is that there has been such a huge shift in how sex and female sexuality functions in only three generations in the West.
I thought it was a great piece, although I have some qualms about shifting the focus so dramatically away from violence. The cultural sanction for men to externalise their anger and violence, versus the tendency for women to internalise theirs, seems pertinent for example.
This comment was written by Tcharn.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2004 at 6:28 am
“This whole theory is hard to reconcile when you find that rape is prevalent among animals.”
So is stealing. So is infanticide. So is killing.
So?
This comment was written by neko.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2004 at 10:23 am
Reasons #1 and #2 are hard to argue with, but #3 is just plain silly. Only an extreme social constructionist could possibly believe that women’s power over men to decide if and when sex happens is just a “myth” with no basis in the objective reality. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap, and everything logically follows from this.
Well, I must be an extreme social constructionist then, because it seems pretty clear to me that women do in fact have sexual desire of their own, and that men are, at times, not in the mood or are otherwise unattracted to women who are readily available to them. An act of sex takes two (or more) willing and equal partners. Neither of the parties involved posseses something that the other doesn’t possess in kind, nor can either of the parties grant something that the other doesn’t grant in kind. That the idea that women “possess” sex runs so deep in our culture that some see it as a biological certainty doesn’t bode well for the eradication of rape culture.
This comment was written by Dan J.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2004 at 10:42 am
Rape Culture
This comment was written by Lying Media Bastards.What Causes Rape? Anatomy of a rape culture is a very good post over at Alas, A Blog. It looks
Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2004 at 11:36 am
Dan J: “Well, I must be an extreme social constructionist then, because it seems pretty clear to me that women do in fact have sexual desire of their own, and that men are, at times, not in the mood or are otherwise unattracted to women who are readily available to them. An act of sex takes two (or more) willing and equal partners.”
We can apply your logic to the workplace. For example, employers have desire to hire workers (note: I use “worker” simply as a generic term here for simplicity), and some workers are, at times, not in the mood to do certain work that is readily available to them. A job takes two willing and equal partners: the employer who pays for the work and the worker who does it.
Based on this, do we conclude that employers and workers “possess” a job exactly the same way? Or, using your words, “Neither of the parties involved posseses something that the other doesn’t possess in kind, nor can either of the parties grant something that the other doesn’t grant in kind.”
No. Since the employer needs the worker far less than the worker needs the employer (exactly the same way women want men far less than men want women), the party who is needed less by the other one has to make concessions for the transaction to go through. For example, it is the worker who has to send hundreds of resume to the employers to get a job, and the employers just sit back and select the few that they like for a job interview. (Analogy to men and women is hopefully obvious.)
Is it this way simply because our society has somehow decided so, with no basis on supply and demand? Could the society decide that from now on, it shall be the employers who send their resumes and work offers directly to workers, who just sit back, sift through the hundreds of job offers and select the best employers for whom they’ll grant an interview?
The society recognizes that an employer and a worker do not have symmetrical power over each other, and therefore grants more legal protection to the party who is needed less by the other one. For example, when employers are hiring, they cannot legally discriminate based on race. The job applicants have no such legal duty: they can freely not apply if they don’t like the race of the employer.
This comment was written by Ilkka Kokkarinen.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2004 at 12:08 pm
Ilkka, I don’t think your analogy really works. The reason for the asymmetric power of employers and employees is twofold: 1. The society has allocated the property rights to jobs to the owners of the firms, not the workers. This is a cultural thing, and possible to change. 2. The number of employers is much smaller vis-a-vis workers. These are what create the extra power of the employers. They can always hire someone else, and they can also pretty much fire people at will in many countries (though not in all, of course).
Men and women are roughly equal in numbers, so the supply and demand analogy based on few numbers on one side doesn’t work. The property rights to women’s bodies have traditionally not been given to the women themselves, but rather first to their father and then their husband. This certainly still affects the cultural perception that men have some rights to control the sexuality of women.
You also argue that men need women more than women need men. This seems to be based on the argument that sperm is cheap and plentiful and eggs are few and expensive. First, neither sperm nor eggs are human beings. Second, whether eggs are less plentiful than sperm doesn’t really matter as even with eggs a girl starts with many more than she can ever use. Third, I don’t really see where the expensiveness or cheapness comes in. Sperm seems to be produced as a matter of fact, and eggs are there from the beginning.
I think you mean that you believe that in theory one man could inseminate thousands of women, is somehow very aware of this, and furiously tries to do just so, whereas women can only have at most, say, thirty births per life, are assumed to be aware of this, and try to be selective in whom they choose to have these children with. This is one of the Rudyard Kipling-like stories that sometimes are called sociobiology. For men and women to be this way, the argument goes, the mass-inseminator guys beat out all the other guys, so now men have these desires, too. Why women don’t get them passed on from their fathers is not explained, as there is actually absolutely no genetic evidence for this theory to begin with.
It suffers from a lot of problems, and I’m not going to write a book here, but one example might be useful: There is an assumption here that genes are passed on by the simple act of intercourse. But not all intercourse leads to pregnancy, and especially in prehistoric times it must have been incredibly hard for a woman to bring up baby to adulthood. Only adult children can pass the genes on in the next round, after all. So a man who flitted around like a butterfly from one flower to another might not have left behind many babies, after all. Maybe the man who stuck around, shared his food with the woman and protected and helped care for the child got at least as many of his genes passed on?
I might also point out that sperm is not as plentiful as has been assumed by the (predominantly male) evolutionary psychologists. Recent research shows that men’s sperm count declines quite rapidly with age, so that the biological clock is no longer seen as just a woman’s problem. It has also been found that Down Syndrome babies born to older mothers might not be because her eggs have grown old, but because older mothers tend to have older partners whose sperm appears to have many more anomalies than that of younger men.
IOW, to base rape on the men’s biological desire to spread their seed widely is not necessarily an established sort of scientific theory.
This comment was written by Echidne.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2004 at 12:12 pm
This workplace analogy is completely fallacious. Neither men nor women, employers or employees, experience pleasure from their jobs in the same way that they experience pleasure during sex. Sexual desire and the desire for a job are two seperate types of desire, and because women desire sexual pleasure, too, they don’t “possess sex,” or have control over the whole of sexuality.
And don’t try to tell me that women don’t like sex. I know plenty of women who lust after men, and other women, more than I do.
This comment was written by Corwin.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2004 at 12:41 pm
Great post, Amp; just excellent.
I will say that I think in some respects, Ilkka may have a point. Just potentially not the point he thinks he does. It is accepted, in Western societies and some others that women “own” sex. But this is a learned behaivior, not - I believe - genetically determined.
Men are taught that sex is something they seek from women and womon are - generally - taught that they are the ones to be asked and who can give permission. They are taught to protect their “virtue,” while waiting for just the right person to come along. This is a broad-brush statement, and behaviors and mores are changing, albeit slowly.
The answer, however, is one that Amp and some others have advocated, but which, like Ilkka doesn’t quite address the problem in the way they think it does. Teaching the equality of men and women (in this case, most especially in sexuallity). Equality of sexuality would not only have the goal of changing the perceived role of men, but of women as well.
What I’m trying to get to is that this change would result in both men and women learning that neither of them “owns” sexuality, but that it is something that can really only exist between two people. The Omega Man (or Woman) could not rightly be said to posses sexuality: that means something only in relation to another person.
Again, Amp, I think you’re on the right track here…
This comment was written by Charles2.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2004 at 1:51 pm
Admittedly, “Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap” is somewhat of an oversimplification. (I really didn’t expect anyone to take this as literally as Echidne!) It is better to simply say that for women, the consequences of sex are a much higher burden than they are to a man. Especially so in the prehistorical times with none of the help and welfare that the modern society offers, without which pregnancy is super-expensive.
Therefore, women have evolved to be more choosy on who they have sex with. Women who were less choosy had their children mostly with loser men, and their genetic lines disappeared countless millenia ago.
This strange idea that women want sex with men as much as men want sex with women… it simply goes so much against the common sense and all everyday observations of how the world really works that I really have to wonder what planet the people who claim such a thing actually live in. I guess Tom Cruise or Matt Damon could honestly believe it based on their personal experiences, but the real-life experiences of about, say, 99.999% of men have taught them very differently.
If women really want sex as much an men, they admittedly do quite an impressive job in hiding it. When we think of phenomena that occur in the sexual pairing process in the real world, they tend to be highly consistent with the hypothesis “women want sex less than men” and more or less inconsistent with the opposite hypothesis. I challenge anyone to come up with an example real-world phenomenon for which this does not hold in the level of the general population.
For starters, please explain the complete lack of