On victim-blaming and control
| November 10th, 2005It’s virtually a law of Internet discussion that any conversation about rape will turn into a debate about the need for women to keep themselves safe. The attitude that women have the responsibility to protect themselves from rape is, at the most generous reading, an uncritical acceptance of the idea that men cannot be prevented from raping. At its worst, it is yet another example of the way society makes women responsible for anything men dislike. And all the while, there is no acknowledgement that this is just the mechanism by which sexist men can benefit from rape without themselves committing it.
That women are sexual beyond the ways men wish them to be disturbs a certain kind of man. The fears that once kept female sexuality in check are gradually being eroded by social change and medical advances: fear of ostracism, fear of disease, fear of unwanted pregnancy. But fear of rape remains, and it can be a powerful weapon.
There was one piece of fall-out from the paratrooper incident that I didn’t mention. A family member learned that I’d gone back to the camp with a couple of men for sex. He had no reason to think anything non-consensual had happened, but he was horrified all the same. He told me that my behaviour was disgusting and that I should be ashamed of myself. Friends and other family members defended his attitude by pointing out what many people in the other thread pointed out - that I’d put myself at quite some risk.
That explanation failed to convince me. Disgust and shame are appropriate responses to moral wrongdoing, not foolhardy risk-taking. He was horrified that I’d allowed myself to be sexual in an unapproved way; the risk of rape was a justification, not his true motivation.
It shocks some people that I want sex and don’t want to submit to male authority. It shocks them even more that these two desires outweigh my fear of rape, so that I dare to gratify both by picking up paratroopers in a pub. The “prudent” suggestions for keeping myself safe always boil down to giving up sex (or at least, the kind of sex I’m interested in) or submitting to male authority.
These “solutions” might well have no effect on my risk of being raped. But even if they were guaranteed to protect me from all risk, they wouldn’t be worth it. I think I’d rather be raped than spend the rest of my life turning aside from what I wanted and settling for something less. I know I’d rather take risks than allow fear of rape to control my expression of my sexuality.
In my ideal world, men would not be tempted to commit rape. Sexual encounters would be handled with negotiation, not with one partner’s insistence on getting what he wants at the expense of another. Men would respect the desires of women to control what happens to their bodies, whether they’ve known each other for ten minutes or ten years.
And in my ideal world, the fear of rape could not be used as a justification for slut-shaming.
November 10th, 2005 at 9:45 am
The fears that once kept female sexuality in check are gradually being eroded by social change and medical advances: fear of ostracism, fear of disease, fear of unwanted pregnancy
This comment was written by TehSuck.Disease is now socially acceptable.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 10:27 am
Disease is now curable, controllable and preventable for the most part. The same goes for pregnancy.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 10:31 am
Nick,
Do you think there can be a difference between an candid discussion of what constitutes higher-risk behavior and lower-risk behavior, and slut-shaming? I’m honestly curious, because what I’ve seen in the commehts thread below seems to suggest that most of the people here don’t believe so: that in suggesting that some behaviors are higher risk than others, you are necessarily supporting the idea men cannot help but rape women, and that if a woman who puts hetself in a higher risk situation is raped, it’s her own fault. With the exception of the obvious trolls, it seemed to me that everyone who tried to discuss anything to do with the riskiness of the behavior was bending over backwards to make it clear that the riskiness of the behavior does not make the victim, or potential victim, responsible in any way.
I don’t think that anyone would suggest that pointing out that leaving your keys in your unlocked car is higher risk than not means that you’re necessarily supporting the idea that people can’t help but steal cars, and that if you do so its your own damned fault if your car is stolen. But maybe I’m wrong. Please feel free to tell me so. :)
And thanks for sharing your story and starting this discussion. I’m sure it’s helpful for all of us.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 10:46 am
I don’t think risk would be considered much of a factor if a guy had gone home with two anonymous women he picked up in a bar for sex, even if the women were physically bigger or stronger.
This comment was written by flyinfur.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 10:47 am
Nick,
You. ROCK.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 10:50 am
I think there’s a very fine line between suggesting caution and insisting people should only take those risks you would be willing to take. People take risks for reasons other than sheer recklessness or ignorance of the risk, and a lot of the “you should be more careful” type of advice doesn’t take that into account.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 10:56 am
ADS–but there’s one key difference between “pointing out” that leaving your keys in your unlocked car is higher-risk and that [insert behavior here--walking alone at night, drinking with male friends, dating men you don't know well, etc] is higher-risk. You don’t really lose anything by *not* leaving your keys in your unlocked car. Ditto with putting on a seatbelt when you drive, or most of the other analogies used in the other thread.
However, all measures that people oh-so-helpfully suggest women take to lower their risk of rape *do* cause women to lose something–each one is an ever-tighter constriction on the life that women can lead. If I can’t walk alone at night, I can’t go to gym or out to happy hour with coworkers or to check out a new museum after work. If I don’t ever put myself alone in a room with a man I’m dating, I can’t have any sort of sexual experience. THAT’S what some of us find so frustrating about the conversation. I concede that it’s possible there are a set of actions that lower one particular woman’s chance of stranger rape. However, to talk about that set of actions without acknowledging the burdens it would impose on women–and whether those burdens are an acceptable price to pay for being fractionally safer–is either being blind or is accepting that women shouldn’t be able to live full lives.
This comment was written by AB.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 11:11 am
Oh, and the other thing: people in the other thread, despite bending over backwards to say they weren’t blaming Nick, weren’t talking in generalities about things women can do to be safer. They were examining what Nick did, and hypothesizing about what Nick *should* have done. Which, even if you accept that Nick’s choices created a higher risk of rape than other choices would have, still assumes that (a) Nick is not intelligent enough to realize the risks inherent in those choices, or (b) Nick can recognize the risks, but is unable to balance the potential risk with her needs and desires and decide what makes the most sense for her.
I mean, there are a lot of risk reduction techniques people could use for a whole host of things, but choose not to. And it seems the only times that someone is criticized for choosing not to employ risk reduction techniques is when other people can’t see why any rational person wouldn’t: that is, when there is no drawback to taking an action to lower risk (installing a fire alarm in their house, getting tested for STDs, looking both ways before crossing the street). In cases where someone has to make a decision about assuming risk, and choosing the least risky method entails sacrificing something important, most people are loath to second-guess those choices by “recommending” someone should make a different choice in the future.
This comment was written by AB.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 11:34 am
Rape is a social control — whether it is stranger or aquaintance rape. It is more like an act of terrorism than it is an act of crime. Especially when you add in the factors of people’s good intentions of focusing primarily on what women can do or not do to prevent it from happening to them (as individuals). Rape, however, is not a singular act. It is not a singular abuse perpetrated by one person and played out on another person’s body. It is a socially condoned use of force that works to control women’s sexuality and women’s role in the social fabric. If you doubt that, read up a little on the rapes in the Congo. Rape is interwoven in how young men are socialized about their sexual role, about their need to be aggressive, to expect women to resist their charms, to give the woman sex because she will in turn give him love. That right there is the recipie for rape.
So no. Talking about women’s risk taking is akin to asking the men who worked for the WTO in the Trade Towers whether they had adequately figured the risk of terrorist attack, and shouldn’t they perhaps work in a different building. Or a different job. Or work from home. Or not be so blatent about whom the worked for. Perhaps if these men had simple been bankers, for say Wachovia, they would have been safer. Or perhaps they should be elementary school teachers — yes the pay and prestige would be less, but then so too would be the level of acceptable risk associated with terrorist acts.
Continually focusing on what women should or should not do actually points to the clear outline of our rape society — we have no problem suggesting that women curtail their freedom of choice or movement. We have no problem suggesting to women that public space is well, not quite so public for them because they might get raped, and then we can of course hold them responsible for being so naive as to think they can enjoy parks, streets, midnight walks in the same way that the average man can. Heaven forbid if a woman wants to walk to the public library after dark, by herself… she should know (especially if she is an adult) that such freedom is not reserved for her. And heaven forbid if she wants to be sexual in the ways that she wants to be sexual.
Folks on the other thread were adamant that they would tell off their male friends if they were sexually careless… but the proof is in the pudding folks. Rape is still happening. So obviously there aren’t damn many of you actually talking to your male buddies about the careless and foolish (and criminal) things they are doing with their dicks. Either you’re lying to yourself, or you simply refuse to believe that the men you know are capable of rape.
We can talk until we are blue in the face about what is an appropriate level of risk that a “normal” and “sane” woman should take. And each time we raise the bar, and don’t bother to check men’s behavior, then what passes for normal and sane and risk free gets narrower and narrower and narrower. Women aren’t the problem here. Women’s choices aren’t the problem.
What needs to be addressed is the social benefits that men garner in a rape society and why we continue to aggressively sexualize men on the far end of the rape continuum. Women’s risk taking doesn’t amount to a heap of shit in the cult of masculinity. Women’s risk taking is meaningless when women are objectified.
Until our society can grasp the concept of male responsibility for the rape culture we live in, then any other conversations amount to victim blaming.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Well, whatever.
I ride horses. In August, I fell off one and broke my arm.
People who ride fall off all the time. Experts fall off all the time, and sometimes they’re killed. That’s the reality of the situation.
So. There are bad men in the world. We all wish there weren’t, but there are. (Bad women too, but that’s not the issue here.) There have always been bad people, and there probably always will be, until Messiah comes (0r comes again, according to your view).
I wish my horse in particular were a bit more tractable than she is. I also wish there weren’t bad men in the world. Whether you ride, or pick up men in bars, is all about risk. If you’re willing to bear the risk, you can ride horses, ski, ride motorcycles, pick up men in bars, cross the street, you name it. No blame.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Oh, by the way, I’ve taken plenty of blame and criticism for riding since I broke my arm. It’s all my own fault and all that, and in one sense it is I guess.
But I’m not staying up at night worrying about it.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
I’m not sure what you are trying to say Susan. Are you comparing rape to an accident. Like in: the rapist’s penis just happened to fall into some random woman’s vagina?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
What needs to be addressed is the social benefits that men garner in a rape society and why we continue to aggressively sexualize men on the far end of the rape continuum.
Just exposing my ignorance here, but can someone point me to a good essay or explain the “social benefits that men garner in a rape society”?
This comment was written by trey.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
In a word Trey: dominance.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
Well, Q, rape isn’t an accident - from the rapist’s point of view, that is. However, it can be from the victim’s point of view like an accident, in that she certainly doesn’t intend it (by definition!) and it can be one of the risks attendant on some behaviors (like picking up strangers in bars).
My point is that we can rant and rave all we want, but there have always been criminals in the world, and probably always will be. Thus, leaving your purse or wallet unattended, your car unlocked in certain neighborhoods, your house unlocked in certain neighborhoods, on and on, increases your chances of being the victim of criminal behavior. So also, being raped if you go off into private places with men you don’t know.
Sad sad regrettable regrettable. Criminals are by definition bad people. If you give them the opportunity they might commit a crime on you.
But if you never drive anywhere lest someone may rear-end you, never leave home lest someone break in, never go to bars lest you get raped, never get up on a horse lest you fall off - well, life could get kind of dull. It’s OK to take risks. Probably inevitable. Everyone has their own level of comfort, risk-wise.
What’s your point? That rapists are criminals? Well, we knew that, right? Bad men. That we wish we didn’t have a certain number of criminals in our society? I’m totally with you. But, there you are.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Q grrl,
So as a gay male, I enjoy a dominant position in society (if I hide my sexuality) because other men rape women?
I know this is a patriarchal society and men enjoy a dominant position in it thusly…
but I was hoping for a bit more information that would lead to the understanding that “rape —–> male dominant society’ as opposed “male dominant society ——–> rape”.
This comment was written by trey.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
If that’s what you got out of what I said, you need to clean off your computer screen. Being deliberately obtuse is not a flattering look for you.
My point is that *all* men, regardless of moral badness or goodness, have been raised and sexualized into a rape culture. Until we address this, it does very, very little to parse out risk behaviors that women engage in.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Thanks, trey, for pointing out the obvious, which does sadly seem necessary on this thread.
Rape is a crime. Thus, rapists are criminals. Not all men (or women) are criminals; actually, happily, criminals are in the minority. Unless you have raped someone, trey, you are not a rapist, not that kind of criminal, even though you are a guy.
The vast majority of men, like the vast majority of women, are not criminals. That we do, sadly, have some criminals in this society (like all societies I know of) does not make this a criminal society. It just makes us normal. We actually have a fair number of murderers, our share at least, but that does not make this a murderous society, or at least, no more murderous than any other society.
I’m a bit tired of this relentless generalization of what is, after all, criminal behavior.
AND, there is no appropriate moral onus on picking up strangers in bars. Or on leaving your purse unattended. You just have to realize that you’re taking a risk. Risk is OK. All good.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Trey: I don’t have the time or the energy to educate you on this. There are copious threads right here at Alas! that discuss the benefits that men experience when socialized in a rape society. I also believe that if you were to take the time to really think about how rape (and the threat of rape) socializes girls and women you could begin to see for yourself how men benefit.
Again, rape is not so much an individual act, but a socially condoned act. As such, it matters little that you, personally, are a gay man. If you are not actively working to deconstruct a male sexuality founded on rape (virgin/whore dichotomy for women), then you are indeed benefiting from the fact that many men do rape. You are leaving the problem up to someone else because you believe it to be a private issue (I’m surmising here, because of your blindness to the social benefits to men of rape).
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Your saying this, Q, does not make it so. I disagree.
If being “obtuse” does not flatter me, anger isn’t your best look either.
Bad things happen. Among these bad things - not the worst - is rape. Human societies have always had a lengthy and ugly list of inappropriate behaviors, and this one is no exception. That does not make this a “rape culture” any more than our (rather high) murder rate makes this a “murder culture.” We just got some bad people, OK?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Trey–
One doesn’t hape to be a rapist to enjoy male privilege, any more than one has to be a KKK member to enjoy white privilege. Speaking as a white person who has never burned a cross on someone’s lawn, I can still recognize that that being white in a segregated society meant I attended a high school that was over 95% white–which also had a slew of AP classes (not offered at any of the majority-black or majority-Hispanic high schools in the area) that helped me get into college and win a nice little merit scholarship that knocked a third of the cost off tuition. Meaning I had fewer student loans to pay back, which has a direct bearing on my current standard of living.
Off the top of my head, I would say that regardless of your orientation, one benefit you receive from being a man in a rape culture is that you can choose to live in what people call “transitioning neighborhoods” for dirt cheap. Because I have to rely on public transportation, and I know I’ll be coming home from work past sundown for half of the year, I can’t. The very fact that up to half of the population would feel reservations about living in that neighborhood will drive rents down further than they would be if women were competing equally to live there.
I imagine that many men benefit in the workplace from women’s conditioning to “be nice” (because pissing men off can be a very, very dangerous mistake for us to make, particularly with men we don’t know well). If you’re debating with a coworker about the best method of doing X, she may back down when she sees you getting worked up–and you didn’t mean to scare her, you might not even be aware that she’s backing off because of your anger as opposed to agreeing with your logic, but there it is.
I’m sure others can come up with more examples.
This comment was written by AB.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Q,
Rape is “a socially condoned act”?? Come again? Rape is a crime, a felony in my jurisdiction, punishable by a long prison term. Where do you live?
I’m sure the numerous rapists in our state prisons would be entertained by your analysis. But not too much.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Your surmise is utterly wrong.
I am not asking you to educate me. you said we need it discuss this. i asked for a link from someone who might know where i can educate myself (instead of spending hours wading through the morass that is the internet). I’m getting antagonism.
This comment was written by trey.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
Susan,
Yes, rape is a socially condoned act. That is the reason why so many rapes go unreported. That is the reason why so few reported rapes are prosecuted. That is the reason why so few prosecuted rapes result in a conviction. That is the reason why convicted rapists serve very short sentences. That is the reason why, when a woman is raped, people immediately tell her what she did wrong. That is the reason why raping your wife has been legal until very recently.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Trey,
Look through the Alas! categories (bottom of the side bar) under the “rape…” heading. You will find the explanations that you want in the posts & comments there.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Sorry Trey for the antagonism.
Can you think of ways in which men benefit from rape? Do you think that the threat of rape curtails women’s freedom of movement and choice, and if so, how do men benefit from this? Do men benefit from women feeling threatened in public space — do men have better employment opportunities, access to resources, access to recreation, access to politics, access to legislative opportunities because women are threatened with rape if they use public space in the same way men do? How do you think that “uppity” women react when threatened with rape? How do you think “strong” women react when threatened with rape? Do you think there is a direct social impact on the presence (and freedom) of women in public becuase of the universal threat of rape that exists?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
trey,
Q seems angry. To say the least.
Let’s try again.
Q, I’m with trey. Can you explain to both of us (1) why and how exactly is this a “rape society” (with special attention to how I, a very successful professional 60 year old woman, managed to completely miss this feature of the society I was born into and have lived in all my life), (2) how exactly I have been oppressed by all this, and (3) what we are supposed to do about it?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Thanks, Q, you were posting while I was posting.
1. “do men have better employment opportunities, access to resources, access to recreation, access to politics, access to legislative opportunities because women are threatened with rape if they use public space in the same way men do?”
Not so that I can tell. I am able to and have beaten most men on their own ground. I’m not unusually anything much, except that I may be smarter than most. Most of my professional work, like almost everyone in my profession (law) happens on the phone or in court. Hard to see much rape threat there.
(2) “How do you think that “uppity” women react when threatened with rape? How do you think “strong” women react when threatened with rape?”
I’m uppity and strong, I guess. (If I’m not, who is?) I’ve never felt threatened with rape, so I don’t know how I’d react. How would a strong man react to a threat of robbery? Most men don’t know, because it doesn’t happen very often. So also here.
(3) “Do you think there is a direct social impact on the presence (and freedom) of women in public becuase of the universal threat of rape that exists?”
No. Not so far as I can tell. I go where I please when I please, so far as I can see. I don’t prowl about the inner city at 2 am, but no man in his senses does either. I just don’t see the difference.
I’m not trying to diss you, Q, but I just don’t understand what you’re saying. I’ve lived a long life here (so far) and I just don’t see the threats or the disadvantages you’re talking about. It’s an interesting argument that I’m horribly oppressed without knowing it, but to me, not real convincing.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Susan Brownmiller’s “Against our Will”
also Googling “rape culture”
reading any contemporary arguments about why women should not be in combat will illuminate many of the male benefits. Full citizenship and all that nonesense.
Susan: I will pass on giving you special dispensation because of your very successfullness. But congratulations on honing your patronizing skills. For you, I recommend doing some research on the rapes that have been occurring in the Congo over the last several years — especially keep in mind the lack of US military or governmental intervention, contrasting this with US response to Iraq and Afghanistan, especially with US “outrage” over burkhas, etc.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Susan: the problem is, as I pointed out to Trey, that it isn’t a problem of “individuals” and what has happened to you (or not happened to you). Are you saying that women are not socialized to fear stranger rape and that this socialization doesn’t work to curtail women’s choices and freedom? If you are saying this, why the hell were we hanging black men in the South for a great deal of the last century? Are you also saying that the constant news stories about Amber Alerts and kidnapped girls and women, don’t have a negative impact on women’s choices? on what girls can and cannot do?
What gated community do you live in, and do they let bottom feeders like me in?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Q,
1. “Are you saying that women are not socialized to fear stranger rape and that this socialization doesn’t work to curtail women’s choices and freedom?”
Yes. That’s what I’m saying.
2. “If you are saying this, why the hell were we hanging black men in the South for a great deal of the last century?”
And this has what to do with the subject of our discussion? Weird. You totally lost me on this one.
3. “Are you also saying that the constant news stories about Amber Alerts and kidnapped girls and women, don’t have a negative impact on women’s choices? on what girls can and cannot do?”
Yes, I’m saying that too. I’m a woman with two daughters and two granddaughters. I think I know what I’m talking about.
4. “What gated community do you live in, and do they let bottom feeders like me in?”
I live in Oakland, California, a city with one of the highest crime rates in the nation. You are not a bottom-feeder. But yes, everyone is welcome here.
Where do you live? Is it really so much more dangerous a place than Oakland? Maybe you should move?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
But congratulations on honing your patronizing skills.
Dude.
When Qgrrl calls you patronizing . . .
Duuuuude.
This comment was written by Anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
Q, sorry I missed this one in my last reply.
But….what’s going on or not going on in the Congo is relevant to our situation here how? Another one from left field. You got me there.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
(smile) Thanks, Anonymous.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
No. Not so far as I can tell. I go where I please when I please, so far as I can see. I don’t prowl about the inner city at 2 am, but no man in his senses does either. I just don’t see the difference.
Really?? There are bars I’ve been warned off of, but guys haven’t been, because they aren’t “safe” for women. I’ve been told that I’m opening myself up to assualt when I drive alone at night, walk alone at night, and travel by myself. There are places where we “shouldn’t” be, walk alone in, and avoid.
I took a walk in the wooded area of a park near my parents house once. A couple of guys came up behind me, and I panicked and got out of there. They took great offense–but then again, if they’d turned out to be assholes who assaulted me, I would have been told that I was stupid for going into a wooded area alone.
I do the key thing. I don’t get into an elevator if it means I’ll be alone with a guy I don’t know. I don’t invite first dates in for coffee–and I was routinely dismissed by people I knew as paranoid for this. Then again, some of these same people said that a woman who’d been raped on a date was being stupid for doing the very same thing that they thought I should do.
If Q sounds angry, then you can count me in with her. Because I am really, truly, sick of this BS. We can’t win.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
Susan,
Over on the other thread, Richard Bellamy talked about how he plans to teach his daughters to avoid being alone with a man whenever possible. Richard seems like a pretty normal person, and his plans don’t seem particularly bizarre for our culture. Rachel Ann talks about how she avoids ever spending time alone with men not her family (either single men or groups). While she primarily does this for religious/cultural reasons, she clearly feels that this makes her safer and wouldn’t be a bad idea for others to do to.
So are you saying people don’t do those things, Richard and Rachel Ann are freaks, or that that isn’t socializing women to fear stranger rape, or that avoiding being alone with men does not curtail social or professional opportunities? I’m puzzled.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Well, Sheelzebub, what can I say. If you’re afraid of certain bars, what can I say, you and I don’t probably live in the same place, so I can’t evaluate it. I don’t go to bars a lot, but when I do, I go where I want to go. No one has ever told me not to, and I’ve never had a bad experience. Except overpriced under-concocted drinks. And what the Brits call “pub grub.” (Yuck.)
I have no idea whether you’re unsafe driving alone at night. (Where do you live?) I do it all the time. Also walk alone. Also travel by myself, all the time. Are these things unsafe? How do I know? Nothing’s ever happened to me, at least, and no one ever told me I shouldn’t do any of these things. I can’t answer for what you were “told.” (By whom?)
You panicked when approached by two guys in a park. OK. I’m sort of at a loss. “Should” you have panicked? How the heck do I know? I walk around alone in parks on two continents, not to mention the utter wilderness, all by myself, all the time. Maybe I need better advice? I don’t know what to say.
I ride elevators all the time, since so much of my work is in high rise office buildings. I have, all my adult life. (How else do I get there? Climb 43 flights of stairs?) I can’t remember looking to see who was or was not in there when I got in. No bad thing has ever happened. You’re the first one, actually, to mention this to me.
Well, if you’re angry, maybe you have good reasons to be angry. How can I say? On the other hand, maybe you’re starting at shadows.
You’ve listed a lot of alleged dangers, about which you were “told.” But…what if no one “told” you? What if the whole thing is made up? How do I know?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
I’m puzzled too.
No one ever told me to “avoid being alone with a man.” Maybe I just missed that one? On the other hand, how could I practice law using that rule, given that so many of my clients, so many of my opposing counsel, so many of my co-counsel, are men?
I don’t know Richard and Rachel, so I have no idea whether they are “freaks” or not. I do know that no woman can function in the business world while keeping this lunatic rule, but … hey, OK. I guess.
What’s your point here? That if someone or other (”John and Mary”) taught their son never to be alone with any woman, that that’s normative? Or that it wouldn’t constrict his professional life? (It would, big time. He couldn’t function.) Or that that’s OK somehow, and that would be why? Or that these people said this proved…what?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Susan,
Also, have you really never heard a man comment on how some woman is an uptight bitch who could really use a good fuck? Have you never heard anyone joke about how someone who they didn’t like who was going to prison shouldn’t bend over to pick up the soap in the shower? Both of those are examples of rape as socially condoned social control.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Florida case several years back in which a judge through out a rape case because the woman who was raped was wearing a lace skirt without underwear. Do you not consider that to be socially condoned rape as a means of controlling women’s clothing choices? What do you think was going on there?
And yes, if you absolutely insist, I’ll find a link for that case, but surely the idea that such a thing would happen does not strike you as unlikely?
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
I think a lot of the questions about just what kind of society, exactly, we live in can be answered by the fact that most of us seemingly read this…
I think I’d rather be raped than spend the rest of my life turning aside from what I wanted and settling for something less.
…without stopping to consider what a fucked-up choice that is. That it’s a risk assessment many women have to make (not exclusively in a sexual context; women sometimes have to make employment choices or decisions of conscience, e.g. testifying as a witness or against an assailant, under the threat of rape) and that we accept such a statement without recoiling with shock is telling, no?
This comment was written by Shakes Sis.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
You’ve listed a lot of alleged dangers, about which you were “told.” But…what if no one “told” you? What if the whole thing is made up? How do I know?
You know, Susan, I’ve been trying to be civil, and put the bitchery on hold. Well fuck it. You’re acting like a patronizing assclown. Drop it. What if everything you’re saying is made up? How do I know? Perhaps I can just tell you you’re full of shit and dismiss you, the way you’ve done to me. Your experiences certainly don’t jibe with those of the majority of women who’ve been posting here.
So maybe I can take your tack and just tell you that maybe you’re making it up, what can I say, how do I know? How fucking passive-agressive pseudo civil can you get?
I lived in Japan, a nation that prides itself on its safety. But I was still exhorted to stay out of certain areas of the city after ten, and other areas of the city altogether. People insisted there was no rape there–but it was unsafe for women to go out in certain neighborhoods or stay out late. I still did, but I did get hassled at times, and there were assaults you’d hear about. Same when I lived in England (sans the insistence that it was known for being a safe country). You aren’t the only one who’s been to different continents.
As for your comments about what I was “told”–maybe you’re just deaf. Every time the news covers another woman who was assaulted, everyone I know talks about what she did, where she went, and how she could have done things differently.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Charles,
1. “Also, have you really never heard a man comment on how some woman is an uptight bitch who could really use a good fuck?”
No. Actually, I haven’t.
2. “Have you never heard anyone joke about how someone who they didn’t like who was going to prison shouldn’t bend over to pick up the soap in the shower?”
No.
3. “Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Florida case several years back in which a judge through out a rape case because the woman who was raped was wearing a lace skirt without underwear. Do you not consider that to be socially condoned rape as a means of controlling women’s clothing choices? What do you think was going on there?”
I am not familiar with that case. I have not read the case report (if any), and so I cannot comment. Your report may be accurate, or it may not be. I can’t tell, with this amount of “information.”
4. “And yes, if you absolutely insist, I’ll find a link for that case, but surely the idea that such a thing would happen does not strike you as unlikely?”
On your “evidence” such as it is, I find it quite likely. Injustices and screw-ups happen in our court systems daily, since they are administered by human beings. Proving that this one case was badly handled will prove just that: that this case was badly handled. Nothing more. Go ahead and find the cite if you wish, but if I were you, I wouldn’t bother.
It would be like citing the OJ Simpson case to prove that we sanction murder. We don’t, but we don’t always handle every case well. When you find a legal system that does, please, don’t hesitate to tell us where it is.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
wow, susan is made of steel.
a couple weeks ago a woman was pulled off the bike path near my house- the bike path that i’m on almost every day- at around 8:45 at night, and raped in some nearby bushes. i know that stranger rape is rare. i know that i ride pretty fast on my bike, and it wouldn’t be that easy to keep up with me on foot. i know it’s pretty unlikely that the same guy (or even another) is going to do that in the same place. however, as i was watching the news, i still thought to myself ‘damn, should i be careful about going through there after dark?’ (and dark now arrives before the workday is done.) i’m not going to stop using the bike path, but i can guarantee you that for a little while at least, i’m going to think about that rape every time i go through that particular intersection, especially since the guy hasn’t been caught. i don’t think i’m unreasonable. i think my reaction is normal, and i know that lots of women all over the city are thinking the same as me- and probably some of them are changing their behavior- driving instead of taking the path, waiting to leave with another person, etc. this is one little thing, and these little things all add up. this is how rape affected me just in the last 2 weeks. (and i’m also thinking there aren’t a lot of men who are worried about taking the path- and now it’s even clearer- fewer women!)
i don’t understand how susan has escaped all this… but i don’t remember oakland being so idyllic when i was there 2 months ago. there’s something to be said about being determined, and it’s great to be unaffected by threats, but there’s reasonable determination, and then there’s being a rock. and even if you don’t notice it, how can you deny that most women do experience this?
This comment was written by jane.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Can you think of ways in which men benefit from rape? in some vague ways, but let me answer these questions and see if it can be clarified by answering them
Do you think that the threat of rape curtails women’s freedom of movement and choice, and if so, how do men benefit from this?
Oh god yes. I’ll take an analogy, the threat of violence curtails my movements as a gay male. I tend not walk in certain areas alone and _definitely_ worry about showing affection to my partner. I’ve even worry about being a SS-headed household in some areas. I know my female friends have a much more limited range of freedom.
Do men benefit from women feeling threatened in public space … do men have better employment opportunities, access to resources, access to recreation, access to politics, access to legislative opportunities because women are threatened with rape if they use public space in the same way men do?
Yes, I can see this, though I guess the point I need more information on is how rape is the main culprit in the limited access to employment opportunities, resources, legislative opportunities. It seems the social acceptance of rape stems from male dominance and not necessarily vice versa (though the more I think about it, the more the two become intertwined)
How do you think that “uppity” women react when threatened with rape? How do you think “strong” women react when threatened with rape?
not sure what this is exactly asking.
Do you think there is a direct social impact on the presence (and freedom) of women in public becuase of the universal threat of rape that exists?
in a word, yes. My first inclination is to believe that the legal and social strictures against women had/have to be eliminated to. but it really is getting to become a question of chicken/egg to me right now… dominence leads to rape, rape leads to dominance.
either way, both need to be eliminated. post haste.
and to the question above, about ‘uppity’ and ’strong’ women. As a gay male with a partner raising a almost 4 year old ‘uppity/strong’ girl and possibly soon adding two more uppity/strong daughters to the mix (possibility of adopting a 10 yo and a 2yo in the next few months), i am _sincerely_ interested in all this discussion.
till now, i hope you understand why, race and our family structure have been much more pressing issues (because of societal reaction) to educate ourselves and tackle on a personal basis (I am ‘white’, partner is latino/white, daughter is AA, soon-to-be-maybe daughters are mixed race)… gender is important, extremely, but its our race and family structure that has had the most blatant rejection…
but how to raise three women the best possible way in our society is foremost in our thoughts.
This comment was written by trey.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Oh, I get Susan’s tactic. She sticks her fingers in her ears and sings LALALALALALALALA NOOOOO I’VE NEVER EXPERIENCED THAAAATTTT.
Here’s a ticket to the clue train for you, Susan. Most women have heard the “uptight bitch” BS. I do remember that case in Florida. And I remember a recent case in Orange County where the rape survivor, who was gang raped while passed out, was slut-baited, accused of raping the assailants, and stalked. I remember a case near where I lived when a woman was gang-raped on a pool table in a bar, with the patrons cheering. She was blamed for it–she shouldn’t have been there. And yes, Susan, she was blamed for it. Even if you had your fingers in your ears and didn’t listen and refused to hear it.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Sheelzebub,
I’ve never been to Japan, and I have no idea what the social system there may be.
I’ve been to England, and have spent considerable time in Scotland, since I have a daughter who lives there. And of course I’ve lived in California all my life. So I do think I know what’s going on here.
And this furthers our conversation how?
My experience is my experience. I can’t be responsible for your experiences, or anyone else’s. (So far as you’ve said, your experiences - as opposed to your anxieties - correspond closely with my own.) I think I have as much right to explain my experiences and perceptions as you do, as anyone else does.
(And if not, why not?)
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
however, susan does seem to have found one way out of the blame-the-victim vs. feeling-helpless dichotomy i brought up on the other thread: just pretend it’s not happening! smile, and go cheerfully on your way!
This comment was written by jane.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
One doesn’t hape to be a rapist to enjoy male privilege, any more than one has to be a KKK member to enjoy white privilege. Speaking as a white person who has never burned a cross on someone’s lawn,
that isn’t my question really AB. I KNOW I enjoy white and male privilege. I know it in a very and deeply personal ways i won’t elaborate on. That is NOT a question. My question was whether dominance gave rise to a ‘rape culture’ or a ‘rape culture’ gave rise to dominence.. am I enjoying the privileges of a ‘rape culture’ or a culture of dominence? (though as you might see from the earlier comment, I’m starting to think there is no either/or in that)
This comment was written by trey.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
wow, susan is made of steel.
Nope, just a troll.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Susan,
Quick answers:
Yes (if enough people do it). No. No. In a group of less then 100 posters on a liberal blog, 2 advocate teaching girls to avoid spending time alone with men. Several others come close. This suggests that this position (while actually practiced by very few, since it does as you say make life virtually impossible to live) is not particularly uncommon to teach.
As you say, this position (women shouldn’t go to bars, walk alone at night, spend time alone with men) is crippling and destructive (and actually not particularly good protection either). That is my point. That is QGrrl’s point. That is part of how rape is used as social control. The people doing the social controlling don’t actually need to rape. They don’t need to approve of rape. They merely need to use the fear of rape to control women’s actions. And they don’t need to be conscious that that is what they are doing.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Trey: I think of rape as the tool, not the outcome of dominance.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
1. “Most women have heard the “uptight bitch” BS.”
I wasn’t asked whether “most women” have heard this. (How would I know?) I’m just saying I haven’t, which is what I was asked. Ya wanna tell me I have? How would you know?
2. “I do remember that case in Florida. And I remember a recent case in Orange County where the rape survivor, who was gang raped while passed out, was slut-baited, accused of raping the assailants, and stalked. I remember a case near where I lived when a woman was gang-raped on a pool table in a bar, with the patrons cheering.”
Well, I haven’t heard about any of these cases, which doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. Miscarriages of justice happen every single day. This is news?
I repeat, if you-all know of a legal system that works properly every time, please, do not hesitate to let us know where that is.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Susan, don’t go pulling this passive-aggressive crap. You came off as patronizing. Oh, and seeing as how I lived in England and Japan, I think I know what’s going on there too. How ’bout that.
But to paraphrase you–telling me that I could be making everything I said up furthers the conversation. . .how?
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
A good way to see this is by viewing TV. One of the top leading storylines (other than murder) is rape. And we call it entertainment and innocuous. Rape as entertainment. Who woulda thunk?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
My experience is my experience. I can’t be responsible for your experiences, or anyone else’s. (So far as you’ve said, your experiences - as opposed to your anxieties - correspond closely with my own.) I think I have as much right to explain my experiences and perceptions as you do, as anyone else does.
(And if not, why not?)
Nice red herring. Fry it up for your lunch. I never said you can’t give your perceptions or experiences. I called you out on saying that I could be making mine up.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
I find myself wondering if this is the same commenter from the rape thread a while back There is the same utter lack of understanding of what other commenters have written, there is the same denial. The only new thing is the passive-agressive, sophmoric “How would I know? How do I know you’re telling the truth? Maybe none of you are real. Maybe you are all just figments of my imagination, ” nonsense. The only thing that is missing is the “y’all” in every comment. I suspect she’s back and here to troll. Ignore her (hard as that can be) and maybe there can actually be useful discussion.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
1. “Also, have you really never heard a man comment on how some woman is an uptight bitch who could really use a good fuck?”
No. Actually, I haven’t.
2. “Have you never heard anyone joke about how someone who they didn’t like who was going to prison shouldn’t bend over to pick up the soap in the shower?”
No.
Really? I’m not trying to faceticious Susan, but these two scenarios seem extremely common to me. I don’t hear the first very often any more, but used to ALL the time in my earlier days.. though I have to say, I heard it on TV just a couple months ago in a sitcom as a joke (can’t remember which one) somewhere along the lines of “She’s so uptight.. she just needs sex” (a milder but no less obnoxious sentiment than ‘the uptight bitch needs a good fuck”)
the second I swear I hear nearly every time the word ‘prison’ is used in a conversation.. that along with ‘he’ll become somone’s bitch’ etc, etc.
i’m not doubting your experiences, but living in this society I’m surprise you’ve never heard them.
This comment was written by trey.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
I’d agree. If girls are told this, it’s crippling. No one should say this to anyone.
I’m just saying that I was never told this, and I don’t know anyone who was. Girls who were told this shouldn’t have been.
I don’t know where you-all are. I grew up in Los Angeles; now I practice law in Oakland. I’m pretty ordinary, really. I drive around, I go to bars, I walk in parks, all that.
I was never told any of this. I’m not “pretending”, I just never heard of anything about it. You here are the first time I’ve encountered this mind-set. I’m not made of steel, neither am I a troll. I’m just puzzled.
We’re all fine out here,so far as I can tell. I’m 60 years old. No one ever told me about this whole thing, so I never knew about it. Elevators? Ya gotta be kidding!! Parks? Bars? I just missed this whole thing. Maybe no one dared to make the “uptight bitch” comment to me? Gosh, I just don’t know.
What you-all seem to be saying is that my experience isn’t valid because it doesn’t correspond to your idea of what my experience “should have” been. I’d suggest that this is just a tad out of line? If your experience is valid, so is mine.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
trey,
I don’t have time to watch TV. This is the answer maybe?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
susan, the only anwer could be that your head has been in a big box of sand for 60 years. or that you’re lying.
This comment was written by jane.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
trey,
I don’t have time to watch TV. This is the answer maybe?
no, not really. I just used the tv as an example of what is in our culture, most of the comments I hear have been from real live people.
This comment was written by trey.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
I don’t know where you-all are.
Damn! (pats self on back) I was actually right. She’s already proven, over an extended dialogue, that there is no use trying to talk to her.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Trey: I think of rape as the tool, not the outcome of dominance.
I can see that, though I am not quite clear on it yet. guess I could ask it this way.. Would getting rid of male dominance get rid of rape? or Would getting rid of rape get rid of male dominence. Again, coming down to a personal level, I’m not sure what this means to two men raising three girls, but after reading some more, maybe I’ll come back to the discussion if i think it will help me.
This comment was written by trey.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
Susan wrote “I’m a bit tired of this relentless generalization of what is, after all, criminal behavior.”
Well…I’m tired of the relentless generalization of what is after all, normal *human* behavior…that is, characterizing as risk FOR WOMEN, behavior that the rest of humanity is free to participate in without it being seen as somehow “tempting fate” or “careless” or any of the other blame the victim ways it’s described.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
Well, jane, how would I know about the sand.
I was born in 1945. I went to elementary school and high school in the Los Angeles area; I went to college up here in SF Bay Area. I hold an MA in History and a doctorate in law.
I’ve worked all over. As a clerk and a grub worker right out of school; as an attorney after grad school. I have four children, three grandchildren so far. I’m still married to the same guy I married in 1966.
I’m a partner in a downtown law firm now. Our youngest child is a daughter, now 21.
I don’t know how big a bucket of sand it would take, but maybe you’re right. But I’m not lying, that I’m sure of.
I don’t know where you are, jane. Maybe it’s geography? Or not watching TV? (Who has time?) Or maybe I’m just dense?
What I’m not willing to accept is the idea that because my experience doesn’t correspond to the Politically Correct Experience here, I’m a liar. Maybe you-all don’t know everything? Just a thought.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
What you-all seem to be saying is that my experience isn’t valid because it doesn’t correspond to your idea of what my experience “should have” been.
Well, no reason to hide it any longer. This is exactly what happened last time Susan commented on a rape thread. The next thing out of her keyboard will probably be something about the “prevailing orthodoxy.”
Go on, Susan, get it out of your system. Or, if you want, I can just find that tattered old thread & link to it so that your responses to this post will have already been written. Think about how much time that will save! If you really exist.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Trey: I’m not sure that there is a direct correlation between ending rape with the ending of male dominance. I would guess that rape would no longer play such a large role in socializing women and would become more of the abberrant crime it should be.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
What you-all seem to be saying is that my experience isn’t valid because it doesn’t correspond to your idea of what my experience “should have” been. I’d suggest that this is just a tad out of line? If your experience is valid, so is mine.
You’re the one who told me I could be making my experiences up. Or that I could be cringing at shadows. Odd how you can dish it out but can’t take it.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
I actually think that as bad as rape-fear and rape itself are here in the USA, it’s probably pretty good compared to other cultures. I lived in S America in my twenties where men CONSTANTLY followed me in the street, said disgusting things and even touched me a few times. I mean EVERY day, even when I was very pregnant. Most of the women there shrugged it off, but many of them curtailed their walking around alone time as much as possible. There was something so menacing, so hostile about it. I have never gotten that here.
I know what Susan is trying to say: calm down. It is a lot about perception. Yes, the danger that a sick psycho will attack you is there, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t jut put things into perspective. Don’t let the fear take over your life, it’s worse than the crime itself. That said, It’s not so terrible to have to be careful. Men have to be careful too. They are assaulted much more often than women are, although there’s not that cultural fear of your whole life being ruined from a rape.
But that’s why we are lucky to live here and now- despite the bullshit, rape in our country no longer “ruins” a woman. It doesn’t have the power it once had.
I hope we can keep doing a good job of telling our daughters that it’s not them, it’s the creeps- not men, creeps.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Sheelszbub,
I never said you were making your experiences up. I just pointed out that nothing in fact happened in the incident you related.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Susan said: What I’m not willing to accept is the idea that because my experience doesn’t correspond to the Politically Correct Experience here, I’m a liar. Maybe you-all don’t know everything? Just a thought.
Pretty ironic for someone who told me this:
Well, if you’re angry, maybe you have good reasons to be angry. How can I say? On the other hand, maybe you’re starting at shadows.
You’ve listed a lot of alleged dangers, about which you were “told.” But…what if no one “told” you? What if the whole thing is made up? How do I know?
Happy passive-aggressive day, Susan.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Uh, it’s not so much about the fear. It’s about how one segment of the population is wililng to manipulate fear and use threats of physical violation in order to maintain their dominance.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Crap! I missed that one. “Prevailing orthodoxy” is now “Politically Correct Experience.” Well, 50% isn’t bad - better than my usual prognosticory history.
Well, I wouldn’t know whether Susan is really a 24 yr-old ex-frat boy w/ an unhealthy interest in rape. But that could just be my experience. I don’t know whether Susan is just an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards. All I know is that I’m here and I can’t see or hear or smell any of you. Maybe I’m in a coma and you are all my dream. All I can know for sure is what I perceive. The accumulated experiences of 10s or 100s or millions of others has no influence on me. Only my experience is valid. I don’t know what any of you are talking about. Leave me alone! Why did you come into my space if this is how you’re going to treat me. You’re all horrible people of the Politically Correct Experience Prevailing Orthodoxy.
Whew. Maybe I’ve got that out of my system now. Not productive, but fulfilling nonetheless.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
Jake, cool it off. Sorry my experiences don’t correspond to your ideas of what they should be. I assume from your name that you’re male. Your reaction is an example of how men shouldn’t control women how? You’re even ready to tell me what my experiences are!!
You SO know better than I do, right? Yes, Massah!
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Jake, I’ll send you a picture if you want. You have my real email address. Check it out.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
I never said you were making your experiences up. I just pointed out that nothing in fact happened in the incident you related.
Yes you did.
You’ve listed a lot of alleged dangers, about which you were “told.” But…what if no one “told” you? What if the whole thing is made up? How do I know?
And nothing happening in those experiences I told you about doesn’t negate the fear or the so-called conventional wisdom about women and safety. The prevailing point–that women are kept under control by fear and intimidation still stands.
But go on. I’m just dying to hear about the prevailing orthodoxy again. I just love me some reruns!
Elena said: I know what Susan is trying to say: calm down. It is a lot about perception. Yes, the danger that a sick psycho will attack you is there, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t jut put things into perspective.
Oddly enough, in the thread that Nick referenced, people were taking the opposite tack and berating her for not being paranoid enough. Again, we can’t win for losing.
Perhaps the two sides can have a little conference and get their stories straight.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
Jake, cool it off. Sorry my experiences don’t correspond to your ideas of what they should be. I assume from your name that you’re male. Your reaction is an example of how men shouldn’t control women how? You’re even ready to tell me what my experiences are!!
Oh, how she dishes it out. Oh, how she whines when it’s served right back to her.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
I just thought this needed repeating.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
All I know is that I’m here and I can’t see or hear or smell any of you. Maybe I’m in a coma and you are all my dream. All I can know for sure is what I perceive. The accumulated experiences of 10s or 100s or millions of others has no influence on me. Only my experience is valid. I don’t know what any of you are talking about. Leave me alone! Why did you come into my space if this is how you’re going to treat me. You’re all horrible people of the Politically Correct Experience Prevailing Orthodoxy.
You are in a VR consensual hallucination generated by the Politically Correct Prevailing Orthodoxy, LLC. You are one of the charecters in this hallucination. I know you can’t smell anyone, but the people who pay to enter can smell each other. If they want. We at the PCPO don’t want to know–just pay up and use the hour.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Solipsism, they name is Susan.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
[...] Alas, A Blog: On Victim-Blaming and Control [...]
This comment was written by Feministe » Links and Links.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Q, try again, your message doesn’t make sense.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
Susan,
The point is the fear and how it restricts (and where it comes from and why).
As far as I can tell, you don’t disagree with anyone here that rape happens. You don’t disagree with anyone here that if something bad happens to you, people will tell you that you were stupid to doing whatever it is they think allowed it to happen to you (although do you really think that 20 year old men who are in horse accidents are told they are stupid to ride horse back? You don’t think your age or your sex has any influence on what response you get?). You don’t disagree that you should generally ignore people who tell you stuff like that, and that you shouldn’t let fear rule your life.
As far as I can tell, the only thing you really disagree about is whether one should ever analyze things beyond “Oh sure, there are miscarriages of justice,” in response to the persistent judicial mistreatment of rape victims. It seems that if OJ had gotten off because the judge said, ” sure you killed your wife, but you were just defending your honor as a wronged husband, no crime here,” that you would see that as being pretty much the same as what happened, and wouldn’t feel that it showed anything about our culture except that occasionally miscarriages of justice happen and you really can’t expect this to be a perfect world.
And, no I flat out don’t believe that no one has ever made a soap joke in your presence. That you haven’t noticed it or remembered it, maybe I could accept. That it has never been said in your presence, that no one before now has ever referenced the concept in your presence, I simply don’t believe. The rape as corrective for uppity women one is less common now by far, so maybe no one has said that anywhere near you any time recently, but surely you have encountered the concept some time in your 60 years before I just mentioned it? Do you think that that concept represents anything, or are the people who believe it more meaningless aberrations?
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
Yeah, Q! Using ten-dollar words like Solipsim.
You Politically Correct Prevailing Orthodoxy harridian you!
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
Of course it doesn’t. I don’t really exist.
Solipsism, thy name is Susan.
Is that better?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Come on, Q Grrl. Rapists are criminals, not garden variety men. Have some higher expectations- you sound like the people who want us all to wear burqas.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Hag and damn proud of it Sheelzebub.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Hey, guys, call it what you will. I’ve lived in this world and make my living in it for a long long time. We’ve put four kids through college. We’re not exactly incompetent, nor do we have blinders on. Or if we do, it hasn’t hurt us much so far as I can tell.
You-all don’t like my experience. I’m not sure why. Perhaps it doesn’t correspond to what you think my experience “should be.” (Like you should know.) Or my experience doesn’t serve your agenda. Or whatever.
You-all who are ready to tell me that my experience isn’t my experience are a collective piece of work. How does this differ from men who want to dictate to women what our experience “should be”?
It doesn’t. That you dictators are mostly women doesn’t change it a whit. It’s still outsiders dictating someone else’s experience.
Sorry sorry sorry. I’m really totally downtrodden, I see it now, if that makes you happy. I can’t walk alone, drive alone, get into elevators alone, go to bars alone. I’m totally housebound by this evil society.
Sorry, gotta go now. I have meetings. With men. I have to ride elevators. I’ll probably be raped, right?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Charles,
“And, no I flat out don’t believe that no one has ever made a soap joke in your presence. ”
Ah yes, Massah Male. You like totally know better than I do what people have or have not said in my presence. I SO am grateful for your intepretation.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
It’s not your experiences that I find lacking, it’s your deductive reasoning.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
I’m not making Sweeping Generalizations about what has or has not been done or said. I’m just relating my own experiences.
So shoot me.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
Elena, read the blame-the-victim first contingent in the thread that Nick references, and cut the crap with the red herrings. Q is simply saying that the fear of rape is used to keep us in our place.
And I’ll repeat–we do seem to be in a double bind. If I’m attacked, I’m stupid for going off with someone/being out late at night/being in a certain place/inviting someone in, whatever. If I excersize caution, I’m paranoid. And now want people to wear burkas. Who knew?
Again–maybe the “stupid” side and the “paranoid” side can get together for lunch and hammer out a consistent manifesto. Something like this:
If you are raped, it’s because you’re stupid and were careless. But if you’re cautious, you’re a paranoid member of the Politically Correct Orthodoxy who wants everyone to wear burkas.
Okay, so it’s not consistent, but I’ve learned to not expect consistency from the “stupid” or the “paranoid” contingent in these discussions.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
>>Really? I’m not trying to faceticious Susan, but these two scenarios seem extremely common to me. I don’t hear the first very often any more, but used to ALL the time in my earlier days.. though I have to say, I heard it on TV just a couple months ago in a sitcom as a joke (can’t remember which one) somewhere along the lines of “She’s so uptight.. she just needs sex” (a milder but no less obnoxious sentiment than ‘the uptight bitch needs a good fuck”)>>
Prison rape was a threat on Veronica Mars last night. Twice. And for some primo rape-threats for women, check out this thread on flea’s blog: http://buggydoo.blogspot.com/2005/04/missive-from-tightass-original-message.html
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Again, Susan, let me remind you what you said:
You’ve listed a lot of alleged dangers, about which you were “told.” But…what if no one “told” you? What if the whole thing is made up? How do I know?
Don’t like your medicine? Tough. You sure were happy to dismiss and disbelieve my experience.
But now we’re dictators. Who knew?
Histrionic much, Susan? This ain’t Pinochet’s Chile. For someone who poo-poohs everyone else’s experience, you sure do go into spin overdrive and scream oppression when your posts are criticized and your (lack of) logic is pointed out.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Piny, they don’t exist. And if they do, it’s because the women were stupid. And if you don’t believe me, then you’re a dictator.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Thank you, Nick! Well done. ^_^
Also:
> Trey: I think of rape as the tool, not the outcome of dominance.
Thank you, Q Grrrl. That crystallized some of my own thoughts.
Rebecca
This comment was written by Rebecca Borgstrom.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
*blush* er, minus one r.
This comment was written by Rebecca Borgstrom.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
hee!
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Damn, he’s onto us.
Susan’s experiences differ from other people’s experiences. Great. I wanna talk about Nick’s experiences.
To summarize: Nick basically rocks. She assesses the danger; she feels the fear; she decides; she acts. She has borne (virtually) all of the consequences of her own actions. I find little basis to judge her (but some basis to admire her).
Sex provokes many emotions. The “orthodox” perspective is that sex is dangerous, and should be avoided outside of marriage. But Nick points out that the people saying this (parents, etc.) are generally people who have everything to gain and nothing to lose if you listen. Their pay-offs are not your pay-offs, and you are rational to bear this fact in mind as you hear their advice.
Nick complains that she is discouraged exercising her autonomy to engage in perfectly harmless, legal behavior due to concern for illegal conduct by others. Wracked with frustration, she indignantly objects that 1. it is wrong to let others’ criminal activity restrict her lawful activity, and 2. it won’t work, because she runs the same risks no matter how she behaves.
Her first point is a statement of belief and/or law. I agree with it 100%.
Her second point is a statement of fact. I find it hard to believe that a person who solicits anonymous sex does not place herself in a greater risk of rape than a person who does not. At the risk of seeking the authority of a white male, I know Ampersand has steeped himself in rape statistics; maybe he has some insights to share.
For better or worse, I expect that Nick really could reduce her chances of being raped if she refrained from soliciting sex with strangers. I also suspect that, for people who live in a constant awareness of threat, there’s something attractive about fatalism. I hear that Israelis become hardened to the threat of terrorist attack ““ not actually immune, but kind of resigned or resolved not to carry on. I don’t mean to demean Nick’s sincerity, only to acknowledge a possible psychological dynamic.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
The whole high-risk/low-risk thing is patently stupid. Most women are raped by men they know, not strangers. Therefore, the best way to reduce risk is to only have sex with strangers. Nick was being careful.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
I find it hard to believe that a person who solicits anonymous sex does not place herself in a greater risk of rape than a person who does not.
Funny, but I’m still waiting on the other thread for someone to patiently point out to me the physical difference between going home with a man with the intent to have sex with him, vs. say, having a male date walk you to your car. In both scenarios, the male has the opportunity to become a rapist. In both scenarios, the female who is raped will be held accountable for her own rape, even though in one instance she was seeking sex, and the other she was not. Where I live, the police wouldn’t arrest the rapist in either scenario; they would view it as a “he said/she said”, unless the victim was able to entice her rapist into punching the shit out of her. If he just held a knife to her throat, then he’d be home free.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
In the other thread, Amp said something about fearing that the debate was becoming so vehemently polarized there was a danger of a kind of “orthodoxy” materializing. Well, when people say things like this:
Most women are raped by men they know, not strangers. Therefore, the best way to reduce risk is to only have sex with strangers.
I’d say we’re definitely headed in that direction. Whether this was meant “ironically” or as a bona fide argument, it’s ridiculous. What is happening here is that the middle ground is being bombed out of the room entirely. Anyone who doesn’t agree with one side entirely is painted in a simplistic, stupid light by the other side. Few issues involving human beings are really this simple.
This comment was written by Lilith.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Lilith, you’re just being literal-minded and doing exactly what you’re accusing those who disagree with you of doing. Nifty trick, that. Maybe you should—unlike Susan, who’s been trolling here for a while—-try, oh, I don’t know—actually listening? Seems like you came here with just as many preconcieved notions as you accuse other people of having. Pot, meet kettle.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
Lilith - it’s called hyperbolie, not irony, and it’s a pretty reasonable argumentative tactic to take, especially when people are making ridiculous assertions that ignore the actual facts available. (such as the fact that most rapes are not stranger rapes…so all this talk about reducing rape by protecting individuals from stranger rape really kinda misses the point)
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
The question, as I see it if we are talking about rape risk reduction, is what actions are actually efficacious and what are the trade-offs.
It seems to me as if the only sure fire risk reduction technique is to never be in the company of men. For most women this is simply not workable or desirable. So, for those who have a firm belief in certain forms of risk reduction - what are those (in)actions? How much is the risk of rape reduced by following each of those rules? What are the tradeoffs in terms of freedom of movement/association/the pursuit of happiness, economic and otherwise? Is a woman a fool for not following each of those rules at all times without exception? What percentage of the time must a woman follow each of those rules? And what should those under the age of 16 or 12 or 8 be doing to reduce their risk of rape?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
Disgust and shame are appropriate responses to moral wrongdoing, not foolhardy risk-taking. He was horrified that I’d allowed myself to be sexual in an unapproved way; the risk of rape was a justification, not his true motivation.
This, I think, is a brilliant summation of the issues enunciated in the title of this post.
As I wrote in the other thread, I would never recommend that Nick go out seeking an anonymous sexual encounter at a pub because I would never do such a thing. At the same time, were Nick to tell me that is what sie was going to do I wouldn’t attempt to dissuade her. If I feared for Nick’s safety, I would offer to accompany hir. However, all of the “advice” so solicitously tossed in Nick’s direction has been, “Don’t do that. It’s a stupid thing to do.” Which is just a more subtle way of showing moral disapproval.
I tell people not to drive drunk because that is demonstrably dangerous to both the driver & innocent bystanders. I don’t tell people not to skydive because that is really only dangerous to the skydiver & I trust people to make the risk/reward judgement that is best for them.
For me, there is no moral disapproval of seeking anonymous sex or skydiving. I do have a moral disapproval of drunk driving because of the harm that can come to people who are otherwise uninvolved. (And I’d like to think that if I disapproved of seeking anonymous sex on moral grounds that I would have the wherewithal to say so outright.)
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
Lillith,
I just really don’t see why one would be particularly at greater risk of rape in seeking sex from relative strangers.
I suppose that the idea is that the number of men who will rape someone they don’t know when they think that they are going to get to have sex and then it turns out they aren’t going to is larger than the number who will rape someone they do know in the same situation.
And I suppose that doesn’t seem like that unlikely of a claim.
And both of those groups of men are probably larger than the group of men who will rape someone who they didn’t have any expectation that they were going to have sex with. So the random strange man in an elevator is less likely to be dangerous than he would be if you asked him to come have sex with you. The number of men who think that consent can’t be revoked is larger than the number of men who don’t think that consent matters at all. So long as you don’t change your mind, or the man doesn’t try to change the definition of acceptible sex on you, then going off with a stranger to have sex is probably no more dangerous than pretty much any other interaction with a man. However, that conditional is a pretty big one.
On the other hand, I would guess that there are more men who will rape someone they know casually if their expectation of getting to have sex is not met. I would guess that early dates with an acquaintance are probably riskier than sex with strangers. Sex with strangers with explicit negotiation of what is and is not acceptible I would guess to be safer than your average steamy date with a new friend, particularly since many people’s dating culture seems to be strong on the “we should just know” dogma and weak on the explicit negotiation.
However, those are just my guesses. Others guess that sex with strangers must be riskier than sex with friends or lovers. Others guess the reverse. I don’t think any of us come anywhere close to knowing.
At least if you have sex with a stranger, they are unlikely to think that that gives them permission to start trying to run your life. Friends and lovers are much more likely to be a problem that way.
None of which excuses the men who rape, or the society that ignores the rapist and blames the victim. None of which demonstrates that a particular course of action has obviously crossed the line from reasonable personal estimation of risk to just plain stupid. None of which excuses pretending that calling someone you don’t even really know stupid for making choices you disapprove of constitutes advice.
Transforming your own personal experience into bright lines is also a crappy way of trying to spread risk reduction ideas, particularly when your bright lines rule out the entire goal that someone is seeking. It is obvious that Nick (who sounds reasonably experienced at doing this) employed multiple techniques to reduce risk given what she was trying to accomplish (explaining before hand “No condom = no sex,” etc). If, instead, Nick were a total neophyte at picking up men in bars and had made misjudgements and mistakes that were visible to someone who was more experienced in picking up men in bars, it would make sense for the more experienced person to politely offer to give her some pointers on how to improve her techniques (including making herself safer). However, for people who don’t have an interest in doing what she was doing to simply say, ” Oh that was stupid, doing that is much too dangerous, unlike the things I choose to do,” is simply pointless, dumb, offensive, and in this case part of the culture of shaming and scaring women who step out of line through the threat of rape. It is still that, even if that isn’t what you intended.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
To add my own .02 on the hazards of particular behavior.
I walk alone at night. A lot. I like to. I also get told often how hazardous this is (though less as I age and get less nubile). Stranger rape is the emphasized hazard in almost every single case. I’m supposed to give up my freedom of movement, right to associate, and a number of other things in the name of this “safety”.
I’ve also been sexually assaulted twice. Both times by men I knew and trusted, in both cases the assaulter was and still is a “regular guy” with no criminal record. Well, one is almost certainly dead now.
Tell me again why Nick’s behavior was dangerous?
Stranger rape is not the norm, but we are repeatedly told to act as if it is. This is controlling, illogical behavior that works to our detriment. Pretending either that it isn’t, or that it doesn’t exist is sticking our heads in the sand.
If you’ve never had it done to you, Susan, you are extraordinarily lucky, and you need to realize that.
This comment was written by Tapetum.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
Isn’t it rather obvious where the biases are in our societies? Why hasn’t anyone come to attack the position of the Paratrooper? Didn’t he pick up someone for sex? Why isn’t he being portrayed as shameful, disgusting and overly risky? He even removed the condom, talk about risk, Nick could not get pregnant, and so removing it would decrease the protection for him, increasing his risk.(As well as Nick and her baby, a risk she was unwilling to assume.) The reason that he is not being castigated as overly risk taking is that there is still a separate unequal standard for men, boys will be boys. We all have been told it so much, many in both genders believe it.
This comment was written by Rock.Nick, There is nothing that I know of as seemingly irreversible as the helplessness of experiencing being raped. I am sure I missed a lot of opportunities for sex; I do not remember them as I do being assaulted. I appreciate your passion and your sentiment, you must feel very embattled and I am proud for your standing up to asses your choices and making them, and not rationalizing them to anybody. Blessings.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 12:07 am
Charles:
You said:
The first part of your statement in regards to me is true, but the last line is false. I don’t have an opinion on as to the “goodness” or the “badness” of spending time alone with a man who is not one’s spouse or near relative. I think it is safer not to, but I do it ONLY for culturael/religous and emotional reasons. It isn’t reasonable to expect others to do so.
That is, I was stating a fact, not necessarily a program for living.
I think that there are always things we can do to make ourselves safer in any given situation, and that is the issue I would like to explore. Not; you must sacrifice, but how can you be safer, in terms of what you wish to do with your life.
I notice everyone also is focused on how 1) women can be safer and 2)rape.
My initial reaction to Nick’s writing wasn’t “Well of course she was almost raped! or Well she would have deserved it. or even”What did she think they would do?” but “Oh my G-d she could have been killed! She and her baby could have been killed!”
I would have had the same reaction if a homosexual man had stated that as his experience, and even if the goal of the outing was to purchase a puppy or a new car.
Drunk are not known for their abiltiies to reason.
Add in a desire to have unfettered sex and you add in another danger. Whether or not that danger SHOULD be there is not the same as saying it IS there. A significant portion of the population WOULD say she deserved to be raped (and I could try and find ti but don’t think it necessary to do so.) and THAT is wrong, imho. It will take a great many more years unfortunately for that attitude to leave the world, both in the court system and in the court of public opinion. Should she base her life on what others think? No. But they aren’t going to stop for that reason.
Furthermore, I felt that her feeling that a man “would know how to put on a condom” is unrealistic. Many men do. Some do not. A man whose motor coordination is impaired by drugs are alcohol is even less likely to be successful in putting on a condom. The drunk in question could have been a virgin. It does happen. She was expecting the men whom she didn’t know to have her world view and the experience and abilities she thought they should have, which is unrealistic.
That isn’t a moral condemnation.
To get back to my original statement: I did make a judgement about Nick’s choice in an intellectual frame. Further conversation has convinced me she knows the risk she took, and I restructured my comments to reflect that. Given that this is a choice she is making how to make it safer? I can only deal with a particular case that I see. Someone else wrote and stated the methods commonly recommened wouldn’t work to help her, and my immediate thought was “Okay, what can be done in this situation.” I couldn’t think of too much constructive, said so, and gave the matter some thought. What could be done?
Generalities have a limited effectiveness. Once they have been stated and the effectiveness is placed in dispute for an individual person either because of outside circumstances (this is my job, I like my job, but I can’t avoid X situation, for example, being alone with drunks, because I work with drunks.) then the next thing to do is try and make the situation safer DESPITE this aspect.
I don’t see that as wrong or immoral, nor do I think it senseless.
That at the same time we need, as a society, to work to eliminate the mindset that rape is okay in a subset of situations, is a given in my case.
My suggestions are merely stop-gap, the way that food banks are a stop-gap for poverty. When we as a world can set up life so that no one is impoverished, then there won’t be a need for food-banks or charities. Till the, they are necessary, and finding ways to get food and money to the poor, that is helpful and effective for that paticular person in that particular situation, as well as making general plans that affect most of the impoverished population is the only way that I can see to put food on the table and clothes on the back of the hungry and naked.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 3:33 am
Rachel Ann,
I’m sorry I unfairly mis-stated your position. I think I agree with much of what you say, although I think the skill in putting on a condom issue is probably a red herring. If, when Nick had pointed out to him that he wasn’t wearing a condom he had said, ” Oh shit, I guess I didn’t get it on right, could you give me a hand with the next one?” I am guessing NIck would have said “Sure,” and thought nothing further of the incident.
I totally agree that one should try to make ones situation safer within whatever limits one finds reasonable, given ones goals. I just didn’t see all that much sign that Nick hadn’t already done that. As I have said before, I am way too ignorant in picking up strangers for casual sex to be able to give any sort of advice that might even conceivably be useful. My own ignorant and biased response to Nick’s story is more like, “OMG, Soldiers!?” but that is purely my own anti-military bigotry speaking.
The biggest flaw I find in the entire risk reduction arguments in response to Nick’s story is that Nick pretty clearly was not telling the story to solicit risk reduction advice. Nick was (I think) largely telling the story to be able to get to this point:
I suppose it is conceivable that everyone who responded with risk reduction advice (and risk reduction abuse) was simply so far in to being the choir that that point seemed so obvious as to not really be an important part of the story. Conceivable, but somewhat hard to credit.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 5:51 am
Women can avoid rape by staying locked up *alone* in ther homes. But they would have to give up on their life.
Despite what people may consider to be risky actions, the actions are only risky because of the ‘other’ party being willing to committ rape.
Jut because there are *some* people who are capable of rape does not mean we should judge all people as such. Just because sometimes things can go wrong shouldn’t mean that a) we expect this to happen b) that we are blamed for this or c) that we should change the way we live our lives because some people are criminals (or potential criminals).
Nick, what a horrible experience.
This comment was written by TP.But it’s not the womans fault. Why can’t people see, the only person responsible for a rapist actions are the rapist!
Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 5:53 am
My first reaction to the orriginal thread was to offer some harm reduction advice, which I quickly thought better of. Other than bringing down some trollish comments a peg or two, or offering sympathy, I don’t know much mroe about what to say.
I think in a really odd way, people like Susan don’t really live in just *a* bubble, they don’t recognize that there are areas outside of where they live where things are different. That’s a lot of the problem. Sure, it’s possible that Susan has never had to experience sexism.
I can offern a paralell situation - lots of members of scienc fiction fandom have never experienced racism. We’re mostly white, but those of us who aren’t, as long as they tlak like the rest of us, don’t get dealt with in a racist manner.
But then you look around and realize that there are all of about 10 black authors in science fiction. What the hell? You’d think that a society that’s that non-racist would attract a variety of views. Nope, what it does is attract a large number of generaly non-racist well educated white people. Most of the protagonists in science fiction books are white, the villains are white, the cultures are white, and the language is white. It’s not racist, but it is so racialy pure there’s no good hook for people who’re not white to get interested. After all, we’re not talking about them.
It’s possible (absenting the huge possibility she’s jus making this up as a troll) that Susan really never encountered much sexism in her life, and can’t understand that there are people who’ve experienced it.
I never saw that much racism in my life. I’ve also never seen first hand really bad homophobia. If I could delude myself into thinking my experinces were the norm, I’d be telling people homophobia didn’t exist.
But I’m just not that stupid.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 5:57 am
Hi Charles,
I agree. Nick probably would have given the man a hand if he had so requested, and I have heard that can be part of the enjoyment of the sex act.
I think my reaction was probably due to the fact that for the past 24+ years I’ve been a mom, and that does something to most women (probably most men are affected by paternity as well.) So I acted as maybe a mom would (not all moms please people!). Fear and the need to protect.
I can not of course speak for anyone else’s reasons, though I presume at least some felt similarly.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 7:34 am
I don’t know what planet Susan is living on. Either she’s lived all her life among people with an unparalleled respect for women, or she’s become an expert at not noticing things that might disturb her.
I consider myself to be pretty unaffected by rape (as far as it’s possible for someone female-bodied to be unaffected), and I’ve heard comments far worse than the “uptight bitch needs a good fuck” variety sitting in my own kitchen. I’ve experienced what was technically sexual assault, although at the time I thought of it more as “God, my boyfriend is such a dick”.
I think Susan has about half a valid point when she talks about the effects of socialisation. Young women are taught to fear rape, they’re taught that potential rapists lie in wait every time they dare to express their sexuality and the only way to keep from becoming a victim is to submit, in whatever way, to male control. But at the same time, they’re not taught to fear the rapists at home, the nice, kind young men who “accidentally” go too far, the male controllers themselves.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 7:52 am
I guess my personal experiences also do not match the majority here, although I am much more aware of sexist/rape jokes/cultural references than Susan appears to be.
My confusion/difference here is in the references to a “rape culture” that places it outside the world of “normal” violence/crime. While I said on a previous thread, I had never been raped (or raped anyone), I have been “mugged” twice — both during college, and both when I was walking alone at night in an urban area.
Both times I got yelled at and told how stupid I was by friends (male and female)/parents/professors for being so stupid as to walk out alone at night. As I think back from an “older” perspective, I generally think they were right, and that I was stupid.
So, I guess I don’t see the sexism/double-standard aspect that is assumed by many of the posters here. If I male friend were walking alone in a dark alley at night, I’d probably say, “Don’t do that, you could have been killed!” and to a woman I’d probably say, “Don’t do that, you could have been raped or killed!” So how my experience differs, is that I don’t see “fear of rape” as a social control over women any more than “fear of assault” is a social control over men. (or, if more, than of degree rather than kind).
Since I asked for advice for my daughters on the previous thread, I did some research and found that, besides the fact that about 80% of rapes are acquaintance rapes, about 3/4 of rapes occur after the man has recently drank alcohol or taken drugs. My provisional/ new advice to my daughters or rape-reduction strategies would be “Stay away from being alone with drunk men, whether they be strangers or trusted acquaintances, because you can’t trust anyone when they are impaired.”
Any thoughts?
This comment was written by Richard Bellamy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 8:07 am
Richard: Both times I got yelled at and told how stupid I was by friends (male and female)/parents/professors for being so stupid as to walk out alone at night. As I think back from an “older” perspective, I generally think they were right, and that I was stupid.
So, basically, when you blame the victim of an assault, you are really just passing on the abuse you received for being the victim of an assault? That makes sense, but is generally more effective, if rather than just passing on the bad treatment you got (and internalising it, and arguing that you “deserved” it) you turn around and say, no, it wasn’t your fault: walking alone late at night does not mean you deserved what you got, either in being mugged, or in being told, afterwards, that it was your fault.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 8:58 am
For the record, I was employing hyperbole to demonstrate how ridiculous this whole conversation is. Entering into relationships with men is *highly* risky–men I’ve been in trusting relationships with have beat me down, but no one has ever suggested that I should just not have relationships with men and instead get sex from strangers in order to reduce my risk of domestic violence.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 8:59 am
Sheezlebub, I don’t know what crap you want me to cut. I myself stated that the fear of rape is more oppresive than rape itself.
I understand Q Girl to be saying that rape fear is a tool, enjoyed by all men if not used by all men, to oppress women. I disagree. In the context of US society in 2005, It’s a crime, not a tool. It’s not useful to think of all men as rapists, or as passivly going along with it. I strongly believe that most men are NOT and would never be so cruel to a woman, even if they never really gave much thought to the subject and even if they previously thought rape wasn’t a big deal. These are the higher expectations I speak of. This goes to the heart of victim blaming because it’s about expectations of MALE behavior, not victim behavior.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 9:08 am
So, I guess I don’t see the sexism/double-standard aspect that is assumed by many of the posters here. If I male friend were walking alone in a dark alley at night, I’d probably say, “Don’t do that, you could have been killed!” and to a woman I’d probably say, “Don’t do that, you could have been raped or killed!” So how my experience differs, is that I don’t see “fear of rape” as a social control over women any more than “fear of assault” is a social control over men. (or, if more, than of degree rather than kind).
And again, I will stress that this thought is coming from a position of strong privilege. You, Richard, may have the privilege of not walking in a rough neighborhood, but many of us don’t. I live in a “rough” neighborhood (translation: a neighborhood where many crimes are tacitly condoned by the police; a neighborhood where criminal activity is allowed to happen in order to keep that criminal activity isolated—to keep it from spreading to higher-income neighborhoods), because this is the neighborhood I can afford to live in.
“Advice” about where I shouldn’t be walking, or how I shouldn’t walk after dark, is not advice that I can use. “Advice” about how I shouldn’t be living without a man in the house is not advice I can use. I do lock my doors and windows, even if I’m just working out in the yard, but since all the break-ins in my neighborhood are the result of smashed windows, the door-and-window-locking advice is really just a feel-good measure.
I like Gavin DeBecker’s books on risk-reduction, but have seen the advice therein misinterpreted or oversimplified. Yes, I use my intuition. I have excellent radar for detecting the merest hint of trouble. But how did I gain that radar? For the most part, by growing up in a violent, alcoholic home and by moving a lot as a child and getting the shit kicked out of me as “the new kid” a bunch, too. I honed further skills when I married a man who became a violent alcoholic, and the icing on the cake was when my husband broke in to my home packing knives and intending to kill me after I served him with divorce papers. Like Emmetropia in the other thread, I notice the exits, lines of travel, and potential weapons I could use to defend myself. Like Emmetropia, I have had occasion to defend myself, and like her, I’ve been lucky in that I wasn’t raped or killed.
The fact is, it’s difficult to develop that degree of radar, and that degree of emergency-preparedness, without having those types of experiences. And the elephant in the room is that our society gives completely contradictory messages to women about the desirability and necessity of those skills. Women in this society are raised to have a certain level of wariness about strangers, but are still not encouraged to be as aggressive as they may need to be to defend themselves (even if it doesn’t come to a physical altercation). And women are encouraged to let their guard down with men they know. That women are more likely to be raped by their boyfriends or husbands than a stranger isn’t just about proximity….it’s also about the fact that women will more readily fight off a stranger than a boyfriend or husband. The fact is, I’m strong and physcially fit, but I can’t “beat up” the average man. My only way to effectively defend myself against the average man involves maiming or killing. I’m not just going to “punch him out” the way a typical man would be able to defend himself against a simliar-sized, unarmed attacker. I am willing to “go there”—-to do whatever it takes to defend myself against an attacker, even if it was a man I knew. I have access to that primal part of my humanity, because I’ve been conditioned over a course of years. Many women have been conditioned over a course of a lifetime to suppress the very instincts that will save (or potentially save—we can all be killed) their lives.
So, mere advice on being aware of one’s surroundings, etc, that many women are already doing to the best of their ability, are of very limited value in that many women have impaired instincts from a lifetime of sexist conditioning. Without acknowledging and combating that—yeah, the “risk-reduction” does sound a helluva lot like blaming the victim. Compounded with the pre-existing sexist notion that if a woman was raped, she must have been doing something to bring it on herself, or that she was a slutty, trashy woman, the “type” that gets raped (Phyllis Schlafly had a famous quote about that, and she lives not far from here), and Houston, we have a problem. Here in the hinterlands of central Illinois, folks hold on to their myths about the “type” of women who get raped like a talisman that will protect them and those they love from rape. It won’t, but for rape survivors, it’s still the same uphill battle all the way. Around here, it might as well be 1960 when it comes to rape. And that’s despicable.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 9:51 am
Saying that all men, in a rape society, benefit from rape is *not* the same thing as saying that all men are rapists. For a rape society to exist, the benefit to all men has to outweigh the harm suffered by all women. When rape is portrayed as entertainment and when pornography is considered protected free speech, the benefits that men garner in a rape society become pretty evident.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 10:38 am
And again, I will stress that this thought is coming from a position of strong privilege. You, Richard, may have the privilege of not walking in a rough neighborhood, but many of us don’t. I live in a “rough” neighborhood(translation: a neighborhood where many crimes are tacitly condoned by the police;
La Lubu,
My point, however, was about simply that what you are calling “rape culture” as benefitting men, you then go on to discribe as a “violence culture” that benefits the rich (”position of privilege”).
I can choose not to walk in “bad neighborhoods” because I don’t live in one. My wife has the same choice. (A poorer man or woman would not.)
So, I repeat: “So, I guess I don’t see the sexism/double-standard aspect that is assumed by many of the posters here. ” In my experience “Don’t go walking around late at night alone outside the bar” is equal-opportunity advice to men and women. The assumption that only women are given this advice is something I just don’t see.
This comment was written by Richard Bellamy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 11:01 am
can see that, though I am not quite clear on it yet. guess I could ask it this way.. Would getting rid of male dominance get rid of rape? or Would getting rid of rape get rid of male dominence. Again, coming down to a personal level, I’m not sure what this means to two men raising three girls, but after reading some more, maybe I’ll come back to the discussion if i think it will help me.
The feminist anthropologist, Peggy Sanday, has done extensive studies on “rape-free” cultures. In a nutshell, these cultures are gender-egalitarian, community-oriented, and discourage interpersonal violence. Men and women in these cultures do not think of themselves as different and mutually hostile types of beings “from Venus and Mars.”
Sanday gives as an example the Minangkabau of Sumatra, who are matrilineal, matrilocal and egalitarian. The kind of swaggering, macho behavior so encouraged in American culture is thought of as unattractive, indeed horrific, by the Minangkabau, who prize amiability, kindness and sociability in both genders.
On the other hand, Sanday finds that “rape-prone” cultures are violent in general and are marked by mutual antagonism between men and women, with men seeking to dominate women by fear and force.
Rape is not a biological inevitability - the majority of the cultures Sanday studied were rape-free. Rape arises from a particular matrix of male dominance and interpersonal violence.
This comment was written by Crystal.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 11:03 am
But Richard, women generally have a higher standard of safe; I was told not to walk around after dark in my parents’ well-lit suburban neighborhood. My brother wasn’t given the same advice.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 11:21 am
Since Susan apparently isn’t posting anymore- let me say this- I don’t think she was saying YOU made anything up. I think it was pretty clear that she was trying to say you had fears because you were ‘told’ to have the fears, not through your own personal experience, and how does she know that the person who ‘told’ you not to be alone at night, etc. wasn’t ‘telling’ you a fiction?
That said, I do think she is naive in that she doesn’t have some fear of men and thier possible behavior, but at the same time, there ARE places men are advised not to go alone, but they do anyway, because they are also advised to be able to ‘handle themselves’ if they get in a fight, etc. It seems that many women are never taught or even recommended to learn to handle themselves when things get physical, and I think that is pretty stupid.
I also think that ‘rape society’ is inaccurate. As an example, I have heard variations on “that woman just needs sex” (some worse, some less offensive even). But I have never heard ’somebody ought to just rape her to help her relax’. And I have heard women say that men are uptight when they haven’t been laid in a while. So I always took those comments as indicative that the speaker thought sex was relaxing, not that the speaker thought rape was OK. I think this is one of the downsides to parents teaching their daughters to be more worried about violence than is perhaps healthy (although they should be more worried than Susan); this advice can lead to seeing hidden meaning in gestures and words when there is no hidden meaning.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 11:34 am
So I always took those comments as indicative that the speaker thought sex was relaxing…
But we also live in a culture in which men are the actors and women are the object when referring to sex - that is to say that men are active and women are passive.
Women get fucked, men fuck.
Women get nailed, men nail.
Women get screwed, men screw.
etc, and so on.
When a culture doesn’t view women as active participants in sex… well, you can see the question.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 11:49 am
No actually, I can’t see the question. And I have several male friends (as well as myself) that ‘get’ laid, ‘get screwed’, etc. Not ‘get nailed’, but I don’t think they say thay ‘nailed’ anybody else, either. I also know women who ’screwed’ a guy, not ‘got screwed’. I think it is YOU who doesn’t view women as participants . Maybe not just you, but a lot of people, but I don’t see it as a culture issue, and I am in a field that is really not ‘woman friendly’ (oilfield services). I see routinely people making stupid and derogatory remarks about women, and definitely several show that the men would screw anything that was breathing and had the right organs, but have never heard one of them brag about rape or condone it.
I personally get really annoyed if the woman doesn’t participate, and the few male friends that I have talked about sex to feel the same- If I am the actor, and all she is is an object, I might as well have a magazine and some kleenex.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
JayQ,
That is the terminology that is common in the USA at this point in history. That doesn’t deny the fact that there are many people who don’t subscribe to that theory.
The question is… In a culture in which women are viewed as passive while men are viewed as active wrt sex, where said culture talks about the “sexual conquests” of men but regards promiscuous women as sluts, where rape is, if not the norm, not unusual, are you unable to see why that culture might be called a “rape culture?”
I think it is YOU who doesn’t view women as participants .
That is pretty funny.
Maybe not just you, but a lot of people, but I don’t see it as a culture issue…
Even though that view is pervasive throughout our media and, as you continue to say here
I see routinely people making stupid and derogatory remarks about women, and definitely several show that the men would screw anything that was breathing and had the right organs…
implying that such things are said in your presence on a regluar basis you don’t think it’s cultural. JayQ, meet Susan. Susan, JayQ.
As to this:
…but have never heard one of them brag about rape or condone it.
I recommend that you scroll to the bottom of right column of this very blog and click on “Rape, intimate violence, & related issues” - you might begin to comprehend the difference between “many or most men are active rapists” and “we live in a culture of rape.” Come back after you’ve read some of those comment threads - pay particular attention to the many excellent explanations by QGrrl, radfem, and others (who I apologize for forgetting at the moment).
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
The assumption that only women are given this advice is something I just don’t see.
You aren’t seeing it, because as a man the much higher standard of personal-safety advice that piny speaks of is not given to you. How many times have you been instructed to find a security guard or other escort before walking to your car? How many times have you been told “why did you pick that time of night to go shopping?” How many times have you been told that you shouldn’t go see that band you’ve really been wanting to hear, because you couldn’t find a friend to go with you—even though you had no intention of drinking alcohol—-that it is too unsafe for you to be “alone” in a crowded bar, even if you stick to soda? How many times have you been instructed to never accept a drink from a stranger, and that you should even watch the bartender pour the drinks you order just in case he may be “in cahoots” with a potential date rapist? Do you keep your hand over the top of your drink, so that nothing can be slipped in?
Have you ever been told to keep your exercising (walking, biking, running) to the main drags (the better to inhale car exhaust!) because it is too unsafe for you to be alone in a park or on a side street, even during the day? Have you been told never to go hiking or fishing by yourself, even in semi-urban areas, because of the danger of assault? Have you ever had your clothing choices criticized, not because of fashion, but because your clothing may attract potential attackers?
Think on this, Richard. There really is a much different standard that women are held to. And women really are blamed for their rapes to an extent that other crime victims are not. And if criminal records are any indication, rapists are not held as responsible for their crimes to the extent that other violent criminals are. It’s easier to get a conviction in a mugging or armed robbery than in a rape; jurors are more willing to believe that the mugging or armed robbery victim meant it when they said “no!”—or even if they didn’t say no, just handed over their money or goods in order to stay alive. There is still this lingering idea that women don’t really mind rape, that rape is a way for us to enjoy sex without saying that we enjoy sex. Or perhaps you don’t remember that, “just lay back and enjoy it” quote.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
Jake,
Read what I write, not what you already think I’m going to say. I said I don’t think women are regarded as passive with regard to sex, even gave examples of why this is not so in MY surroundings. You reply with what seems to be ‘uh-huh’.
I know that if your examples were the standard terminology that it wouldn’t preclude people from not participating, just as I know that if it were NOT the standard terminology, there are probably a lot of people that would still participate in it.
Also- I have always hated the ‘culture thinks men who sleep around are cool, women are sluts’. This is NOT the norm, it is just said VERY loudly, as the men (and women, I might add) who think it’s cool like to brag. I don’t brag about NOT thinking it’s cool. Most people don’t get brag about what they don’t do. Again, I don’t think that just because you hear it all the time makes it a culture thing. We hear about children being kidnapped and ’stolen’ all the time, but how many of you personally know someone whose child was kidnapped. How many of you have ever rolled the SUV you drive? Just because you hear about SUVs rolling all the time doesn’t mean that they do. Just because you hear that people think it’s OK for guys to be promiscuous doesn’t mean that a lot of them do. It is jut part of the nature of those people to stick out a lot. Kind of like the point made on the ‘male privilege’ topic about a group with 40% women seeming to be a majority female, due to conditioning. A group of 100 guys with 10 of them patting each other on the back for scoring with a cheerleader last night will make the entire group look like whores. But it may only be 10 of them.
And just because men say things that show me they would sleep with anything breathing doesn’t mean anything sexist. Although there are not many women working in that area of the oilfield, a lot of the ones that do would also screw anything that breathes. Does that mean they benefit from a rape society?
I was just pointing out that for this to be a rape society, it has to be CONDONED by a large group of society, not COMMITED by a large group of society. I admit, many people, male and female, automatically wonder what a woman did to deserve to be raped. I always wonder what John Bobbit did to deserve having his penis cut off. Does that mean I think he deserved it? NO- it means I don’t understand somebody who would do such a thing, and I try to think what could ever push somebody I know to that line. I also wonder when guys get their ass kicked in a bar, what they did to deserve that, before I even know whether they were in a bar fight, or stepped between a child and an abusive parent. Does that mean I rejoice when people get beat up? NO.
Now, do some people think all rape victims bring it on themselves? YES. They are stupid (those people, not the women). Does some of society condone rape as a natural part of modern life? YES. But I don’t think it is a significant portion of the population, and I have read the relevant posts. I know you don’t have to be a rapist to promote a rape society, but the argument that usually follows from that is “it doesn’t matter what you say or do, this will always be a rape society”. I DONT believe that, and I don’t believe we are in a rape society.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
I’ve never seen that argument and I don’t believe that it is true, either.
… it has to be CONDONED by a large group of society…
And it is condoned. When you hear those sexist remarks at your job, what do you do? What was public opinon of Kobe Bryant & his accuser? Which one of them received death threats?
Your whole paragraph about SUV’s & kidnapping seems like somebody is channeling Susan. “How do you know that SUV’s roll all the time? Blah, blah, blah.” That’s irrelevant. Nobody is claiming that we live in a “kidnap culture” or a “rolling SUV culture.” Before you come back making the same statements and threadbare analogies that we’ve seen in a dozen other threads about rape, try reading those threads & then come back and if you have anything new to add, please do so.
The point is that your personal experiences do not necessarily correlate to those of the culture in which you live. Nobody denies that you have experienced what you have experienced, but your experience does not necessarily reflet the norm of the culture in which we all live.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
One of the arguments that has come up a time or two is that advice on reducing the threat of stranger-rape is counterproductive because most rapes are acquaintance rapes. Since the advice is so ill-adapted to the reality, the effect is to produce false security and blame the victim.
I think there’s an unexamined assumption that the frequency of rapes by type directly correlates with the risk associated with encountering a stranger or associate.
Most car accidents occur within five miles of home - but we don’t thereby conclude that the area near home is intrinsically more dangerous, but rather that most drivers spend more of their time near home than in any other area. Similarly, people are alone with acquaintances more often than strangers, conditionally intimate more often with acquaintances than strangers, and so forth.
It’s worth rememembering that acquaintance rape exists and is a real danger, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that encounters with strangers are riskier than encounters with those known and vetted.
Adults are free to strike a balance between risk and reward, but it seems odd to deny that Nick ran some significant risks with the paratroopers. Presumably, the potential rewards were at least equally significant.
This comment was written by HC.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
On further reflection, JayQ, I take it back. Your SUV analogy was not irrelevant.
Here are two of our cultural values:
If you drive an SUV, you run the risk of rolling over in an accident.
If you are a woman, you run the risk of being raped.
We accept both of those as being true and we don’t do a whole lot to solve either of those problems.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
HC,
For a response to your car accident analogy, see comment # 117 in the “My Rape Story” thread.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
Jake, obviously JayQ is the final authority and if he has the opinion that a rape culture doesn’t exist we should all shut up and listen at his feet. I don’t think either JayQ or Susan have any interest in listening at all.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Again, you don’t read the actual words- IT IS NOT CONDONED- THE REMARKS AT WORK ARE NOT ABOUT RAPE. I specifically said so in the post. A man being willing to have sex with any woman that will allow it can at the same time NOT CONDONE rape. Can be violently against it as a matter of fact. Does the female oilfield hand that sleeps around with strangers she meets on location condone rape? Does all sexism support rape? When people assume that women communicate better than men, does that condone rape? When people say that they don’t want to work for a female supervisor, does that condone rape? I don’t think so. Apparently you do. I just think it points out narrow minded thinking and a prejudice against women. They may or may not ALSO have certain predispositions toward rape, and/or violence against women, but while all sexism is bad, it is not all the same. Again- I have read the preceding threads. They are interesting. They don’t change my mind about rape. It is still a criminal activity that has not been condoned by more than one or two of the people I have known in the 4 towns I have lived in, and I know more people that would beat up an accused rapist before finding out if he was guilty than I do who would ignore it. And I say it was condoned by one or two not because I’m sure it was, but because I’m not sure it wasn’t.
PS - the Kobe Bryant trial, in my opinion, shows us more about the stupid pedestal we put our athletes on more than it shows us about our opinions regarding gender. I know that there is something of a cultural bias to assume that celebrities either can’t do things that are bad, or if they did, it must have been justified. I didn’t pay enough attention to the facts of that case to decide if Kobe was guilty or not, but I did see the headlines and the people saying that the girl was probably planning this whole thing, etc. I just don’t think it was about sexism as much as sports-god worship.
And there are women (vast minority) that do abuse rape accusations and sexual harrasment accusations. Not to say she is one of them, I don’t know, but it seems that everybody assumes these people don’t exist, so that when we give the accused party the privilege of being innocent until proven guilty, we must be condoning rape. I don’t see that either. I do think that sometimes accused rapists get more benefit of the doubt than they should, and that most if not all convicted rapists should serve more time, but again, these things can go wrong without an entire society condoning them.
And please don’t think I’m trying to say anything like “how do you KNOW” such and such happened. Quit trying to interpret and just read the words. Some are misspelled, but they are still legible. I said that we hear about SUVs rolling all the time, when in reality it is still very rare. But if all you go by is the news and headlines, it can seem like everybody who drives an SUV will have a life threatening accident due to the vehicle being so hard to control. Just because we hear the oft repeated statement that men condone rape, or that men are the actors, and women the object doesn’t make it true. Even if you say it. Even if I say it. It may not be a truth or a lie, it may just be a misconception. I think it is. You don’t. I try to give reasoning behind my opinion (that the people who do believe that women are toys to use and throw away tend to be loud about it, where other people do not.). Your argument is to tell me I’m wrong, and tell me that my experience is not necessarily the norm. Well guess what- I knew that already. My experience is definitely not the norm. But who said yours is? That is why I look around me to other people’s experience. I do know women who have been victims of violence, rape or other. I do know men that treat women badly to one extent or another. I do know that those men’s actions are not idolized, accepted by the mainstream, or CONDONED, and the women are not looked at as being to blame for the man’s actions. I know it happens, but I do not believe that it happens to most.. I also see the television shows that use rape to draw in viewers, but I don’t think that amounts to using rape as entertainment. They are usually trying to show what rape does to people, to do the same thing that you guys are doing here- show us that it happens more than we think and that it is a societal problem to be fixed. So I think it is funny when both this thread and others get mad at police dramas that show rape in the same light they do. I am the one that disagrees with that interpretation, but I don’t mind it being put out there for everybody to see (except I don’t think it’s for kids to watch). Maybe THINKING about rape as a societal problem will help prevent it, even if it isn’t a societal problem.
Do we live in a culture of violence? I think so. Sometimes I walk around just wishing somebody would start a fight with me so I could get the aggression out of my system. It’s not necessary, and I have actually never been in a fight with anybody that wasn’t related to me, but sometimes I wish somebody would just start one. But I have never twisted that into accepting violence as a fact of life, and I don’t accept rape as a fact of life. It is something to be avoided and deterred to the best of our abilities.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
That’s an assumption for which I have seen no support, HC. It is true that there is reason to believe that the prevalence of acquaintance rape may be related to opportunity. However, this merely casts doubt on the proposition that acquaintances are more dangerous than strangers. It does not affirmatively support the opposite proposition.
Compared to what? I have written before that I believe that Nick’s method of seeking anonymous sex was as low-risk as any: she had an opportunity to meet her partners face to face, evaluate them, speak with them for some time, explain her limits and judge their reaction. Do you propose an alternative source of NSA sex partners in small-town Lincolnshire? If, on the other hand, what you are proposing as an alternative is that Nick should simply do without, that’s not morally differentiable from suggesting that that black folks in the Jim Crow South should have not registered to vote because they ran the risk of lynching.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Ginmar,
Why is it that when people are obviously misinterpreting what I say, the standard response is that I am not listening? I am listening. Jake is making assumptions about me and my opinions that are not true. I am not upset about that- he doesn’t know me. But now you jump in and assert that since I don’t change my mind when somebody tells me to, I am demanding that you all change your mind. Why? are you so weak minded that you can’t have an intelligent discussion without dismissing the other side as irrelevant or uninformed? I read and am interested in the responses to my post, but I have not seen any that actually respond to MY post. They respond to what they interpreded in my post. I clarify what I mean, and again, I must be uninformed, because apparently I’m not saying exactly the same thing everybody else seems to be. I don’t assume that you are so stubborn that all you want to do is repeat old tired arguments over and over. But I am not granted the same benefit of the doubt. If I thought of myself as the final authority, I wouldn’t bother posting at all, because I would have told you all what to believe in the first post and never looked back for responses.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Susan may not have experienced any effects of rape culture, at least not consciously; but I can certainly attest that it still exists. I (a thirtysomething year old woman) have been sexually assaulted twice in my life. The first time was over a period of months while I was still in elementary school (by a neighbor whom everyone trusted and who told me he would die if I ever told anyone). When my parents discovered what was going on (I came home with my dress on inside out one day), they backed me to the hilt– but the rest of the neighborhood wondered why I was ‘making trouble’ for this ‘respected man’ who was just going about his life. We had to move because of the general hostility provoked by my family coming forward about what had happened.
The second time was in college, at a small private institution known for its liberalism. I worked as a research assistant for an emeritus faculty member, and was getting weird, threatening vibes from him. When I tried to discuss this with my advisor, said advisor was unsupportive to say the least– I must be misinterpreting, how could I think that, etc. I apologized, felt horrible, wondered how I’d become such an untrusting man-hater… and the next time I went back to work the jerk started kissing and touching me. I got out of there as soon as I could.
But when I went to the school counselor to talk about all of this: how could I move on? How could I reconcile myself to the betrayal I felt re my advisor? Etc? The counselor asked me: “What do you think you might be doing to attract this kind of attention?” I repeat: the counselor wanted to know what I had done, as a seven-year-old and as a lowly research assistant, to make men feel like they could assault me.
It took a long time to process that, to stop blaming myself for all of it. It took even longer to get mad at the people who deserved it, because of course *I was already thinking the same thing: how it must have all been my fault.* Women who get sexually assaulted are already going over their mistakes and don’t need anyone else to be telling them what they did wrong. In my case, both times, it was ‘trusting men I knew,’ whether it was the neighbor, my advisor, or my employer.
That said, I have a different question and I apologize for the tangent: I think that an unfortunate byproduct of raising awareness of rape and childhood sexual assault has been that the effort to demand respect for the severity of the crime may have made it more difficult for victims to move past it. When you’re continuously told that you’ve suffered something that will wreck the rest of your life (and represented the same way in sensationalistic detail), I think it becomes difficult to move on because it feels… disrespectful to the gravity of your and others’ experiences. At the same time, I think it can also be materially disrespectful to people who have suffered abuse that was *not* necessarily sexual but was very damaging nonetheless, to highlight the way that sexual abuse can devastate lives so strongly without acknowledging other forms of abuse.
So I guess my question is whether other people here see any tension between demanding respect for the experiences of sexual assault victims, and putting them into such a rarefied category of victimhood that it becomes more difficult to recover?
Again, the issue is absolutely related to rape culture– both because it’s been such a struggle to get acknowledgment of rape and place blame where it belongs (see current thread) and also because there’s this tangled net of societal conflicts about rape as it relates to the conflicted terrain of sexuality; to rage and frustration at the relative immunity of perpetrators; to the uncomfortable ways it highlights gender roles and the enforcement thereof; and also of weird resonances of rape as a crime of men against the rightful property of other men (ie women). That’s a lot of violation to carry around.
This comment was written by Anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
Geeze, guy. Talk about pots & kettles, huh?
You are, of course, innocent of interpreting what has been written. Like this:
Again, Susan, let me remind you what you said:
You’ve listed a lot of alleged dangers, about which you were “told.” But…what if no one “told” you? What if the whole thing is made up? How do I know?
Since Susan apparently isn’t posting anymore- let me say this- I don’t think she was saying YOU made anything up.
Nope, only other people were interpreting that. You, you were reading only the words on the screen.
Or this one:
But we also live in a culture in which men are the actors and women are the object when referring to sex - that is to say that men are active and women are passive.
Women get fucked, men fuck.
Women get nailed, men nail.
Women get screwed, men screw.
etc, and so on….
I think it is YOU who doesn’t view women as participants .
There again, you knew better than to interpret and instead just read what had been written.
Or this lovely bit:
In a culture in which women are viewed as passive while men are viewed as active wrt sex, where said culture talks about the “sexual conquests” of men but regards promiscuous women as sluts, where rape is, if not the norm, not unusual, are you unable to see why that culture might be called a “rape culture?”
Read what I write, not what you already think I’m going to say. I said I don’t think women are regarded as passive with regard to sex, even gave examples of why this is not so in MY surroundings. You reply with what seems to be ‘uh-huh’.
How ’bout you take your own advice and read what I write, not what I said. You see, “You reply with what seems to be ‘uh-huh’” is your interpretation.
I’ll take you as an interested participant in a discussion when you a) follow your own instructions and stop being so obviously hypocritical b) actually acknowledge that your personal experience may not be representative of the culture at large - especially when confronted by many examples of the experiences of others that do not match your own.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Jake Squid - I did acknowledge that my experience is DEFINITELY not representative. Again, you fail to read. I also see that even in my posts that you quote, it is very clear that I am stating an opinion, hence the phrases, “I think” and “seems to be”. Where is the hypocrisy? You simply tell me that I am wrong. I tell you that I don’t agree with you, and that you should pay attention to what I am saying before passing judgement. You then say I am passing judgement. WILL YOU PLEASE READ A POST NOW AND THEN?
I will try to make this easy. I THINK that you respond based on emotion after reading my post, without thinking about what it says. Am I interpreting? Definitely. But notice I didn’t just say you should look somewhere else, or tell you I won’t listen to your responses. I told you what I THINK after reading your post, and try to leave you an opening to show me where I have misunderstood you. Do you do that? NO. You instead quote me and tell me I’m hypocritical when your examples are not relevant or just wrong. I don’t mind people interpreting what I say- it’s human nature. I never said that was a problem. I said that the only responses to my posts were responses to what was interpreted in my post, and it was an incorrect interpretation. The problem is that even when I clarify what I mean, you don’t SEEM to care. You SEEM to have already decided what my thoughts and opinions are, and that I must be a hypocrite because they don’t line up with yours. It doesn’t SEEM to matter what I say, because it SEEMS that you will not listen to me. I am still ready to listen to you.
By the way, again I will say that my experience is not representative of culture across the USA. I don’t THINK that yours is either. Or any one person’s for that matter. But keep in mind that although this seems to be a pretty active web site, it isn’t indicative of the culture at large either. We all have to keep an open mind and look at everybody else’s experience (that’s why I am still reading this). Can you take my experiences and assimilate them into what you feel is ‘culture at large’? I have already done that with many of the posts I have read. Including #139. I don’t know that that one person’s experience makes the country have a rape culture, but it reminded me that I have heard similar stories, so it does make me re-think my position. The attitudes she discussed may be localized in that area. It may be in several small areas scattered across the country. Or it may be everywhere with only little areas that don’t operate in a “rape society”. I am still open to discussion. You don’t SEEM to have ever been open to discussion.
Note:
The all caps are signs that I am making an assumption about you. I welcome you to correct me. I don’t expect it. I expect you to try and turn around what I said, so that it looks like I’m some kind of ‘bad guy’, without ever responding to anyhing I said. But UNLIKE YOU, if you do something unexpected and actually do respond to me, I will read it and consider it instead of responding to what I expected you to say.
Please surprise me.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
Jake -
you wrote:
“Truth be known, none of us have the skills to make that determination” [whether someone would rape].
Your point, as I understand it, is that one can never know with absolute certainty what someone else might choose to do.
This is true, but trivial. Knowledge is not a binary value, so that things are either known or they are not - things can be known in part. So it is with most acquaintances - people think them highly unlikely to rape. The fact that they are occasionally, and tragically, wrong in believing this doesn’t make that conclusion about the relative likelihoods wrong.
Thomas and Jenny K’s suggestion that ‘familiarity breeds attempt’ is interesting - that would make certain people inherently more dangerous as acquaintances than strangers. I have no idea how rapists break down by type, so I can’t say if that is a part of what is driving the acquaintance rape statistics, but I’d be surprised if frequency of encounter weren’t a significant part of it.
Thomas - when I say that it doesn’t seem odd to think stranger encounters riskier than encounters with well-known people, I am merely saying that that the process of vetting screens out at least some undesirable partners. The remaining pool, although containing some false negatives, is still proportionately less risky. Otherwise, why would anyone ever vet anyone else?
Nick ran some significant risks as compared to other sexual practices, including abstention. That doesn’t mean that she should be compelled or even advised to take no risks - she’s an adult, and can perfectly well choose to strike the balance between risk and reward appropriate to her. If one chooses to search for anonymous sex in Lincolnshire, her way is - as you said - as good as any I know of.
Presumably Nick seeks these encounters because they are materially more satisfying than the less-risky options - which is fine, and a perfectly defensible choice.
I do not see how acknowledging the risk is equivalent to disapproving the taking of it - the motorcycle analogy seems apt, here.
This comment was written by HC.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
JayQ,
Do you really think rape is as rare as SUV roll-overs? Or even that they are sufficiently rare that men who rape can be viewed as aberrations requiring no grand cultural explanation?
One quarter of women will be attacked by a rapist during their lifetime. One eighth will be raped. One in twenty college age men self reports having raped (not if you ask if they have raped someone, but if you describe rape and ask if they have done that).
Do you feel that 1 in 20 men is an evil and aberant freek? If not, then why so many rape needs an explanation. What in our culture teaches these men that they can do this? Is a culture in which this wasn’t the case conceivable?
That you don’t think men who sleep around are cool says next to nothing about whether or not the culture says they’re cool. That they feel comfortable bragging about it, and that you don’t feel comfortable about objecting to their braggery does. There are plenty of pedophiles in the world, but oddly, you don’t see them bragging about it. Of course, you don’t see many rapists bragging about having committed rape, saying “Wow, I had a great time raping this women last night,” but I think you will find plenty of the 1 in 20 who have raped who would brag the next day about getting laid last night the day after they committed their rape. The idea that getting sex through any means necessary is cool is one of the major origins of rape. Sex as something that men do to women, and that therefore men can do to women as punishment is another major origin of rape. Do you really see nothing in the mainstream culture that plays on and supports those two ideas?
The other aspect of rape culture that has been being talked about in this thread is “slut blaming” and fear of rape being used to restrict women’s options. Do you see none of that in the larger culture? I know you see the second one, since you commented that girls are taught to be perhaps to fearful of violence.
That your circle of friends doesn’t blatantly do any of this is not the point.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 12:11 am
Could someone define “stranger rape” for me? I would have thought the paratrooper situation falls under the definition of acquaintance/date rape, *not* under the category of stranger rape, which — as I understand it — doesn’t necessarily mean rape by someone you arranged to have sex with but have known for only an hour or so, but rather rape by an attacker who stalks, lies in wait, or otherwise ambushes a woman.
I do find Nick’s behavior unnecessarily risky, but she is free to assume risks as she pleases (it’s a different matter whether she is free to assume such risks for her presumably wanted unborn child, but I won’t get into that). Let me be among the first, however, to declare that I find her behavior, and the behavior of the paratroopers, morally reprehensible and deserving of shame. Shame is underrated, though I notice the only people being shamed here are any who might — gasp! — judge Nick’s behavior.
Am I being cold, harsh, and judgmental? Who are *you* to judge?
This comment was written by Molly Bloom.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 12:22 am
And just to be clear here — if the rubberless paratrooper had ignored Nick’s withdrawl of consent, would that have been rape? Of course. But the point is not that women who are raped are *not* (ever) “sluts,” but that “sluts” can be raped, too.
This comment was written by Molly Bloom.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 12:23 am
Charles,
I agree with most of what you said. I do see these problems in the culture, but I don’t think that 1 in 20 defines a cultural problem with rape in particular. It is a major problem, and changes in the culture CAN address that. But it doesn’t meant that we live in a culture where rape specifically is accepted. It means that we live in a culture that shows our young men and women that crime is OK as long as they don’t get caught. We live in a culture that says physical dominance over somebody else is an acceptable way to get what you want, and this is extended to rape for some people, so I guess that in a way I’ve defeated my own argument, but I still think rape is less accepted by society than other violence, which is why I don’t think the term ‘rape culture’ is acceptable.
By the way, thanks for the rational response.
A couple of things I do disagree with:
I do object to their braggery, but that doesn’t make as big an impression as their braggery does, which was what I was trying to say.
Actually, I see the first, but not the second. Just because fear of rape or violence restricts women’s options doesn’t mean it is used to restrict their options. I think women will always have some fear of rape, or at least violence. I think they should. I have fear of violence from men, and although not that many men are bigger than/intimidating to me, there are enough. Maybe it’s the way I was brought up, but everybody should physically fear people that can hurt them. I have co-workers that are very friendly to me, and I have no reason to believe that they would ever attack me, but I still watch them like a hawk because they could beat me senseless if they wanted. It sucks that this impacts women more than men, but unless women in general become better fighters than men in general, I don’t see any options.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 2:58 am
Last spring on another blog, someone asked for instances of male privilige. I think it fits quite well into the idea of rape culture as well, since they are often the same thing.
A few days before I had walked downtown for the afternoon. I can’t remember why, probably to see a movie or sit in one of the cafes and read or write. By the time I was ready to go home it was well into late evening, quite dark, and my path home was much more deserted than it had been several hours earlier. Just as I had earlier that day, I walked home bobbing my head to some song on my iPod. Except now the volume was quite a bit lower and my hand was resting on the pause button, clicking it every so often when I thought I heard footsteps behind me. Can’t be too careful, you know.
I was only a few blocks from my house when a car began to pull up beside me. I knew that they were probably just asking for directions, and it’s not like the street was empty of cars, just people, but….there was no strip of grass to act as a buffer between me and the car, and it was dark, and I was alone. Feeling paranoid, I shifted to the far side of the sidewalk and gripped the straps of my backpack, ready to bolt if needed.
Turns out, it was my dad, asking if I wanted a ride home. I hadn’t recognized the car because it was so dark and I wasn’t expecting him. When I got in and told him he scared the shit out of me, he gave me a bewildered look. I actually had to explain to him why I had freaked out when a car pulled up beside me in the dark while I was walking home alone. My dad, the man who insisted on reviewing the crime stats and emergency call box locations for every college I applied to, did not understand at first why I had been scared.
Now, as I said the last time I told this story, my dad is a big part of the reason I consider myself a feminist - in a good way, not a bad way. The point is not that he’s a big chauvanist, but rather that he very much isn’t, and he still couldn’t see what any woman automatically would - until I pointed it out to him.
Jake Q, just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just means you don’t live it. You can choose to believe that you are right and we are wrong, but we are the ones who live it.
Tonight a co-worker was sharing amusing stories about her grandmother. “Now always remember to check the back seat before you get in your car!” she mimicked, and we all laughed. How many time have I been told by relatives, friends, random people who managed to get my e-mail address - with words, looks, or anectodes - that I should never walk home by myself in the dark, that I was crazy for traveling alone in foreign countries at age 20, that I should always have my keys ready before I get to my car so I don’t make myself an easy target as I stand fumbling for my keys, that living alone is dangerous and if I must do it I should never ever state my name on my own answering machine? Far too many.
The problem with your conclusion that “unless women in general become better fighters than men in general, I don’t see any options” is that you are assuming the fear we live with is justified and that the steps we are encouraged to take are rational. They aren’t.
It is not rational to check the backseat of you car every night because of an urban legend. It’s not even justified, because while it may technically take only a few seconds, the paranoia that starts to take over the edges of your life when you are constantly reminding yourself to do stupid little things - like never carry your keys by the rings because an assailant could easily break your fingers that way - far outweighs any real advantages.
I’m not a particularly brave person. I tend to worry a lot. That trip by myself through Europe? I was constantly afraid that I was going to get on the wrong train and end up in the wrong country. I was scared I was going to get on the wrong train and my ticket would be invalid. I worried that something would happen and I would be late getting back to school and not have enough time to study for my finals, or even miss my finals altogether. Which is why it always amazes me when I have to assure other people that no, really, I’m just fine walking home by myself. Yes, I know it’s late and it’s dark, but it’s only three blocks. No, honestly you don’t need to call and check up on me.
Rapists may or may not use rape to restrict women in ways beyond the actual rape. But we all use the threat of violence, by us or from others, to restrict what all kinds of people, but most especially women, do - to get them to do things they may not otherwise have done. We do this in large ways and small. We do this sometimes even with the best of intentions, or despite our best efforts…but we do it.
One of the big ways we do it is by always focusing on individual rape prevention, and never really bothering to change the culture as a whole. We do it by assuming that a rape averted is a rape prevented - when we have no way of knowing if it was simply moved to a different target. We do it by teaching our girls to say “no”, but never teaching them to say “yes”. We do it by teaching our boys to listen the “no”’s, but to also never expect a “yes” without prior persuasion. We do it by treating rape victims as criminals themselves by failing to take bean’s advice and instead lecturing them when all they really need or can handle at that point is comfort, no matter what choices they may have made. We do it by focusing on the least common type of rape, thus minimizing the violence that so many endure.
Any type of crime prevention includes rational advice for possible victims, but if the type of crime is considered to be important enough, it also includes preventative action by government as well. Most advice to women on how to prevent rape is not rational and far too much of the focus on rape prevention is placed on the shoulders of the potential victims.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 4:43 am
Let me be among the first, however, to declare that I find her behavior, and the behavior of the paratroopers, morally reprehensible and deserving of shame.
Nice the way you put the two behaviours on a level, as if they’re roughly equivalent in moral reprehensibility.
You might have a moral problem with looking for anonymous sex, but it doesn’t hurt anyone else when I do it. Ignoring the withdrawal of consent is a whole different matter, and for all your “of course it would be rape” I’m not convinced you really see that.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 5:58 am
Molly, I find *your* behavior reprehensible because you’re telling someone they should be ashamed without telling them what they did wrong, and why it was wrong.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 6:20 am
I think it’s fairly obvious what Molly thinks: she thinks that sex is intrinsically bad, and that people who want to have sex are also bad. There’s no point arguing with her: I was hoping we could all just ignore such an obvious troll.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 6:50 am
JayQ, you have lots of people with lots of experience and knowledge telling you you’re wrong but you continue to argue that your experience is more important than theirs and that your opinion is superior. Neither is correct. Moreover, neither is much of a surprise around here, given that any rape discussion must have some guy going, “Well, I’ve never been raped—har har har!—so it can’t be a big problem.”
Your position boils down to Kate Roiphe’s. “If one in four of my friends were being raped, wouldn’t I know?” Now, whydon’t you do your little trick where you w hine you don’t know who KR is and you didn’t mention those particular figures. Doesn’t matter. If you don’t know about rape, it’s your own fault, especially since you’re determined to ignore what everyone says.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 9:39 am
No takers on the “stranger rape” definition?
Nick,
I put the two behaviors on roughly the same level, because — unless I am misunderstanding your description of events — the paratrooper *did* honor your withdrawal of consent. Or is it your claim that what he did was *attempted* rape? We may disagree about the definition of attempted rape, but if you could convince me that what he did was attempted rape, I would certainly agree that *his* action was more morally reprehensible than yours.
What never ceases to amaze me is that people feel they can tells these stories about themselves in a public forum and then get all huffy when someone dares to “judge” their behavior. For the record, I *don’t* think that sex is intrinsically bad. What’s the logic there? “She thinks anonymous sex with two almost-strangers is wrong; ergo, she must think sex is intrinsically bad”? I think sex is a positive and powerful aspect of our humanity, not an animal urge or apetite like eating or defecating. I think it should be expressed in relationship with another. I think it’s wrong to use another person as a means to an end, even if they are likewise wrongly using you. You all may disagree, but you have no right to demand that others *not* judge Nick’s behavior, since you clearly have no trouble judging the behavior of which you disapprove.
On a practical level, I think — based on my reading on the subject — that *some* differences between men and women are biologically determined, that women, as child-bearers, are generally hard-wired to desire monogamous relationships, and that men are generally hard-wired to behave more promiscuously. A society that fails to promote monogamy — that expects women to be “like men” in their sexual apetites — is, in my opinion, ultimately harmful to women and children. Does that mean that some individual women *aren’t* more like men in their apetites or that they should be prevented from pursuing their desires? No. It does mean that a stigma against sexual promiscuity (in both men and women) is socially useful. Society is worse off for removing the stigma.
This comment was written by Molly Bloom.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 9:54 am
Actually,
I would also like to know the definition of “aquantaince” in terms of rape, and I would also like to see the statistics broken down a bit more. Among women who have been raped by their husbands, how many were in the process of divorce or divorced at the time? And how many of the relationships were violent in other ways?
Not that it makes a moral difference, but just as a woman who is exiting a violent relationship is at her most dangerous point, so to, if a woman is more likely to be raped by an angry ex/almost ex, she can be more on guard.
And no, to attmept to stop all “but that’s blaming” arguments, I am not saying “if she isn’t aware it would be her fault.” It wouldn’t. It would give her more information however, and help her make decisions that might offer her a bit more protection against such a risk..
And I’ve always had a fondness for information.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 10:09 am
I put the two behaviors on roughly the same level, because … unless I am misunderstanding your description of events … the paratrooper *did* honor your withdrawal of consent. Or is it your claim that what he did was *attempted* rape?
Well, he continued trying to penetrate me after I’d made it clear that wasn’t acceptable to me. That sounds a lot like attempted rape to me.
You all may disagree, but you have no right to demand that others *not* judge Nick’s behavior, since you clearly have no trouble judging the behavior of which you disapprove.
I don’t have any objection to the judgements being passed. I think they say a lot more about cultural expectations than they do about me.
It does mean that a stigma against sexual promiscuity (in both men and women) is socially useful.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Why? In the ideal world where everyone’s sexual desires and limits are respected, women who want lots of anonymous sex would have lots of anonymous sex without shame and women who don’t would be left alone. In this imperfect world, the stigma is mainly used for making all women ashamed and afraid of expressing their sexuality, which is only useful to sexists.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 10:49 am
Nick,
Are you going to press charges then? If not, why not? That I’m not ready to say I’d definitely classify it as “attempted rape” is no reason to question my sincerity. If I were convinced it was attempted rape (which I might be), his action is extremely more reprehensible than yours.
Why is the stigma (which you’ll note I said should apply to men as well as women) useful? Because it is meant to uphold a culture of monogamy that *benefits* women and children.
My question about stranger rape referred to the fact that most of the commenters on this thread seem to assume that — if Nick had been raped — it would have been classified as “stranger rape,” which is much rarer than date/acquaintance rape. I’m not so sure that’s the case (that it would have been classified as stranger rape). Does anyone know how “stranger rape” is defined for statistical purposes?
This comment was written by Molly Bloom.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 10:59 am
I don’t know if the definitions are international - here in the UK, a stranger rape is a rape committed by someone the victim has never seen before.
If the rapist has had as little interaction with the victim as saying ‘hello’ , it’s classified as date / acquaintance rape.
Nick can obviously answer for herself but FYI, it’s not up to her to ‘press charges’ - the most she could do would be to make a statement to the police.
And given that the conviction rate for completed rape in the UK is a pathetic 5.6% (it’s even lower for attempted rapes) of those reported to the police - would you want to put yourself through it?
And I’m still not seeing how this stigma is supposed to benefit me.
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Because it is meant to uphold a culture of monogamy that *benefits* women and children.
How does it benefit children if female rape victims are stigmatized? I suppose that the logic is that we shame women who have sex with any man other than their husbands. Seems like the ‘benefit’ of that shaming is far outweighed by its drawbacks.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 11:48 am
But mythago, I’m not advocating the stigmatizing of female rape victims, but the stigmatizing of female AND male sexual promiscuity. A culture of monogamy benefits women and children because it upholds an ideal of male responsibility for sexual partners/children — an ideal men are far less likely to *want* to uphold absent such cultural disincentives (shame) and incentives (status and respect for marriage, monogamy).
This comment was written by Molly Bloom.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
“No takers on the “stranger rape” definition?”
impatient much Molly? just how many people did you think were up between midnight and 9 am?
As far as I know, Spicy’s definition works for the US as well, and it’s the one I’ve been using.
“I’m not advocating the stigmatizing of female rape victims, but the stigmatizing of female AND male sexual promiscuity”
You are certainly allowed to go around thinking that you can come to such equality of shame by shaming both men and women equally in a world that really only cares to shame women, and you are certainly allowed to think that doing so doesn’t feed into blaming rape victims, but that doesn’t make it true. And the fact that you put Nick’s behaviour on the same level as the man who attempted to rape her doesn’t do much to convince me you actually don’t blame the victim.
“an [idea] men are far less likely to *want* to uphold absent such cultural disincentives (shame) and incentives (status and respect for marriage, monogamy)”
And again, someone comes onto a feminist blog and proves that it’s not the feminists that have such low opinions of men.
“…I’ve always had a fondness for information.”
So do I. You may be interested to know then, that (as Amanda pointed out on her blog and another rape thread) according to the FBI, the best thing a woman can do to avoid rape is not to avoid certain places or situations, but to walk into all of them as if they belong there. All this talk about certain places being off limits, especially in excess of reality, makes women visibly cautious and afraid and in the end more vulnerable.
The problem I have with most “advice” about rape is that it is often given at the wrong time, it is usually given in excess of what is rational, and it is almost always rooted in the sexism that contributes rape - not logic, statisitcs or law enforcement experience - and so it rarely ever helps to begin with.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Under the definitions of “stranger rape” provided above, if Nick *had* been raped, it would not have been classified as stranger rape.
Jenny K,
Let’s take care of this first:
“And the fact that you put Nick’s behaviour on the same level as the man who attempted to rape her doesn’t do much to convince me you actually don’t blame the victim.”
Could you point me to the place in my comments where I claimed that anonymous sex with almost-strangers was on the same level as “attempted rape”? I put the immorality of Nick’s engaging in anonymous sex on the same level as the immorality of those men engaging in anonymous sex. I have said, at least twice now, that I consider attempted rape to be far worse than anonymous or promiscuous sex. I just don’t know that I would define what happened to Nick as attempted rape — though, as I said, perhaps I would.
“And again, someone comes onto a feminist blog and proves that it’s not the feminists that have such low opinions of men.”
– To the contrary, I think the extent to which men in our society have been able generally to commit themselves to a culture of monogamy is enormously to their credit. And why, based on your worldview, would it be indicative of a “low opinion” of someone to claim that they are evolutionarily/biologically pre-disposed to promiscuity? Do *you* have a problem with promiscuity?
“You are certainly allowed to go around thinking that you can come to such equality of shame by shaming both men and women equally in a world that really only cares to shame women, and you are certainly allowed to think that doing so doesn’t feed into blaming rape victims, but that doesn’t make it true.”
– First, what world do you all live in in which rapists are *not* shamed? It appears to be a world in which everything is a matter of gender and nothing is a matter of sex, and there’s some good evidence to suggest that, in this matter, I’m right and you’re wrong. There is such a thing as a biological predisposition to certain traits — traits that are generally linked to an individual’s sex. A monogamous culture is one which must to some extent counteract the male biological predisposition to promiscuity; shaming is one way of doing this. Yes, in practice, even today women seem to bear an unequal burden in terms of stigmatization, but if you think the solution is to remove all stigma and celebrate male and female sexual “freedom,” I’m afraid you’ve placed women and their children in a worse place than they were before. You may disagree, but it seems rather silly to suggest that my argument is less “feminist” than yours.
This comment was written by Molly Bloom.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
JayQ,
Part of what you are missing in that 1 in 20 survey is that those men would have not answered yes to a “Have you ever raped anyone?” question. They only answered yes when a description of that behavior was asked. Those men do not think that what they have done is along the definition of rape.
A rape culture does not necessarily mean that the culture actively condones rape. It could also mean that the ideals behind that mindset are prevalent in that culture. Those men in that study do not consider themselves rapists. However, they and their friends see no problem in their actions. This is rape culture.
Quick story. One summer in high school, a male friend of mine assaulted me in my parents’ bedroom in the broad daylight. I was upset. The next day, he and his friend came over and tried to explain that I shouldn’t be mad. He hadn’t penetrated me with his penis. I couldn’t understand that both of them thought his behavior was ok. They were average high school boys. To them, my body was not really mine but his to use as he wanted. This was the way the world works.
You can argue that we don’t live in a rape culture, but I respectfully disagree. People condone a degree of rapist mentality and behavior. People are more likely to accept the rapist’s version of events than the victim’s. Women must self-restrict their actions to keep themselves safe. This is rape culture. You may have not personally had to deal with these issues. Therefore, I can understand that, according to your experience, yu perceive that we do not live in a rape culture. I can tell you, according to my experience as a female, we do.
I am terribly sorry for this obvious thread drift.
This comment was written by natural.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
That’s more than a little offensive. I actually have been raped. I don’t think it is in the same category as when a man rapes a woman, but the only reason I had sex the first time is because I didn’t want to hurt the girl. I told her no. More than once. But she didn’t care. Like I said, I don’t think this is in the same category, because I know if I had been OK with slamming the girl against the wall, I wouldn’t have been raped. I also NEVER said that rape isn’t a big problem. NEVER. Not even as a joke. Oh, and I guess it doesn’t matter to you, since my experience doesn’t matter, but I have changed some of my opinions from listening to these posts and responses. I posted because I WANTED TO HEAR OTHER EXPERIENCES. I have not discounted anybody’s experiences, or tried to imply that they are not real or that they are not important. YOU are the one that keeps telling me that my experience is not indicative of culture. You know what I have already replied to that more than once? DUH!! I never claimed that my experience was normal. But what floors me is that you can tell me that since my experience doesn’t match what I’m hearing from this group, that obviously this group is right and I am wrong. And then you accuse me of the opposite thought process, which I have demonstrated multiple times is not true. Rape is a big problem, both in the US and elsewhere. I just think it is more due to a culture that excuses crime and violence than it is to a culture that specifically excuses rape. How does that equate to
??
I will say one more time, so that maybe you will do it…. READ THE ENTIRE POST. I am not someone you have had this discussion with before. I am not trying to say all feminists are always wrong, or rape is an illusion, or women are stupid, or anything in those neighborhoods. Can you get over that and have an honest discussion, or are you again going to say that obviously, since I think I am superior to everybody else, nobody is going to change my mind?
Here are the things that I have come to conclude so far from this discussion (both are changes of opinion, in case you can see past your notion that I don’t allow others to influence my thoughts)
a - rape is more accepted in society than I had previously thought, even by those who realize this fact and want to change it.
b - most people seem to think that a change in society can’t be accomplished on a one at a time basis, and would rather ‘preach to the choir’ than actually try to persuade anybody and change anything, since those who have not already come a like opinion on their own obviously can’t be persuaded.
c - there ARE still people who call themselves ‘feminists’ while promoting true equality. Previously I would have said that most feminists had gone off the deep end. There are still some that have, but at least the word can still be positive, and a large group of them are still rational. (I always knew that there were groups of people like this, but I thought they had stopped using the word feminist due to negative connotations.)
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
Natural,
Thanks for the comments - I can understand why many people would see this as a rape culture. The main disagreement I have with that is in this statement:
Men must self-restrict their actions to keep safe also. Not from rape, but from violence. There are gas stations I don’t fill up at because I have been threatened, and there are usually groups of fairly dangerous looking people standing around. There are places I don’t ride my bike at night. There are people I don’t want to be alone with because I know they get a little dangerous after work. Do I have to restrict myself as much as women? Definitely not. But the only point I have been trying to make is that the problem is violence, not just rape. I don’t mean to say that violence and rape are not related, or that rape is not one of the worst forms of violence, only that it isn’t the only one, and I don’t think we can stop the cultural problem of rape without stopping the cultural problem of violence.
Right now, it is OK and perfectly normal for men to physically intimidate other men into doing things. I don’t think we can have any sort of equality without taking that away first. You will never have an equitable society that thinks men physically forcing men to do things is OK, but men physically forcing women to do things is wrong. The only society I can see with this mindset is one that looks at women as helpless frail pets to be protected. I don’t like that society.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
I see that we live in a violent culture and that most people feel the restirictions placed on them because of either the actual nature of society today or the perceived nature of society today. Everyone experiences it differently.
Women are more subject to fear of rape than men are.
However; very few of the self-protection tips I have read are only applicable to women.
Furthermore, I find self-protection tips to be fear reducing not fear increasing. The more I know, the safer I feel I can be, by making choices in my behaviour and my response to the behaivour of others.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Nick wrote-
Molly Bloom wrote -
Nick, when one publishes differing accounts of an incident on multiple public sites, one runs the risk that someone might actually read all of them.
In 9/12, the day after the alleged rape that you have written extensively about here over the last several days, you published a long description of your “Pull-A-Para-Weekend,” on your blog at LiveJournal. It sounds from that account, that you had the enjoyable night you were seeking.
The only reference to rape is your following statement,
“The dividing line between enthusiastic enjoyment and the fear that you could very easily get raped and no-one would believe you didn’t participate voluntarily can sometimes be as thin as latex. Drunk squaddies are not the easiest people in the world to convince that whether they have a spare condom makes all the difference, actually, no matter how many times they promise not to ejaculate.”
I’m having problems with the insert a link function, but that day’s journal can be found at http://www.livejournal.com/users/ksej/91097.html
Later you make mention that after your escapades on the ground at the camp, you brought one gentleman home with you at the end of the evening. I’m not clear if the man who was at one point threatening to rape you, is the same gentleman or not, or if you had more partners that evening than the two mentioned on Alas.
The next day’s journal entry, makes no mention of your fears about the alleged rape. Only your frustration at your father who has given you an ultimatum regarding your behavior.
On 9/15 you make the following entry:
“What gets me most is that the squaddies have now packed up and left. I know in my head, that following them, tracking them down, would be a big mistake all round, but I just want some comfort. I want a pair of arms around me, a warm body next to me, and a little bit of practical assurance that sex is not an unreasonable thing to want.”
http://www.livejournal.com/~ksej/?skip=20
I’m have a hard time accepting that someone who really felt they were on the verge of being violated could then agree to sex, invite the man home after, and later speak longingly of that man. I’ve got to believe that the thought of such behavior would be pretty repugnant to anyone who had actually escaped an attack, or lived through a rape.
Now about Molly’s question… I have to imagine that you didn’t intend to press charges.
Yet there’s been a lot of bandwidth devoted to your “near miss.”
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
Emmetropia - your attempts to cast doubt are repellant.
I don’t see any inconsistency in the accounts other than your fantasy about how Nick ’should’ have behaved. Shame on you.
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Hahaha, priceless. Absolutely priceless. Thanks for digging that up, Emmetropia. Though I am sure that some will attempt to make you pay for this for months.
Everyone has a right to engage in stupid, self-destructive behavior so long as they’re not hurting anyone else. (Which is a point that could be subject to argument, in this case, since Nick allegedly cares about this fetus she’s exposing to the sorts of crap drunken, promiscuous soldiers carry, not all of which is preventable by condoms.) But lying or making up dramatic “pity me” stories about it? Oh, that’s in a category all by itself…
This comment was written by Lilith.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Emmetropia, quoting out of context to try and place folks in a bad light isn’t nice.
Plus, it makes you look really foolish.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Lilith, it might help if you actually read the posts and not just the comments.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
I read the post. I would summarize it as “that was fun, would have been more fun if they hadn’t been too drunk to function.” There was a line that expressed a tad of ambivalence, but I don’t see anything that said “OMG I almost got raped!” There was a lot of nudging and winking and smirking. And certainly her friends didn’t seem too concerned. Are you saying that her friends are stupid?
This comment was written by Lilith.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Well Emmetropia, you make a lot of assumptions in order to give yourself the satisfaction of feeling that Nick is lying. Congratulations.
So is your point that some man trying to stick his dick into someone while that person is telling him to stop is not attempted rape? Maybe it has to be really traumatic and upsetting before it gets to be attempted rape? Maybe she would have to be properly chastened and ashamed, otherwise it isn’t worth calling rape?
It doesn’t matter what Nick’s reaction was, whether she thought “OMG, I’ll never do that again!” or “Drunk squaddies can be such jerks,” or “Guess I’d better find a squaddy who can figure out how to put a condom on.” No matter what she thinks, the guy was still trying to penetrate Nick after Nick had told him no. Maybe you have a definition of rape that that wasn’t an attempt at?
A lot of words have been written on the issue of shaming women for doing things (having sex with paratroopers, walking in the park at night) that accompanied their being raped or the subject of an attempted rape. Whether Nick found the evening traumatic or whether (as she has flat out said in these posts) sie found it somewhat irritating doesn’t really have much to do with that topic, so your little “Gotcha,” isn’t worth spit.
Also, go read spicy’s post 156 for a clear response to your snide little comment about not pressing charges. You don’t actually press charges, you make a report, and then the police and the [British equivalent of DA] decide whether or not it is worth pursuing. On account of people like you and Molly (who has presumably read the perfectly clear description of what happened, but doesn’t feel that a man trying to penetrate a women after she tells him ‘no’, and while she is physically preventing him from doing so constitutes attempted rape - no, she needs more information, although I have a hard time imagining what sort of information she needs), making a report would not get her anything more than some slut-shaming from some police. Even if she were incredibly distraught from the whole experience, she still wouldn’t get anything more from the police by making a report. So, like you, the fact that she can’t “press charges” even if she wanted to is part of the problem.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
But lying or making up dramatic “pity me” stories about it? Oh, that’s in a category all by itself…
Nick hasn’t done that. The post on this blog, that began these threads was making the point that any time consent is withdrawn and the person persists, it is rape. Nick didn’t claim to be raped or even almost raped. The story was given to set up the point that if it had gone further, it would have been rape.
It can still be rape even if she wants to have sex with you. It can still be rape even if she’s sexually aroused and apparently ready for sex. If she consents to this but not that and you make her do that, it’s rape. If she consents to any kind of safe sex and you make her have unsafe sex, it’s rape.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Lilith, I think mousehounde meant Nick’s posts on Alas. Where the hell do you see her doing a “Poor me?”
If her views on what happened have changed at all, so what? Have you ever had the experience of taking a month or two to decide that something that happened to you that you laughed off at the time actually has some interesting and even disturbing features that others might be interested in hearing about and talking about? If not, I’m impressed at your lack of self-reflection.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
Lillith,
It is my reading of Nick’s post that she wasn’t terribly traumatized by the incident. People deal with these events in different ways - there is no right reaction. On this blog, she was simply noting that consent is an ongoing process. She has no responsibility to you or anyone else to mention everything that happened that night on her blog. Just because she didn’t cry about it the next day does not mean that it didn’t happen the way she wrote that it did. But then again, you have a right to not believe her. It is a free country. However, I have no reason to doubt her.
This comment was written by natural.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 8:39 pm
“A good way to see this is by viewing TV. One of the top leading storylines (other than murder) is rape. And we call it entertainment and innocuous. ”
Q Grrl, look at what you are saying here. Your narrative fashions rape into a generalized social control method. Is murder a generalized social control method? Who is it aimed at? How does that work?
This comment was written by Sebastian Holsclaw.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 11:23 pm
I think what Emmetropia and Lilith are referring to are lines in her original blog where she states the sex was consenual, that everyone had a good time, no one was harmed or hurt.
The man she took home to bed was the wonderful guy; the one who was prepared and not the one who kept trying to penetrate her.
It could be that after thinking the situation over, and in writing a different sort of post, one concerning rape, not her experience on a sexual level, she disclosed more information than she did originally. It is notable that she wrote about rape (cat and dog story) immediately after the Arnhem story. She also noted in the original posting how the pleasure was diminished because the guys were drunk and because she had to keep convincing the squddies that promising not to come wasn’t equivalent to wearing a condom. (paraphrasing here). She also mentions rape in the original post and connects it there, as she did there, to the possiblity of rape. (as Emm quote from the site proves) Her second posting on the incident was in regards to her father and her father’s moral outrage on the issue. Thus, her comments could be seen as a defense.
It is also noteworthy that Nick did not say she was raped, but did seem to allude that she was almost raped. She also indicated in her first post that she wasn’t traumatized but irritated. There was no pity post, which was why I stated, in defense of my calling her actions stupid, that I didn’t feel obliged to simply pat her on the back and go there there; what a terrible event. Was calling her actions stupid nice? No. While I do try and be nice most of the time I am not always kind and thoughtful.
While I disagree with her moral position, while I feel the risk she took was greater than a sensible person ought to take, I think the issue is not SHOULD she be allowed to do what she did (because it is legal) nor the morals of anyone else (because I can’t control those moral behaviours. Which is why I didn’t attack the partatroopers) But
How can a person best protect themselves in any given situation.
That is why I center on facts and try and find a method for each person rather than caring about feelings and how the person views their actions, or what a perfect world should be like etc. etc. I don’t have to like Nick or like anyone to want to help them and they don’t have to like me.
I want to deal with facts and I want to deal with the real world and I want real solutions for how we live now, and how we can improve the world.
That is what is real for me.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 11:51 pm
JayQ: There are places I don’t ride my bike at night. There are people I don’t want to be alone with because I know they get a little dangerous after work. Do I have to restrict myself as much as women? Definitely not
JayQ: Right now, it is OK and perfectly normal for men to physically intimidate other men into doing things. I don’t think we can have any sort of equality without taking that away first.
Joanna Russ describes this kind of male-privilege thinking as “And if there’s any equality left, you can take it into the kitchen and eat it.”
JayQ, if you want men to be less violent towards each other, and you see that as a significant problem that you want to change, then I think that’s what you should focus on. You should set up a men’s movement for non-violence, you should set up consciousness-raising groups for men in which men discuss how to change their attitudes about violence towards each other and towards women - there are a ton of strategies you can use, which are described in any of the many books on the history of the women’s liberation movement, and I don’t doubt could be adapted into a men’s movement against violence. And if that’s what you think is important and should be done first, that’s what you should focus on. What you should not do is hector women on how women working to stop violence against women is not acceptable: women ought to be working to stop violence against men, first.
I believe that you can work as hard as you like trying to persuade men that violence against other men is wrong: you won’t get very far because we live in a culture that privileges male violence, primarily against women, but also against men. I think the best way to counter this is to be a feminist and work for a culture in which male privilege no longer exists - where male violence is no longer privileged. I think this will be better for men in the long run, though men accustomed to male privilege may not find it so initially. (Men always complain about radical feminist ideas: fifty years on the radical feminist ideas have become normal to them and they no longer even see them as feminist.)
That is to say, I think the strategy you propose of stopping male violence against other men first is absolutely backwards. But, if that’s what you want to do, you should go ahead and do it. What you shouldn’t do is tell women that women should regard violence against men as the real problem, and violence against us as secondary and unimportant. Because that’s just not going to get you anywhere.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 1:20 am
Jesurgislac,
Sorry - bad phrasing on my part - I didn’t mean to say stop violence against men first, but that the acceptance of violence in general should be removed first, not specifically violence against women, or violence against men, but violence in general.
And I don’t know what I posted that makes anybody think I tried to tell somebody that violence against women is unimportant… I just don’t think we can take away the acceptance of violence against women without simultaneously taking away the acceptance of violence against men… Any set of social values that would let us protect one gender and leave the other to the wolves just stinks of inequality to me, and the gender that is protected probably has the short end of the stick. I can’t think of any mindset that society at large would adapt to support protecting one gender other than the mindset that the gender needs to be protected due to inferiority. I think if the goal is specifically to protect women, you do women a disservice.
But then again, I am one of the people that thinks parents do their children a disservice by not making them work for their spending money when they are able. I think that children should be allowed to roughouse, and that protecting our elementary school kids from physical aggression is not the best thing for them(while at the same time wanting society to progress to a point that we don’t see enough physical aggression to feel the need to protect from it).
Okay- I tend to type a bit, and then re-read it before posting- I wanted to leave the above paragraph, but I think I need to illustrate what I am trying to point out about myself…. Most people look at an issue and come to it from either one side or the other. I generally jump into the middle and try to go both ways. Not that this makes me special, it just helps me get a better perspective of where both sides are coming from. I think that this approach may keep people from seeing that I am not trying to say something radically different than they are, it is just that our paths are not exactly parallel(but going to similar destinations).
I don’t know if that made much sense or not, but oh well. I think I’ve said about all the original thoughts on this that I’ve got, but I’ll probably chime in if I see anybody misinterpreting my words(although I feel that my status has moved from ‘crap, another guy that thinks he walks on water’ to ‘he may have good intentions but he’s wrong’, which I can accept).
As a side note, I know I can come off as pretty aggressive and argumentative when trying to get people to understand me. Part of this may be because of my argumentative nature :) - Just to clarify: I don’t think many have intentionally misunderstood me, but I have never been able to just ignore when people don’t understand what I say. Not agree with doesn’t bother me nearly as much as not understand.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 2:26 am
JayQ: I didn’t mean to say stop violence against men first, but that the acceptance of violence in general should be removed first, not specifically violence against women, or violence against men, but violence in general.
Given that the primary manifestation of privileged male violence in this culture is the normalisation of male violence against women, why would you think first of all we need to think about “violence in general”? Effectively, you are still saying “Let’s not think about violence against women first” - which is precisely what the privileging of male violence against women is all about.
Any set of social values that would let us protect one gender and leave the other to the wolves just stinks of inequality to me, and the gender that is protected probably has the short end of the stick.
No: because the set of social values that lets you think it would be wrong first of all to look at how male violence against women is normalized is precisely the set of social values that stinks of inequality, that protects the male gender and throws women to the wolves, and the gender that is protected has the best end of the stick. That’s what you’re trying to hold on to, because on some level you know that your gender is privileged and protected, and you know that’s the best end of the stick to be on. You don’t want even to think about giving that up.
But then again, I am one of the people that thinks parents do their children a disservice by not making them work for their spending money when they are able. I think that children should be allowed to roughouse, and that protecting our elementary school kids from physical aggression is not the best thing for them
Right, because it doesn’t count when boys beat up on girls: that’s just kids having fun.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 4:19 am
Jes,
Boys beat up boys far more than they beat girls. Girls beat up girls far more than boys beat up girls (At least in my experience and the experience of most people I know, maybe my experience or my interpretation of my experience is biased, is your experience really that different?). I think girls generally stop beating up other girls earlier than boys stop beating up other boys, and boys stop beating up girls at about the same point as girls stop beating up girls. Somewhere in the early teen years, the “never hit a girl” (meaning never beat up a girl in the way that boys generally beat up other boys) kicks in as a cultural rule.
By beating up, I am thinking of public and semi-public violence in schools and other social settings. Once sexual relationships start kicking in in teen years, I assume that boys start beating up girls more frequently in private, although I don’t really know. They certainly start sexually assaulting and raping girls in private, but I don’t really know anything about the rates of non-sexual physical abuse in teen relationships.
However, boys sexually abuse girls at least as much as they beat up boys, and possibly substantially more, and lots of this abuse is public and semi-public (bra-snapping, gropping, verbal abuse, etc). This is actually one of the main problems with JayQ’s views on violence to my mind. I agree that male violence is the basic problem for both men and women, but male violence is expressed and supported very differently for male on male violence and male on female violence. While working to reduce social acceptance of male violence in general is a very good idea, I wouldn’t expect focusing on male-on-male styles of violence to deal effectively with male on female violence as well.
Also, I think that treating male violence culture as part of rape culture, or treating the rape culture as part of the male violence culture is laregely a distinction without a difference. Arguing that there isn’t a rape cuolture or a male violence culture seems to me to be simply silly. Is this the most extreme male violence culture or the most extreme rape culture currently around? Certainly not. Does it have a long way to go to not be a male violence and rape culture? Yes.
Rape culture also has significant components that aren’t directly related to male violence culture. For instance, the way that women socialize women in relation to rape is part of the mechanics of rape culture, but not directly part of the mechanics of male violence culture.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 5:24 am
About 20% of teenage girls have been hit by their boyfriends, according to this research in the UK.
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 6:43 am
Just to clarify, although other people have explained for me while I slept.
The squaddie I took home was not the asshole who kept trying to penetrate me. I was involved with several men that night, not all of whom I mentioned in my original post here.
I think I’m being accused of having been insufficiently traumatised by the experience with the asshole: read what I said right at the beginning. It was more irritating than traumatic. I posted it to illustrate my point that you can go looking for sex, can be very eager for sex, and still be raped if someone tries to make you have sex in a way you don’t want.
If you think there’s some kind of inconsistency between enjoying sex with men who respect their wishes and being angered when people try to deny that attempted rape is attempted rape, I don’t know how much common ground I can possibly find with you.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 6:58 am
Charles: Somewhere in the early teen years, the “never hit a girl” (meaning never beat up a girl in the way that boys generally beat up other boys) kicks in as a cultural rule.
Chivalry (”don’t hit girls”) kicks in as a cultural rule, but its unspoken counterpart is (”unless girls step out of line”). Teenage girls are far more scared of male violence than teenage boys are: and, as was pointed out just upthread, with reason.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 10:00 am
JennyK, this
>>We do it by teaching our girls to say “no”, but never teaching them to say “yes”. We do it by teaching our boys to listen the “no”’s, but to also never expect a “yes” without prior persuasion.>>
is freakin’ brilliant, and I totally agree. I’d love to see a thread where we could get a bit more into this–it’s something that I have a lot of thoughts on. Whadya say, Nick? Amp?
This comment was written by AB.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 10:19 am
The only problem I have with this is that I don’t take for a given that the primary manifestation of priveledged male violence is the normalisation of male violence against women. Is it a manifestation, yes. But I think it is simply because it is easier than violence against men and it makes men feel big. But yes- I am saying “Let’s not think about violence against women first” - I think if we do that we take women a step backwards, away from equality, and back to the idea that women are fragile and need special protection. I don’t see anything following from this besides the accompanying ideas that since we must protect women, we can expect them to obey us, the same that we expect of our children that we must protect.
Reducing violence in general doesn’t mean focusing on male on male style violence. It means focusing on ALL violence, including male on male, including male on female, including male-male rape, male-female rape, female-female rape, female-male rape, etc. It seems that everytime a male poster says ALL, the response is ‘why do you only care about men?’. I don’t get that - I am guilty of saying ‘guys’ to address a group with men and women in it, and I can see why that might upset somebody, but ALL seems to be gender neutral, which is how I meant it.
I also agree that male violence against women is perceived differently. It is a different animal, but I think they both come from the same place. And remember, I am one of those guys that walks around wanting to be violent. I don’t do it, but I do understand it. At any point in time, I could (intentionally) ramp up my anger to the point of losing control and be very physically violent to anybody I wanted to, male or female. That’s why I don’t think we can concentrate only on male-female violence. I feel like I understand the mind of the criminal a bit better than most - even among my male friends and family, most don’t have the same anger and capacity for hurting people that I do. I also think that my experience can give hope that society CAN change, since I have not intentionally committed an act of physical violence against anybody since junior high, and I was not what could be called a bully then. If I can have these instincts and not act on them, or even feel on the verge of losing control of them, then other men who have these instincts can be socialized and/or raised in a way that helps them as well.
OK - little too much to reveal about ones-self to strangers, but I think that will be my last post- I can’t get past people thinking that I don’t think violence against women is wrong. It doesn’t matter what I say (I think that if I even just re-wrote what some of my detractors have been posting, it would still be interpreted the same way, just because I said it).
One last time- to summarize my position:
This comment was written by JayQ.-Violence against women is more tragic than violence against men.
-Trying to stop one without the other weakens the gender being protected(and probably does little to stop the violence, IMO)
-Violence against women, while I do not think is more common (long long discussion about what is considered violence against men, in which we would just find out that we have the same opinion as to what is happening, with different semantics behind the words), is more acceptable by a large chunk of our society than violence against men
-To stop this, more men have to change than women.
-Women have a greater stake in stopping this, which makes the above point difficult.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 10:30 am
Oops - one last post - this was being posted as I was typing:
I agree - It never made sense to me that women are socialized to say no even when they don’t want to say no, to avoid looking like a ‘loose woman’. If women were more free to just say ‘yes’ when they wanted to, and not scared of the repercussions, I think that in itself would result in some pretty major cultural shifts in a fairly short time (generation or so).
I’m not trying to say that ‘no doesn’t mean no’, but I have been in situations when the woman wanted to do something, but didn’t want me to know she wanted to, so she said no. Then later I found out she wanted me to pressure her about it so I would think it was my idea. I was extremely annoyed- I too would like to see that issue explored a bit more… You’ve got to admit, some of us are VERY stupid, and as long as there exists an exception to the rule ‘no means no’ there will be those very stupid people who don’t understand that it is an exception, and even when it happens, it should not be taken advantage of(in other words, if a woman says ‘no’, men should hear ‘no’, even if the woman means ‘talk me into it’).
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 10:41 am
JayQ: But yes- I am saying “Let’s not think about violence against women first” - I think if we do that we take women a step backwards, away from equality, and back to the idea that women are fragile and need special protection
Ginmar, isn’t this on your list of stereotypical sexist responses to any claim for equality?
In any case, JayQ, this is just yet another excuse for maintaining the status quo: male violence against women is normal, so don’t pay any attention to it. Instead, focus on violence against men, because only male problems really matter.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 10:47 am
Charles wrote-
It is impossible to shame a person without their tacit consent. If I feel shamed, I have ceded my power over to you. I have internalized your beliefs about me, and have replaced them for my own. Self-aware adults, making fully informed, intentioned decisions, and with a healthy ego, cannot be shamed. They own their lives. They own their decisions. They own the consequences of their decisions.
No matter how promiscus my sexual behavior, if I own every aspect of the behavior, no one can make me feel bad about it. You could paste my picture on billboards all around town, with the words SLUT in flashing neon lights, and I assure you, I will not feel ashamed.
If I am raped, control has been ripped from me, not ceded, so how can I be made to feel ashamed? Others may BELIEVE that they can shame me, and may hope to use shame as a tool to make me behave in a way desirable to them, but this is their’s to own.
If an adult asserts that they have knowingly and with full consent engaged in behavior that they later claimed to feel “shame” over, well, what are we to make of that?
Could it be that sometimes people enter into agreements that really aren’t fully consensual, because they aren’t fully informed, fully aware of what they’re getting into?
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 11:16 am
It is impossible to shame a person without their tacit consent. If I feel shamed, I have ceded my power over to you. I have internalized your beliefs about me, and have replaced them for my own. Self-aware adults, making fully informed, intentioned decisions, and with a healthy ego, cannot be shamed. They own their lives. They own their decisions. They own the consequences of their decisions.
Not true. That’s not the whole of the dynamic of shame. Critical mass does count. Most folks with a healthy ego have a thick enough skin to shrug off the occasional naysayer—-but how many of us, no matter the health of our ego, have enough inner strength to shrug off an entire community of naysayers? Part of the reason rape survivors are encouraged to get counseling isn’t just because of rape being a traumatic experience in itself. It’s also because surviving the aftermath—the critical mass of people who buy into the rape myths that bean mentions, and use that as Monday-morning quarterbacking for the rape survivor, is difficult. It is difficult to withstand a large number of people treating you like shit, all at the same time. Even the strongest of us need backup support; a community where we can remember who we are and refresh our strength.
I live in a small town—only 120,000 people. I’ve seen Monday-morning quarterbacking for rape survivors in the letters-to-the-editor in the local paper. How well would you stand up to that, Emmetropia, if you were raped after a date (regardless if your intention was to have sex or not—-that’s why I don’t judge Nick for hir choice, because it’s irrelevant. If you are a woman, you are every bit in as much danger for rape whether you are on a date or a one-night-stand)? Everyone that knows me thinks I should write down my life story and sell it to the Lifetime network; I’ve been through that much shit and survived, without having a nervous breakdown. Even so, I don’t think I could withstand a large share of my community thinking I was some kind of slut who contributed to her own rape, without having some kind of serious physical reaction, from violently acting out on someone to having a heart attack. I’ve handled a lot; I don’t know that I could handle “you brought it on yourself with your stupidity” from that many people on a daily basis.
I take issue with the highly individualistic idea that we are islands unto ourselves, able to withstand all the slings and arrows from all-comers without it making a dent into our psyches. I’m more solitary than most, more self-directed than most—and I sure as hell have my doubts about doing it—and even if I could, that experience would leave me far more scarred and embittered about humanity than the rape.
See, I think some people on this thread (and some others) are missing the point entirely. Yes, bad things happen. Yes, I know that by being female, I am more at risk of rape than if I were male. And yes, I can handle that. I don’t limit my life based on that. I deal with it.
What I don’t, and never will accept, is that I should accept any responsibility for being raped, ever. Under any circumstances. When someone is raped, it is always 100% the fault of the rapist. Yet, where I live, the standard belief is that rape is the one crime where it is partly the fault of the rapist, and partly the fault of the person raped. The person who was raped put too much temptation in the hands of the rapist, and he couldn’t control himself. Or, the person who was raped never should have been alone. Or….pick your myth. That’s what I don’t accept.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 11:53 am
Mmm, this is a little different from what I think me and JennyK are talking about (although I clearly can’t speak for her). It’s not that women say “no” when they mean yes–it’s more that the social scripts that men and women learn around sexual activities don’t have women saying anything *at all*. While there may be a couple of cases where a woman says “no” when she means “yes” (a bit of a risky assumption, but I’ll take you at face value when you say this woman later told you what she was feeling), I think the vast majority of the time no means no. In our culture, it’s *silence* that means yes–so men aren’t looking for a woman to say yes to sex, they’re just listening (maybe not so well) to make sure she doesn’t say no.
If you think about this, it’s strange. There’s not too many other situations in which we take a lack of a “no” to be the same as a yes. When I talk about a “rape culture,” this is what I mean: we live in a culture in which we don’t expect a woman to have to say “yes” to sex in order for sex to be OK. All she has to do is not say no–or not say “no” too loud–or not struggle too hard–and it’s not difficult to see why this belief can lead to a whole lot of rape.
You might have meant the same thing–but the way you phrased it put the responsibility squarely on women’s shoulders to say yes or no. Whereas I would argue that men are just as responsible to ask for verbal consent, rather than shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, women should learn to say yes.”
This comment was written by AB.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Jesurgislac,
I thought I was done, but then:
What?
Wanting to change the status quo is the same thing as wanting to keep the status quo?
Why do you think male violence against women is normal? I don’t.
Why not pay attention to male violence against women? I think we should.
Focus on male violence against men? What?? How many times must I repeat-
DO NOT FOCUS ON MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN
DO NOT FOCUS ON MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN
DO NOT FOCUS ON MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN
DO NOT FOCUS ON MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN
DO NOT FOCUS ON MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN
DO NOT FOCUS ON MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN
DO NOT FOCUS ON MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN
Is that any clearer?
I thought the two previous times would be enough:
Do you think maybe you’r coloring my words with your emotions and that you really want me to be a crappy sexist SOB so that you will have somebody ‘evil’ to rant against? It feels that way on my end. It doesn’t matter what I say or do, since I am a man, I obviously think that men can beat on women and this is acceptable. Is this really what you think? If so, how can any progress be made, since even men who want to stop violence against women(me), get blasted for it, and told that they actually don’t want to stop violence against women. I would point some male friends to this site, but I honestly think it would turn them against women. And that’s sad, because this site contains a lot of people that seem to be very good at making people think about the status of society in general, and that’s a good thing. The bad thing is when people do come in and want to get a better perspective on society and what other people think, that person is misrepresented and picked as an example of what is wrong with the world, which does a lot to push them back to the warped views they had before they came here. And I am not talking about me, but about other threads where I’ve seen the same thing happen… somebody starts out sounding like they have an open mind, and after being jumped by a couple of responders, they fall into stereotypical attitudes and defenses and leave probably more determined to continue in the beliefs this site tries to speak out against.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
To suggest that calls for action on violence against women is equivalent to arguing that women need “special protection” is disingenuous. What violence against women requires is a targeted approach. It requires this targeted approach because violence against women is othered, both in the language used to describe it [violence against men is called 'crime', or 'violence'], and within public and other services.
For example, if you are the male victim of a street assault [in the UK], you can present yourself to the front desk of any police station to report the crime perpetrated against you. If you are a victim of rape or domestic violence you will be dispatched to a special family protection unit, because the police have [finally] realised that the general training they undergo doesn’t prepare them to respond to victims of these crimes appropriately.
If, as many women do, you self-harm as a coping mechanism following rape or sexual assault, then your local healthcare provided is unlikely to respond in a sympathetic way. Anecdotal evidence abounds on both sides of the Atlantic of deliberately coarse treatment on the part of nurses and other workers who have limited patience for what they perceive as the self-indulgence of self-harming patients.
Cognisance of the realities of violence against women is rarely built in to the policies and practises that drive our workplace. If your workplace has an absence management policy, then the sickness absence record you are likely to build up as a victim of domestic violence (odd days here and there, with no medical certificate) is precisely that most likely to raise the flag to your employer that you are a shirker.
These are three small examples of a lack of awareness of violence against women in mainstream services and policies that all of us routinely come into contact with.
Violence against women has enormous societal and human costs. It also has monetary costs: in the UK, the total cost of domestic violence to services (Criminal Justice System, health, social services, housing, civil legal) amounts to £3.1 billion, while the loss to the economy is £2.7 billion. This amounts to over £5.7 billion a year. [Source: DTI.]
Women aren’t equal, and any public policy or programme that acts as though we are is doomed to fail to meet women’s needs.
This comment was written by Emma.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
JayQ: Wanting to change the status quo is the same thing as wanting to keep the status quo?
You say you want to change the status quo. The status quo is that violence against women by men is normalized and ignored. Your idea of changing the status quo is to ignore male violence against women and pretend that male violence against men is more important. I can’t see how this is changing the status quo at all.
since I am a man, I obviously think that men can beat on women and this is acceptable. Is this really what you think?
Evidently, you find men beating on women more acceptable than you find men beating on men, since you see men beating on women as a lesser priority to stop than men beating on men.
If so, how can any progress be made, since even men who want to stop violence against women(me), get blasted for it, and told that they actually don’t want to stop violence against women.
You have specifically said that you don’t see stopping male violence against women as a first priority. Yet you complain when this is cited back to you as if you meant what you said. If you are actually, genuinely serious about wanting to stop male violence against men - if that’s a priority in your life such that you don’t care what anyone else thinks - what do you care what a bunch of bloggers say to you? If you can be put off wanting to change male violence against men by feminists pointing out to you that better strategy is working towards a more equal society and working to change one aspect of male privilege, male violence against women, then clearly you were never very serious about working for change in the first place.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
La lubu wrote-
I also understand and agree that at some point, public response can itself FEEL like a rape, because it is coercive and threatening, and can frankly, just wear you down if you’re not taking good care of yourself.
But I don’t accept that rape victims are subjected to any more social pressure than others experience when they are acting in ways that threaten group solidarity or the existing power structure, or that they necessarily suffer more, because of that public pressure.
I lived in La Jolla during Betty Brodericks murder trial for killing her husband and his new wife. Believe me, the Monday-morning quarterbacking went on for months and months on the radio, in the paper and in offices around the city. I was flabbergasted at the number of educated, seemingly moral women, who claimed that her husband deserved to have a gun emptied into him while he slept, because Betty was forced to live on $16,000 a month. I’m sure the children suffered greatly.
Had Dan and his wife lived, I’m sure they would have suffered as well, to hear what was said about them.
I was a “whistle-blower” early in my career. My job was threatened (a job I very much needed), I got threatening phone calls from strangers, and the director of the organization’s affirmative action department, which was supposed to protect me, accused me of trying to go after my supervisor’s job, and leaked confidential information back to that person, who it turns out was a friend of the director of AA. It was 18 months of hell. When it was all said and done, and she was arrested and led away in handcuffs, no one in divisional management thanked me. I brought unwanted attention to them. An employee six months on the job, caught something they should have noticed off the bat. I was a freaking pariah. Co-workers avoided me like the plague. I was often depressed. It was the support of a single supervisor in another department that knew what was going on, that got me through those eighteen months. Every night she called me after work, and listened while I cried. Sometimes she’d leave inspirational quotes on chair. Little things. Important things.
In the end, the stand I took was an affirmation of who I was, and what I believed. I vacillated for some time before I turned over the evidence that I had, and asked for an investigation. I was afraid. But it was the moment that I understood that she thought you finally had gotten to me, made me afraid enough, that I would’t act, that I took a stand for myself.
Doing the right thing is hard, whether it’s standing up for a principle, or insisting that you be accorded your rights. But it’s how change happens.
I’m not sure if this an affirmation or question on your part, because of the punction, but if you meant to affirm this belief, I have to say, I don’t buy it. Essentially you’re saying that where women’s safety is concerned, all choices are equal. My choice to date a convicted rapist is no better or worse, than my choice to date someone who has taken a vow of celibacy for religious reasons. My powers of discernment and judgement are meaningless, useless.
This perspective infantilizes women. What value is there in free agency if there’s no real choice?
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
But I don’t accept that rape victims are subjected to any more social pressure than others experience when they are acting in ways that threaten group solidarity or the existing power structure, or that they necessarily suffer more, because of that public pressure.
In other words, you agree that by reporting a rape, and refusing to just suck it up and say in effect that rape is part and parcel of being female, that women are threatening group solidarity and the existing power structure. Well, now we’re getting somewhere.
The question mark at the end of that sentence (sorry, I should have been more clear!) was asking if you would be cool with the aftermath of rape—if your psyche would be copasetic with the daily round of criticism you would endure if you reported that you had been raped by your date.
Because frankly, that is exactly what happens to women where I live. If you are alone with a man, you are assumed to be alone with him for the purposes of having sex, regardless if that is your intent or not. In another one of Amp’s rape threads, I discussed a fairly recent case around here (actually, one of a handful of rape cases that has ever made it to court in the twenty years I’ve lived here) that involved a real estate agent being raped while on the job. Her intent was to show a house and make a sale. His intent was to rape her (it was brought out in court that he had chosen her picture from a number of other real estate agents in town as his target—-he had a detailed stalking blueprint in his apartment, discovered during a search warrant of his apartment). He held a gun to her head, so she didn’t have the shit beat out of her—-just the rape trauma and lacerations from his penetration. She called the police afterwards and did everything “by the book”; everything a woman is supposed to do after a rape. He was questioned by the police, and he told them that she was just a real horny broad, and that he was in fact reluctant—but she insisted on the sex! The police chose to believe him, despite the rape victim’s lacerations. He told the cops she “liked it rough.” This was an older, professional woman, with an impeccable reputation. She had been a successful, full-time real estate agent for many years. All that “good woman” behavior meant nothing though, because after her rape she was just another slut.
After the guy raped and murdered his next victim, and the DNA in the sperm sample from the dead woman’s body matched the DNA in the sperm sample from the real estate agent, the police arrested the guy. He’s doing life in prison now for the murder.
Yeah, color me skeptical. If that’s the kind of treatment that a white, professional, upper-middle-class woman, an official pillar of the community gets after she’s been raped, I figure I can expect worse. Why was she regarded as a slut? Because she voluntarily went somewhere with a man alone. How does that differ from being escorted to one’s car after a date? Sure, you can look up a man’s criminal record before going out on a date (and I do, and fuck it if anyone thinks I’m paranoid for doing so. this is my life, and I plan on continuing to live it), but just because someone hasn’t been convicted doesn’t mean he hasn’t raped.
If we were all mind readers, none of us would be raped. None of us would be victims of many other kinds of violent crime, either. Why in the hell is rape considered the victim’s fault?! Carjacking isn’t!
I’m sure the real estate agent looked up that guy’s name for a criminal record, but he was using a false name and fake ID. Even after the police discovered that he had fake ID, and rented the car he took to the rape scene using that fake ID, they still didn’t regard it as being suspicious enough to be arrest-worthy. The “slut” explanation was more plausible to them.
What. The. Fuck.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
I thought this might work last time, but apparently I need to do it again:
MEN BEATING ON WOMEN IS NOT A LESSER PRIORITY THAN MEN BEATING ON WOMEN
DO NOT FOCUS ON MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN
MEN BEATING ON WOMEN IS NOT A LESSER PRIORITY THAN MEN BEATING ON WOMEN
DO NOT FOCUS ON MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN
MEN BEATING ON WOMEN IS NOT A LESSER PRIORITY THAN MEN BEATING ON WOMEN
DO NOT FOCUS ON MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN
MEN BEATING ON WOMEN IS NOT A LESSER PRIORITY THAN MEN BEATING ON WOMEN
DO NOT FOCUS ON MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN
MEN BEATING ON WOMEN IS NOT A LESSER PRIORITY THAN MEN BEATING ON WOMEN
DO NOT FOCUS ON MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN
MEN BEATING ON WOMEN IS NOT A LESSER PRIORITY THAN MEN BEATING ON WOMEN
DO NOT FOCUS ON MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN
Did you read it that time?
Why, when someone says to treat BOTH types of violence at the same time, do you hear ‘only pay attention to violence against men’?
Yeah, that’s what i want to change, I just don’t think your methods will work.
AGAIN, just because I think violence against men is a problem, that does NOT mean that I think violence against women isn’t a problem.. It isn’t an either/or situation.
Where have I posted anything to even allege that violence against men is more important? I don’t think that, I never said that, I never implied that -unless you think that by saying I want to reduce ALL violence (last time I checked, ALL included women!), that what I really meant was I don’t want to reduce ALL violence, only SOME. Go back and try to find where I have said male violence against women is LESS important than male violence against women.
Umm…. I NEVER SAID WANTING TO CHANGE MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN IS MY GOAL. I HAVE SPECIFICALLY SAID IT ISN’T ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. WHY DO YOU NOT HAVE THE DRIFT BY NOW?
I have said several times that I don’t think just trying to reduce the one specific type of violence against women won’t work, and that it demeans women. I’m sorry, but it still boils down (to me) to the simple idea that we want to protect one class of people and not another. This puts the protected class in the position of being officially recognized as weaker and needing protection. This puts them on a lower standing than the non-protected class. It also won’t work, because it will just foster bad sentiment toward the protected class - “why do women deserve equal pay if I can’t treat them the same way I would a man”, “if you want this job, you better be able to hang with the guys, I don’t want a weak little woman screwing up the team dynamic”, etc. (yes I know these things already happen, but I think they would get worse)
One more time, another variation:
MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN NEEDS TO BE STOPPED
IT WON’T BE STOPPED UNTIL WE CHANGE THE ATTITUDE ABOUT VIOLENCE IN GENERAL (not specifically violence against women OR violence against men, but BOTH)(notice, use of the word BOTH is not meant to exclude women)
(notice, use of the word BOTH is not meant to exclude women)
(notice, use of the word BOTH is not meant to exclude women)
(notice, use of the word BOTH is not meant to exclude women)
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
Also
No, I complain when this is cited back to me to imply that I think violence against men IS first priority. I didn’t say that. Ever. But it doesn’t matter, because you already have your mind made up, and what I ACTUALLY said doesn’t really matter to you. You just want a bad guy.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Why, when someone says to treat BOTH types of violence at the same time, do you hear ‘only pay attention to violence against men’?
Because you are arguing, consistently, that you don’t want to pay priority attention to violence against women.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Yeah, well, the problem is, Jay, the problem isn’t equal at all, and your attitude that it’s a general problem that needs to be fixed is a classic dodge. “Both” implies equality of numbers, which doesn’t exist in reality. It’s that simple. This is a feminist website. Violence against men is a male problem, not a female problem. We discuss violence against women here because—-work with me here—-IT’S A FEMINIST WEBSITE, MORON.
Men and women don’t BOTH abuse one another. There’s no equality of numbers, size, justice, retribution,strength, or condemnation between the two. Christ almighty already. FEMINIST WEBSITE.
I bet you to the NAACP website and say that white and black racism are BOTH serious probelms,too. It’s just about that fucking stupid.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Jes,
Actually, I think what JayQ is trying to argue is that dealing with male violence against women requires dealing with male violence as male violence. That it is male violence that is the problem, which manifests as male violence against women, but that needs to be dealt with at the root.
I think his position is partly right, partly mistaken, and partly beside the point.
JayQ,
I agree that male violence is the root problem, but I think that male attitudes towards women and towards sex are specific parts of the problem of male sexual violence towards women that need to be addressed directly as part of dealing with male violence.
In any case, I think that male violence is an even broader problem than male sexual violence against women (which is still a very broad problem). The actual way that very broad problems get dealt with is piece by piece, so focusing on male sexual violence against women and the rape culture that supports it is one part of dealing with male violence.
I agree that a response to male sexual violence against women that doesn’t place the responsibility pretty much entirely on male violence (and male sexual attitudes) is unlike to be effective or helpful (The ‘pretty much’ is because there is also the problem of women being taught to submit to male violence and male sexual attitudes, which also certainly needs to be dealt with, but is certainly not the central problem).
However, I don’t think I am alone in agreeing on that, and I think that the problem you are having being understood comes from the fact that the mainstream feminist analysis of rape culture that you’ll find on this site does exactly that already, so when you say, ” I think you need to stop focusing on rape culture and focus on the violence culture of which the rape culture is apart,” I think you get read as saying to focus on the violence culture and ignore the rape culture that is part of it. I don’t think that is what you mean to be saying, but it is easy to read what you say that way.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
Ginmar,
You are totally misreading JayQ to an extraordinary degree.
He doesn’t say anywhere that male on female violence is equaled by female on female violence. He never even comes close to implying it. Never.
He says that male on male violence and male on female violence are two parts of male violence, and that you won’t be able to get rid of one without getting rid of the other. He places rape squarely as male violence, and nothing else. Perhaps he goes farther than most in doing so, and his analysis is weakened by a failure to look at the ways in which male sexual violence against women is tied into male sexuality as well as male violence, and that male sexuality also needs to change to undo male sexual violence against women, but your description of his position is just flat out wrong.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
True fact: men are less likely to access primary healthcare in the UK. Women are more likely to find themselves at their GPs surgery because they are more likely to be there with their children. Women’s magazines also focus more on health issues than do men’s magazines.
Therefore: men have less access to messages about wellness and male-specific health issues.
Policy intervention: various programmes to take health advice to places where men are. For example, advice about testicular cancer on beermats in pubs.
Do you think that such policies make men ‘weaker’ in and in need of ‘greater protection’ than women? Or are they just a pragmatic solution to a public health issue?
I don’t understand why you can’t discern that one-size-fits-all policy-making in any area that you care to name just isn’t very effective.
This comment was written by Emma.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
La Lubu wrote-
Have I suggested anywhere, that I believe otherwise?
I have no doubt that there are still many, many police departments, and DA’s, that are reluctant to investigate and prosecute both acquaintance and stranger rapes (although to my thinking the case you cite, would fall more into the stranger category.) I also know that there are reasonable, competent people out there who do want to help.
I don’t believe that all of the cases stem from a belief that the woman was a “slut,” at least from the perspective of the DA. (I haven’t seen that term used so much since I was in high school, usually shouted by one girl to another. ) I think it’s a combination of factors. Ignorance, simple incompetence, political pressures, lack of evidence and the inherent difficulty of he said, she said cases.
No DA is going to go forward with a case they don’t think they can win. Although doing so may be psychologically satisfying to the victim, losing is a definite disincentive to the DA’s office, and it’s expensive. But I have also found DA’s to be pretty reasonable people who want to do right thing.
How have you used the case you cite, to change the system? If people want to change it, it does no good to simply blog. You have to get involved in local politics. Your group has to have members that has access to influential decision makers, and you have to know how to network. Don’t assume that a teacher or social worker has the skills necessary. You have to start with a woman on your city council or something similar, who has some experience and a good rolodex. Identify a community that has had success revamping their system — maybe has successfully gotten tighter sentencing guidelines — and find out from them, what worked. You have to pull together good, solid statistics and advance your position in a nonemotional way. Understand that elected officials operate out of self-interest.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 5:52 pm
YES
This comment was written by JayQ.Men generally are weaker and in better need of protection when it comes to looking after basic health and wellness matters. I see this play out routinely in the form of wives that have to look out for the health of their husband because their husband is too stupid to admit that he may want to go to the doctor to check out that mole that has been growing for 6 months. I’m one of those guys. It DOES make me ‘in need of greater protection’. And when you give me the greater protection, it validates the opinion that I ‘need’ it. Doesn’t matter that the beermat messages work or don’t work. They still validate the idea that men aren’t capable of looking after themselves, so we have to spoon-feed them necessary information. I don’t think there should have been a policy intervention at all in that case… But that didn’t involve direct harm inflicted on someone else’s person.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 11:48 pm
I was born in 1946 and I can tell you for a fact that Susan is a liar and a troll.
This comment was written by rose.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 12:53 am
Doesn’t matter that the beermat messages work or don’t work. They still validate the idea that men aren’t capable of looking after themselves, so we have to spoon-feed them necessary information.
JayQ, that’s just silly. Women’s magazines are full of breast cancer awareness ads. The gynecologist has them plastered on the walls. It’s getting information to people who need it in places they will see it. It has nothing to do with thinking people aren’t capable of looking after themselves. Men are not “weaker and in better need of protection when it comes to looking after basic health and wellness matters. ” That is a stereotype. Men don’t need women to take care of them. They are quite able to take care of themselves. That “you” feel the need of a mother figure to keep yourself healthy only says something about yourself, not men in general.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 12:55 am
Rose, not everyone born in 1946 has had the same life.
I wasn’t born in 1946. But I’ve had a few discussions with Susan.
I think Susan can sometimes be stubborn. And I think Susan, like many people, sometimes has trouble correctly understanding what folks who disagree with her are saying.
But I’ve never seen any reason to think that she’s a liar, let alone a troll. I respect her. And I wish that personal attacks like the one you just made, Rose, didn’t appear on this blog.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 7:54 am
Hey, Charles? Beam in eye and all that shit. This is a feminist website. We focus on violence by men against women. With regard to male on male violence, yeah, well, Jay Q can knock himself out. But after he fixes all those barfights and shit, an awful lot of wives, mothers, girlfriends, and children will be dead. What nobody seems to get is that men attacking other men are picking on equal opponents. They don’t need feminist help, aside from the whole damned gender thing,which seems to need pointing out over and over. Feminist. I don’t care what men do to each other. That’s your cause. But when men attack women and children, they’re committing an act of violence against people who are smaller than them—in some cases, much smaller.
Fighting male violence? Yeah, that’s nice. Reminds me of people who try and argue that hate crimes are just crimes, period, what’s the big deal? It allows the specific evil acts of some to get buried under a general heading of ‘that’s awful but everything’s awful’ . I wonder if it’s a coincidence that the awful stuff is always perpetrated by the very people who are most interested in not looking at the most awful acts of all.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 8:51 am
It does to the National Health Service [NHS] who would rather spend pennies on prevention and awareness-raising than tens of pounds on cancer treatment. It does to the men who aren’t going to die because someone found an effective way of conveying to them a message about their health that was important for them to hear. It does to the children who aren’t going to watch a parent suffer and die because of a health intervention appropriate to their circumstance and lifestyle.
Similarly, it matters to the women who are raped, abused, and murdered by their intimate partners whether violence prevention and mitigation policy actually results in improved practice. As a man, it seems morally reprehensible for you to reject targeted domestic violence provision on the basis of some confused ideological point regardless of whether it works.
There is no evidence to suggest that public policy that is not shaped and targeted to its beneficiaries is more effective than that which is shaped and targeted to its beneficiaries. The idea is absolute lunacy.
This comment was written by Emma.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
AB: thanks, it’s actually something I picked up here from previous threads on rape and sexuality
Jake Q - the best way to break women of being reluctant to say “yes” is to accept our “no” (or silence - as AB points out) at face value. Women, like your partner, will speak up if you do what she says, but she didn’t actually say what she wanted. Eventually she will either learn to communicate like an grown-up or you will find an actual adult to play with. (this is also from previous threads)
Likewise, as long as women know that culture sees our “no” as “maybe” - and interprets any “yes” (or even silence) as an absolute yes - then women will be more cautious about saying “yes”. We will say “no” sometimes when we really would rather not. Especially when this attitude is taken to the point that women are considered “stupid” or engaging in risky behaviour when, in certain situations, we don’tsay “no” - irregardless of what we want to say.
That is, after all, what you are suggesting Nick does. That she should say “no” even if she wants to say “yes” (or isn’t sure) because she can’t expect others to understand that “yes” can come with conditions or that silence does not mean yes. Is it any wonder when her potential partners are confused about what “yes” and “no” mean? Do you not see how this is a self-fulfilling cycle?
“This puts the protected class in the position of being officially recognized as weaker and needing protection. This puts them on a lower standing than the non-protected class”
That’s bullshit. If the protections are based on actual facts (unlike the limited work hours that women and children could work in the early 1900’s*), especially if they are physical rather then mental, then this isn’t true unless you live in some feudal society where might makes right. Persons with disabilities get legal accomodations, but this does not put them on a lower legal standing. Some people consider them to have a lower social standing, but this would be true even without legal protection; the legal accomodations are used as justification for prejudice, but they are not the root cause of it.
Even more to the point - as Emma said, targeting specific types of violence often just means realizing that not all problems can be solved the same way, it does not always mean special protections.
Also, I don’t know if Charles is reading you right, but I agree with his point that one can’t really ignore the aspect of hyper masculinity that is is often inherent in male violence. Analyzing male on female violence as something seperate but related to male violence in general can actually help with that quite a bit. However, ignoring the gendered and cultural dynamic of most rapes is quite a hinderance to dealing with male violence in general, imho.
“But it does mean that a significant portion of the society doesn’t always believe that rape is rape.”
bean, word. My father was recently a jury member for a case in which the defendant was accused of rape, assault, and a bunch of other stuff. The jury found him guilty of almost everything, but aquitted him of rape on the grounds that she went to his house (after dark) - and pretty much nothing else. The fact that she had gone there for a completely different reason, a reason that was in fact related to the other charges, made no difference. She went to his house - at night - if she says she was looking for something other than sex, she must be lying.
*no longer being able to say “turn of the century” for this time period is quite annoying, and the fact that I find it annoying makes me feel old.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Jenny K
I agree with everything in your post, with the exception of
“That’s bullshit. If the protections are based on actual facts (unlike the limited work hours that women and children could work in the early 1900’s*), especially if they are physical rather then mental, then this isn’t true unless you live in some feudal society where might makes right.”
That’s kind of at the root of what I’ve been trying to say. We do live in a society where might makes right.
And I agree with what you said about women and reluctance to say ‘yes’. But I don’t think Nick did anything wrong- she said what her limits were, and the guys exceeded. That’s exactly what I’d want the woman to do. If she had not specifically said protection was required, I might be able to understand the guy’s frustration, but he would still be doing something just as bad.
And I do think that Charles was reading my post correctly- there is still disagreement, but the responses helped me understand what the disagreements were, and I’m a little closer to the position of the blog in general now than I was.
Ginmar - as far as this being a feminist site, and you don’t care about men- I understand. But an oversimplistic analogy is: You’re Spiderman(just because he was mentioned earlier), and you are standing on a ledge that two people just fell off of. The woman is falling in front of the man. You could probably save them both, but to do so, you have to shoot a web to the man, and get him out of the way. I have no problem with saving both- I would probably even cut corners on the man, maybe letting him slam into the wall instead of trying to cushion his stop, because the woman is closer to the ground. The impression I get from you is “fuck it- I don’t care if the man gets hurt” so you walk away and let both fall (or even take extra time to swing the guy to the side, but not attach the web line to the building, so he still falls, even if it means you will have more difficulty saving the woman). I assume from other posts I’ve read that this isn’t your true opinion, but it can appear that way.
Cool - that’s the first superhero analogy I think I’ve ever used online.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Yeah, JayQ, let’s deal with reality and how about you stuff the superhero metaphors? Fact is, men can help other men. Why should I? Very few men have doneanything but hinder women’s struggles if they’re not causing them. More men are willing to shout out women than are willing to lsiten.
I notice you go with a stupid comic book scenario than deal with the real world. Here’s a quick course. Women get beaten by men every day. IF they try to leave, those men kill them and sometimes their kids, too. Sometimes women kill in self-defense, which, in contrast to men’s killings of women, are regarded as not crimes of passion. Women, of course, have no passion—i.e. “women don’t need or want sex.” Etc., etc.,
For years feminists have struggled to keep women safe, in the face of brutality and opposition from men. Now there are men’s rights’ groups who claim that they’re being discriminated against in law by…other men. They claim that men are equally victimized by violence, especially by violence committed by women. These groups have sued women’s shelters to admit men. They could set up such shelters themselves for men:they do not. Instead they use the issue to change the subject on women’s sites and to bash feminists. They are constantly bitching about it and just as constantly they only bitch to women and they never life one fucking hand themselves.
Btichin about it here isobscene. If you want to really put a representative sample of DV on that ledge, you’d have ten women and one man, and that man would be gay. Those women would have suffered miscarriages, broken bones, ruptures, cuts, bruises, sexual assaults,burns,punches—-and invisibility to guys like you, who come up with smarmy examples that take as a given the idea that there’s o ne male victim for every female victim. In addition to which, these women would have to flee for their lives with their clothes on theirbacks. They could count on only other women for sanctuary, because guys like you are too fucking busy being cute and smarmy.
Go ahead with your comic books. It’s not a comic book to me. That it is to you is utterly disgusting.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
“We do live in a society where might makes right.”
No, we don’t. That’s what laws are for. If might made right, theft would only be crime if you had enough strength to take your property back yourself.
Some people may believe that might makes right, but as I pointed out earlier, they think this because they think this, not because we acknowledge (legally or otherwise) that different people have different physical abilities. No-one thinks that people in wheelchairs are suddenly second-class citizens simply because we pass laws requiring ramps. In fact, quite the opposite; legally requiring access for everyone brings people in wheelchairs closer to full citizenship. Likewise, acknowledging that men’s fists are, on average, capable of doing more damage than women’s fists are does not make women second-class citizens in the eyes of anyone who did not think so to begin with. Creating violence prevention programs that acknowledge this helps to promote equality (not undermine it) by asserting that women should not be subject to disproportionate violence just because they are often more vulnerable.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
I agree 100%. But isn’t it the people who already think women are second class citizens precisely the ones that are causing the problem? If they’re the only ones that get pissed off, isn’t that still pretty darn bad?
I think we should have violence prevention programs that acknowledge the physical differences between men and women, and point out that just because one is more vulnerable does not mean that they should be a target. I don’t think that is against anything I have said. Remember, I specifically mentioned that I wasn’t for the men’s health policies because it didn’t involve direct physical harm to another person. I would venture to say that rape and abuse does. I am in full support of almost every policy or program I have seen mentioned here. I just think that if you want to change society, you have to change the bigger picture. I don’t think that trying to change one aspect of men’s behavior will be successful.
I counter that with - If we don’t live in a society where might makes right, then why aren’t laws against rape effective? Isn’t it because the men have the power and the privilege(might)?
This comment was written by JayQ.Why do celebrities seldom go to jail for crimes normal people would? Isn’t it because they have the power and the privilege(might)?
Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
Cathy Young, who has linked to this entry, made a very cogent point.
Reverse the situation: A single male goes into a bar, stays completely sober and picks up two drunk women in the armed forces, in this case women capable of compelling his behavior. They take him back to their camp and the three of them begin to engage in sexual acts. During the course of the encounter one of the women begins to do something with which he is not comfortable…whether it is related to safe sex or not is irrelevant, the issue is personal choice. At this point the man begins to worry, the women are physically capable of overpowering him, and drunk enough to be deaf to reason. Long story short, he leaves.
Who is at fault here? Most people would say that the man is to blame. The man was sober and picked up two drunk women. In most cases that’s frowned upon, and in any case he might have chosen a wiser course (this is NOT saying that “he should have known better.”) The man put himself in a situation where he could not count on the rational behavior of his chosen partners. So who the HELL is surprised when his sex partners don’t act rationally? I think most feminists would tell the man to look in the mirror. He walked out when he realized that he was not going to have a satisfactory sexual encounter. Where is the substantive difference? Is it because men are, on average, physically stronger than women? My suggestion: go to the gym and have sex with weak men, or men who aren’t drunk. Is it because women wouldn’t do such things? That’s ridiculous, there are plenty of women who engage in dominance play during sex that could turn nasty when drunk. And, in this case, where is the problem? She thought she was going to have a night of enjoyable sex, she left when she realized that she wasn’t going to. Give me a damn break. Many people go into many nights hoping to have great sex, only to not have great sex. There was no rape, there was no male patriarchal domination or whatever the current buzzword is, it’s just Nick complaining because she didn’t get what she wanted. There are real rapes going on right this minute, where women are being used as sexual objects against their wills, and Nick is complaining because she didn’t get what she wanted and wants to call it rape.
This comment was written by Dan L.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Ginmar-
I’m not trying to protect men. I don’t want them to have access to women’s shelters. I don’t think they need (for the most part) to have men’s shelters either. I don’t know why you constantly think I’m saying that violence against women is somehow less bad than violence against men, or less common, or less severe, or less accepted. Just saying to concentrate on the general acceptance of violence and physical aggression is not the same as saying “there will be no recognition of the absurd theory that women are people.” I have no problems with specific public policy measures in place to protect and inform women. I just think that there should at the same time be public policy and law to protect both men and women. And if men need specific policy or law passed, then so be it(but I can’t think of any). I think that Men’s Right’s activists are largely just either stupid or they like to fight with women, although to my knowledge I’ve never met one, so I may be wrong.
I don’t mean to upset you, as most of the differences in our argument don’t really affect what actions you take on a day to day basis. I think we would vote for most of the same laws and procedures(regarding these subjects). But at some point in the near future, our paths would have to part, and I think that the one you’re heading for isn’t as good for women as the one I’m heading for. And by ‘good for women’, I mean women becoming full members of society, with little or no male privilege left that they don’t share, and they only have to be as scared of violence as men are.
Yes, the comic book analogy was meant to be a little cute. I apologize for not being so inflamed by rage that I can’t try to be civil. (not meant to be a slam on you or anybody else- I may find you a little unreasonable, but I think you’ve generally been civil)
And if you want to change my example to yours, the analogy still stands. Some of your posts give the impression that you would rather attempt and fail to save only the women, than to successfully save all 10 women AND the one man. Again, I have read some of your other posts, and I don’t actually think that’s the way you look at the world, I just wanted to let you know that it may be the impression you’re giving. You can either not care, get mad at me for the suggestion, rejoice that I understand you at last, or think it through and decide whether I may have a point, or am just full of it. There are probably other things you can do with the thought, but there may be kids reading this.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
Dan are you just selectively skipping over the whole part where one of the guys was physically trying to overpower Nick - and suggested to the other guy that they continue to ignore her objections?
Yeah, it would be easy to act as if rape had not almost occurred if there was no (suggestion of) physical restraint because rape wouldn’t have almost occurred if there had been no (suggestion of) physical restraint. No one is pissed at the paratrooper because he changed his mind, we are pissed because he thought (even for a moment) that he had a right to make Nick’s mind up for her.
Jay Q:
“But isn’t it the people who already think women are second class citizens precisely the ones that are causing the problem?”
No, if that’s what you think, then there is still a lot that we disagree about - unless of course you are arguing that everyone who gets pissed off at what we are saying sees women as second class citizens in some way (whether they think so or not), to which I’d partly agree. ;)
“If they’re the only ones that get pissed off, isn’t that still pretty darn bad?”
I’m confused, are you suggesting that feminists should shutup because we are pissing off the people that don’t like us to begin with? Isn’t that kinda like telling muckrakers they ought to settle down ’cause they are pissing off those in power?
“If we don’t live in a society where might makes right, then why aren’t laws against rape effective? Isn’t it because the men have the power and the privilege(might)?”
I don’t think of what you are talking about as being “might makes right” so much as acknowledging that while we strive for “might for right” we often fall short of this goal. We live under the assumption that might does not make right, that we use the might of the government for right; but in reality it doesn’t always work that way. That’s why will still strive to change things. That does not mean, however, that “might makes right” is the standard or the assumption that we operate under.
Which brings me back to the idea that it’s “the people who already think women are second class citizens precisely the ones that are causing the problem.” This sounds like it ought to be true because one would almost have to think this way in order to do the types of things we are talking about. This is not true when one is talking about professed beliefs, however, because many abusers and rapists do not see what they do as rape or abuse in fact, quite often, neither does society.
As just one of many immediate examples, on the original thread someone tried to argue that “but I think once you have consented to sex, and have been having sex, it is harder to claim rape if you start to say no during the process.” So, obviously there are still many men (and women) confused about the differences between silence, “no” “maybe” “yes” and “yes with conditions.” I’ve had several arguments with people about female sexuality where the underlying assumption proves to be that male and female sexuality are defined, or at least dominated, by male desire alone. Again, it’s hard to be clear on what simple words like “yes” and “no” mean when one party is assumed to have little or no desire to say yes without persuasion.
In that sense everyone is causing the problem. My father’s fellow jurymembers are part of the problem. Anyone who tries to argue that “Playboy” is primarily an expression of female sexuality is part of the problem. All the people whose immediate response to Nick’s story was “well what did you expect?” are part of the problem.
As I’ve said before, rape and abuse are unique in that the surest way to not get caught is not to stay anonymous, but to gain the support of others, both the victim and the general public. When our first response to attempted or actual rape is to ask the (potential) victim “what did you do?” or “how could you take that risk?” rather than “how are you?” or “how could he do that?” we are giving the rapist our support - or at least an easy way to gain it.
That does not mean that we should never assess risk. However, most people work under the assumption that men are incapable of not being violent and that women don’t have anywhere near as much sexual desire as men. These, and other assumptions, affect our reactions to rape and casual sex. The reason people usually question the victims actions, especially immediately after the crime, is not because they want to assess risk, but because they are looking to shift the blame - either to make themselves feel safer or to feel better about their own actions or the actions and attitudes of those around them.
“I am in full support of almost every policy or program I have seen mentioned here.”
Then I’m a bit confused as to what you are taking exception to.
“I just think that if you want to change society, you have to change the bigger picture. I don’t think that trying to change one aspect of men’s behavior will be successful.”
No one is saying that male violence will be solved by looking at male on female violence alone, we’re just saying that you can’t solve male violence without addressing it’s gendered aspect. I think (as apparently do others) that even if all you do is look at male on female violence, you will still likely make an impact on that (although I don’t think as much of one as a comprehensive approach). I also think that concentrating on male on female violence by itself will still do as much or more to combat male violence in general than concentrating on everything but the role gender plays in male violence would, simply because I think definitions of masculinity play that large of a role in acceptance of male violence.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 1:50 am
Dan L: There are real rapes going on right this minute, where women are being used as sexual objects against their wills, and Nick is complaining because she didn’t get what she wanted and wants to call it rape.
You know, you were sounding halfway reasonable till then…
Lying about what Nick said does not facilitate discussion. Nick explicitly said that she avoided being raped - physically and verbally resisting.
Trying to argue that being screwed without a condom against your will (especially when you have laid down the rules in advance about condom-use) isn’t rape, it’s just another woman “not getting what she wanted” is obscene.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 6:46 am
JayQ, Jenny pretty much said it for me. If you don’t see by this point, it’s because you just don’t want to.
I see Cathy Young is still taking examples out of context and then acting like context is nothing, and that changing gender has no effect on changing anything—-because of course you know female rapists are such a huge problem in this country. At this point, citing her pretty much demolishes your case.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 10:34 am
Nick,
I hold much doubt as to the veracity of your story. I don’t think it really happened; that a pregnant woman would do something so foolish as bring home two strange and drunk military men for a three-way. If it is true, do as you please in life, but don’t think you’ll find a sympathetic audience, with the exception of this bubble of yours, that finds your position a reasonable or sane one.
I do hope that your child, once born, will be given more care than you give to yourself. Will you still be bringing home strangers like this for sexual romps as s/he sleeps in the next room? There are rapists, and there are child abusers. That’s not an ideal world, I know, but it’s the real world that we live in. I have two daughters, and I cringe at the thought they grow up to make decisions like the ones you make.
Please take good care of your child. As adults, and as their parents, we owe our children our “prudent” decisions, even if it means we personally are having to “settle for less”.
This comment was written by Brian.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Indeed. It’s bad enough to take risks yourself, but risking the security of a fetus?! Monstrous! When pregnant women have sex, they’re molesting their unborn children.
>>I have two daughters, and I cringe at the thought they grow up to make decisions like the ones you make.>>
I hope they never come to you with a story sexual assault.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
No, not monstrous, smart aleck……just stupid. It’s stupid enough to do in general, but she’s obviously concerned about her “fetus” that she didn’t drink alcohol, yet she’ll expose herself and her “fetus” to disease from strangers. condoms aren’t a sure-fire protection aganst that.
If she’s foolish enough to put herself in danger (”it’s risky”), she may be foolish enough to do the same after her child is bron, right? After all, she says she does not want to sacrifice (”settle for less”), so why would she behave any differently with a child in the house?
Walk outside at night and get assaulted, there is not one shred of blame that should be placed on the victim. Cruise a bar, sober, looking for guys willing to screw you for one night of fun, and getting not one but two drunk men over to your home……..there is definitely some contributory behavior happening there. And if you’re too blind to see it, then you’ll continue to leave yourself exposed to other such assaults. If that’s what Nick wants to do, then she should have at it. But don’t bring her child into the mess, born or unborn.
This comment was written by Brian.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
Coming late to the party but here goes:
Telling people to take safety precautions isn’t blaming the victim. Its an appeal to common sense.
Locking your doors at night is common sense.
Not leaving your car keys in the ignition is common sense.
Not walking alone in dark , high crime areas at night is common sense.
Not putting yourself in the control of two large, drunk, strange men who might force you to do what you don’t want to do is common sense-for men AND women.
Is all this unfair to people who want to engage in those behaviors? Sure. That’s life. I find it unfair I wasn’t born wealthy also. I’ll get over it.
Speaking as a former DA, I assure you that rapes ARE vigorously prosecuted and are taken seriously-at least in my city. Let it be noted that a large percentage of the prosecutors , judges, and police officers these days are, in fact, women and that juries are often majority women.
This comment was written by carib.Let it also be noted that consent is usually a he said/she said affair, and we have heard only one version of the event. The paratroopers’ version is likely to be a whole lot less flattering to Nick, and there would be two to her one, had it gotten that far.
Finally , in our our system of laws, the defendant has the presumption of innocence. That means if its 50-50 which story is true, the defendant wins.
Taking all that in consideration, Nick can do what she likes. But lets not pretend that in this world, it wasn’t risky.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
Brian: Cruise a bar, sober, looking for guys willing to screw you for one night of fun, and getting not one but two drunk men over to your home……..there is definitely some contributory behavior happening there.
Riiiiiiight. Because a woman who is looking for sex (as Nick explicitly was) is somehow providing “contributory behavior” to being raped.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
Locking your doors at night is common sense.
Why? Break-ins and home invasions in my neighborhood are the result of smashed windows. (So far, no one blames the victim here by saying that there should have been plywood over the windows—-who do we think we are, having windows?)
Not leaving your car keys in the ignition is common sense.
Why? I’ve never seen an unlocked, unoccupied parked car in Chicago, let alone one with the keys still in it, yet car theft abounds all the same.
Look, those those actions probably do lower your risk factor by 1-2%. But the common view is that those precautions lower your risk by a huge factor, and it just isn’t so. So it is with precautions against rape. You can follow all the common advice to the best of your ability, yet still only lower your actual rape risk by 1-5%.
What is the population of men, out of the general population, who engage in one night stands? Now, is that population of men, the ones willing to engage in one night stands, more likely to rape women than the general male population? I haven’t seen any statistics to that effect, and I’m skeptical that there is any difference in the willingness to rape in those populations of men.
But, for those of you who say that Nick’s behavior was risky, or riskier than dating in general, to what do you attribute that belief? Do you believe that men in general are likely to rape women? That being classified as a “stranger” in the male mind makes a woman more likely to be classified as “ok to rape” in that same male mind? In other words, that the status of the woman in the mind of the male rapist is more important than what’s going on in the mind of the male rapist?
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
Jenny K wrote-
Nick wrote -
Can you please tell me how keeping covering one’s crotch with your hand, while attempting to have a rational conversation, translates into physical overpowerment? Particularly when she indicates that he hadn’t yet tried to force her?
I’ve fought off an attacker who had a knife to my throat and felt neither rational nor conversational. My only thought was escape.
You are combining portions of Nick’s story, with parts of another posters’ story, in which SHE mentions that a second man made facial gestures in a way that suggested that they ignore HER OWN request.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
Alas, lulu, you haven’t researched the issue:
http://www.crimedoctor.com/home.htm
The above site seems to think that locked doors help a lot.
Other sites make clear that not leaving your keys in the car is the first sdtep to preventing auto theft. Again, its common sense! And the experts sem to think that taking precautions helps a great deal!
Dunno how to answer your questions, but rapes have occurred and continue to ccur in every human society known to man. Its part of the human condition, just like robbery, burglary and theft are part of the human condition. We have to guard against these things and work to lessen them through education, , law enforcement, ansd taking personal responsibility for our actions. But there will never be a rape free society while there exists men who want to have sex with women who don’t want sex wih them.That’s always been and always will be.
This comment was written by carib.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 11:31 pm
Actually, I have researched the issue; that’s how I know that the break-ins in my neighborhood are “smash and enter”. Locked doors are a feelgood measure; it’ll convince the cops that yes, someone did break into your house, but it won’t deter thieves—the thieves plan on smashing your windows out. Alarms can help, but not with the experienced thief, who knows that he/she has several minutes to grab stuff and make a clean getaway before the cops arrive (alarms do a better job at scaring off juvenile offenders). People have the idea that these measures reduce their risk far more than they actually do. Movies and TV programs show burglars picking locks; real burglars rarely do. That’s the thing—too much image, not enough reality.
And so it is with most rape prevention advice. Most such advice is impractical or impossible. Take the “avoid empty parking lots/parking garages after dark”. Wholly impractical for city-dwelling women who work for a living. Or “don’t use the laundry room in your apartment building after dark”. Huh. Where do you buy clothes that launder themselves while you’re at work? Or the perennial “get a dog”. Guess the dog takes itself out for a shit while you’re at work, too. Besides, the rapist is more likely to be someone the woman already knows. Out of all the rapes that took place last year, how many involved a stranger who broke into the victim’s car and hid in the back seat? Yet, “check the back seat” is still on practically every rape prevention checklist! And yes, police departments buy into rape myths too, and give out bogus advice along with practical advice.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
“prevent his attempt to penetrate me without wasting time on discussion”
Saying that this isn’t attempted rape is like saying that if someone tries to kiss me after I said not to, they aren’t actually trying to kiss me unless they grab my face and hold it still (or hold a gun to my head). The difference between Nick’s example and yours is the difference between someone trying to steal something in your front yard versus someone who mugged you or broke into your house. The latter examples both involve added violence and consequently are not only more likely to be worth the cost of going to the police to report it but also carry added penalties for the added crimes. However, all examples are still attempted crimes as well.
You are right that I confused Samantha and Nick’s stories, though. my bad. I’d admit “pot meet kettle” as well if it wasn’t for the fact that Samantha’s example fit’s into Dan’s “reverse scenario” as well, and yet would still fall under conspiracy to commit a crime if rape had occurred. (I’m not quite sure on the legal lines drawn on “conspiracy to commit a crime” if one of the two parties declines and the crime isn’t commited, but I don’t see how the type of crime or gender of the people involved makes a difference.)
carib - these types of measures aren’t exactly preventative though, they often just change who the victim is. Which is part of our point - measures to prevent crimes by making potential victims less vulnerable only work up to a certain point - over and above sometimes costing the potential victims more than they gain in decreased risk. Locking doors only decreases overall crime by a very small amount - for the most part thieves just choose something else to steal or take bigger risks for bigger gain. This can still work to law enforcements advantage as bigger risks means a greater possibility of getting caught (having to break in takes time and can attract attention, it also gives the thief more opportunities to mess up and leave clues).
However, pressuring rapists to take bigger risks when it comes to getting caught doesn’t really work they way it works with thieves. The vast majority of rapes are aquaintance rapes where the question of “who” is pretty much never an issue. Even tracking down someone you picked up at a bar would be as easy as pie compared to figuring out who broke into your car.
In most cases of theft, whether or not a crime occured is almost never an issue, but who commited the crime usually is. When it comes to most rape cases, it’s quite the opposite. “Who” is often not an issue - the big question is usually “did a crime occur?” Thus the same types of preventative measures that work for theft will not neccessarily work for rape. They can, however, work to the rapists advantage if society views claims of rape more or less skeptically - or adjusts how severe it considers the crime to be - according to nothing more than the (non-aggrevating) actions of the alleged victim.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Jesurgislac:
Yes, it is contributory if you are not only looking for sex, but bring stranger men into your house. It’s risky behavior, as she admits it is. She an actress in this little drama, not a voyeur, hence the “participation”.
Lulu:
You wrote: What is the population of men, out of the general population, who engage in one night stands? Now, is that population of men, the ones willing to engage in one night stands, more likely to rape women than the general male population?
How is this relevant? I have had one night stands, and they were potentially as risky for me as for the woman. Risky from a health standpoint, and from a personal safety standpoint. I have a friend who picked up two women here in Los angeles a few years ago, and they were preparing to screw, one of them pulled a pistol and put it to his head. Fortunately, he gave them his money and they split. The point is that it is risky behavior, the participants accept that risk, regardless of their sex, and they have to accept that fact that if they do not want to get put into such a situation again, maybe they should change their behavior in the future. If a guy rapes a woman under these circumstances, he should not get away without punishment, but if the victim does not change behavior(and there is little indication that Nick has any desire to change, even after her child is born), they would be properly considered insane.
This comment was written by Brian.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 10:43 am
Lulu- some crime prevention advice is bad , but much it is pretty much common sense. Dark parking lots?Have someone walk you to your car.
I ve never never heard of laundry rooms being a problem, but that’s what weekends are for! And dogs can be housebroken:-)
The point is its unfair & inconvenient to have to take precautions but your solution-changing human nature so that no man, nowhere will want to rape-won’t happen.
This comment was written by carib.as for acquaintance rape, in a criminal justice system where the defendant has the presumption of innocence, he said /she said cases are always going to be problematical. Remember, if its 50-50, the defendant wins. That ’s the law-and should continue to be the law, in my opinion .
Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 10:49 am
How is this relevant? I have had one night stands, and they were potentially as risky for me as for the woman.
And if the one-night stand did to you what one did to your friend, would you appreciate some snotty asshat telling you that they hope you show more regard for your daughters than you do for yourself? Would you appreciate questions over whether you’d still be bringing home strangers like this for sexual romps as your daughters sleep in the next room? There are robbers, and there are child abusers, after all.
For all of the insistence that sure, guys take risks and gosh, we’d take them to task for those risks, I’m just not seeing it. I am seeing an awful lot of slut-baiting and general disgust at a woman acting the way men feel entitled to act.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 11:07 am
>>The point is its unfair & inconvenient to have to take precautions but your solution-changing human nature so that no man, nowhere will want to rape-won’t happen.>>
This is a strawman. No feminist wants to create a utopia, merely to solve the social inequalities that make rape and sexual violence problems for women out of all proportion to their numbers. Violent misogyny is not “human nature.”
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Avoiding laundry rooms is one of the old nuggets of conventional wisdom about how to avoid rape. If you have not heard this, I suspect it is because you’re not a city dweller (just as I find it hard to believe that anyone in the New York area has never heard a complaint about the LIE.)
Which works only in those circumstances where there’s a man around to do that. Which also then puts her in the proximity of a man she may not know that well, with nobody else around, late, in a dark parking lot. And which may require her to ask folks for favors that she doesn’t want to owe anything to.
Your own advice, carib, just leads to another morass of “dangerous situations” and victim-blaming.
I don’t have to ask people to walk me to my train or wait on the platform with me. I’m a man. That’s a big advantage. I can (and did when I lived in an apartment building) do laundry in a deserted, isolated laundry room without fear. I’m a man. Lots of these little things put together are a system of male privilege that makes my life easier and makes me feel more free. The converse experience makes women’s lives harder and makes women less free. That’s what we’re on about. If you’re not interested in changing that, you are working for the patriarchy. If you’re trying to tell La Lubu that she should be taking more safety precautions, you’re just setting up the victim-blaming environment.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
“in a criminal justice system where the defendant has the presumption of innocence, he said /she said cases are always going to be problematical.”
If all we were talking about was a legal presumption of innocence, we wouldn’t have the the problems we have. Instead we also have a social presumption of guilt on the part of the victim that goes so far as to cause juries to dismiss the evidence at hand.
If the rape case I brought up before isn’t a good enough example, how about the recent OC rape trial? Yes, the boys were finally found to be guilty - but it took two trails in what should have been a open and shut case. The privilege of the upper-class played a big role in it, but so did social attitudes about the proper place and behaviour of women - and how culpable rape victims are with regard to their own assault.
Or how about La Lubu’s example of the neighbors who declined to even call the cops when she screamed for help? How do you think those people would act when part of a jury?
You act as if in most he said/she said cases of rape the defendant simply claims that she said yes, when in actuality the all defense has to try and argue is that she didn’t say no, or that she said yes at some point so everything else is irrelevant. This can make prosecuting even clear cut cases of rape - like the OC trial - problematic.
Oh, and Brian? It’s relevant because it means that engaging in one night stands is not necessarily any riskier for women then getting involved in long term relationships. It may be riskier with regards to theft, because the more we know someone the less likely we are to rob them (people generally rob within a comfort zone, but they rarely rob their best friends), but this same dynamic does not neccessarily hold true for abuse or rape.
I’m lucky enough to have never been raped, but as I’ve said here before in previous discussions, all the violations that I have suffered have pretty much occured during the normal course of living my life. I can’t think of a single one that I could have prevented by following all this “well-meaning” advice. On the other hand, I have yet to come to any danger on the many occasions I’ve refused to follow such advice because of the restrictions they would place on my life. I’m not so naive to think that luck doesn’t have a big part to play in all this. I’m also not stupid enough to look at my experiences, and all the similar stories from other women, and all the stats and analysis that law enforcement puts out, and come to the conclusion that one night stands are the equivilant of not locking my car door.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
. Violent misogyny is not “human nature.”
Unfortunately, it is. We can reduce it, but it will always be there. Again, men are ALWAYS going to want toi have sex with women who don’t want have sex with them and a few of those will force women. That’s not going away.
This comment was written by carib.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
If that were true Carib, women’s violent tendancies to kill those men would be more apparent. Think again.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
If all we were talking about was a legal presumption of innocence, we wouldn’t't have the the problems we have. Instead we also have a social presumption of guilt on the part of the victim that goes so far as to cause juries to dismiss the evidence at hand.
In my experience as a prosecutor , lots of juries convict lots of men of rape. The problem is that in some situations, its in fact difficult to judge consent. In those borderline cases, the guy will get the benefit of the doubt-and should, given our Constitution and system of justice. It should NEVER be easy to convict someone of rape. Sorry for all feminists who think that the accuser should be simply taken at their word.
For example, everyone here took Nick at her word. I suspect the paratroopers version may be far different. If you were on the jury, you should not just automatically credit the testimony of the woman ( as I suspect many here would)
This comment was written by carib.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
QGRRL:
If that were true Carib, women’s violent tendencies to kill those men would be more apparent. Think again.
Ah but men and women really ARE different in some ways. Men are unquestionably more violent than women-which is why the number of men on men assaults dwarfs the number of rapes.
This comment was written by carib.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Cough up the statistics please.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
“its in fact difficult to judge consent”
How is consent difficult to judge in the OC case?
How does a jury concluding that a woman must have been looking for sex because she went to his house, not that she did not have sufficient proof of assault (they convicted on the non-sexual assault charge) equate to “innocent until proven guilty”?
The juries don’t come out and say to the judge and lawyers that they found the alleged rapist innocent because they found her guilty, but that doesn’t mean that isn’t what they talk about behind closed doors.
“Sorry for all feminists who think that the accuser should be simply taken at their word.”
What part of “presumed innocent” was I taking issue with in your mind?
“as I suspect many here would”
yeah…that’s why all the feminists focused on Kobe being obviously guilty rather than the slut argument of the defense. /sarcasm
We don’t have a chance to talk to the paratroopers so we are taking Nick at her word in an exercise in hypotheticals, not because we would automatically believe her if we were part of a jury. Seriously, how insulting are you trying to be? How many stereotypes are you intent on perpetuating?
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Since we are talking about anecdotal evidence, I have some:
- The number of times I have heard “When a man is accused of rape, people think he did it no matter the evidence”, or any variation of the same: Too many to count, dozens at least. (Then starts the whining about the “huge” number of false accusations. Right. And prisons are full of innocent people, just ask the prisoners ;) )
-The number of times I have heard “When a man is accused of rape, I think he did it, no matter the evidence”, or any variation of the same: Zero. (Yes, never heard that one in my life.)
I have to wonder who these “people” are? Do they belong to some secret society? Secret handshakes to identify others or something?
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
On what planet? Nationwide, about 16% of all LE officers are female and in most agencies, it’s much less than that. And that is even more apparent in the detective rank, even in the sexual assault divisions. Most judges are still men, particularly in my area, in criminal courts. Most of our female judges seemed to be in juvenile or family courts. Most prosecutors are still men, though the number of female prosecutors is growing.
As far as vigorous prosecution of sexual assault crimes? There’s some improvement for White women, very little if any for Women of color(who are often invisible victims in discussions of rape and other forms of sexual assault) and most of the vigorously prosecuted cases are “stranger” rapes. Still, the conviction rates are miniscule.
Yes, plea bargains exist, in fact most crimes overall are disposed through plea bargains, but given the seriousness of rape as a violent crime, most of the sentences given out on the “lessor” offenses in plea bargains, are laughable at best. Often very little or no incarceration or jail time. Mostly formal probation and sex offender registration.
Classism and racism also play roles in how rape crimes are treated. And who’s the perpetratuer, who’s the victim. Or whether there even is a victim at all.
As far as jurors, they can be mostly male, mostly female.
I guess some of Ms Young’s diciples wondered on over here.
Brian’s just behaving as an asshat. It’s inevitable in any discussion of this type that a man is going to come and lecture women on how they can avoid causing their own rapes. Does he spend an equal amount of time lecturing men on how to not rape women? Oh, well, that’s probably the women’s job!
Just b/c a woman’s decision might not be smart or might be very unwise, doesn’t mean that the men who commit rape aren’t 100 % responsible for what they do. They are the ones who make the decision to rape, whether it’s a stranger, an acquaintance, friend, significant other. If a woman’s doing something that might put her at risk, that does not negate the crime against her. Besides, women are victims of crime even when they are doing all the “right” things on the checklist that’s created and put out mostly by male individuals. The reason why this happens, is because rape is that the decision to rape is not in the women’s hands in theses cases, but in the rapist(s)’. So she can be doing anything. Walking down the street, going out with a guy or sleeping in her own home.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
“Sorry for all feminists who think that the accuser should be simply taken at their word.”
Name one.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Sheelzebub wrote:
“And if the one-night stand did to you what one did to your friend, would you appreciate some snotty asshat telling you that they hope you show more regard for your daughters than you do for yourself?”
After I did what I did, and my friend did what he did, we did not go off and start a blog, rationalize our behavior on that blog, and close our post in saying that we deserve to be free from any authority telling us that we should behave otherwise.
I had no daughters at the time of my one night stands, and my friend (who has a son who was alive when this incident happened to him) has never repeated his behavior since. He realized that it was a symptom of something he needed fixed for himself. He has never repeated it since. He got no acceptance from anyone for what he did, and he regrets it to this day.
this sense that there is this universal acceptance of unacceptable behavior from me, while at the same time there’s a universal lack of acceptance of same in women, is simply delusional and wishful thinking; rationalization in support of unacceptable behavior.
This comment was written by Brian.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Jenny wrote:
“Oh, and Brian? It’s relevant because it means that engaging in one night stands is not necessarily any riskier for women then getting involved in long term relationships. ”
This may be true, but apparently you don’t know, and neither do I, so it stands as a theory and nothing more. Is this your way of rationalizing one night stands, and eschewing long term relationships? Or as a prop to claim that there really was no risk to Nick’s behavior?
I ask you: if you were Nick’s friend (maybe you are, for all I know), and you were babysitting her child and had just put that child down to sleep, and Nick came in with two drunk paratrooper strangers and asked you to leave……would you? Would you happily dart out of there, with the child asleep, and say “have a happy fuck!”.
This comment was written by Brian.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Brian, I have never maintained that finding two paratroopers for no-strings-attached sex is without risk, and I’m not sure anyone else has. What I said above was that, as methods of finding NSA sex partners goes, Nick’s was as good as any available where sie is.
Also, I think you have made a continuous factual mistake: Nick didn’t bring these guys to hir home. Sie went back with them to their camp, in a tent. I believe I read somewhere that at another time, sie brought an entirely separate paratrooper to hir home, because neither of them had a condom.
Many of us have also pointed out that it’s tough to have confidence in the conventional wisdom that strangers are dangerous — nobody has even attempted to demonstrate this empirically — though I don’t think one can conclude the converse either. Can you demonstrate empirically that strangers are more dangerous than acquaintances? Or must you rely for that proposition on theory?
Finally, you assume that Nick’s behavior would not change after birth (presumably including your incorrect assumption that sie brought the two paratroopers home). I’m not sure that conclusion is correct, and I’m fairly sure if you asked, Nick would answer. Because I have some experience with sleeping babies, I suspect that Nick will be too sleep deprived and worn out to look for sex for a few months, and that after that Nick will look for a babysitter and getting laid somewhere that there is no sleeping baby to wake.
The tone of your post prompts some questions: you believe Nick should simply forgo no strings attached sex, am I right? And independent of any risk, you believe Nick is morally obligated to do so, yes? You believe that Nick’s desire to have sex with two men at once is aberrant and that she ought not to have fulfilled it, am I correct?
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
Jenny k.
How is consent difficult to judge in the OC case?
Citing single cases won’t help us. That’s not even the typical date rape case. Generally, things are murkier.
yeah…that’s why all the feminists focused on Kobe being obviously guilty rather than the slut argument of the defense. /sarcasm
Dunno what happened in the Kobe case, frankly. Seems that case kind of fell apart, and the victim decided to take the money.
Seriously, how insulting are you trying to be? How many stereotypes are you intent on perpetuating?
As many as I can ? :-)
More seriously, I’m glad folks here are willing to give the accussed the benfit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence. That’s definitely not the tone of this thread!
This comment was written by carib.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
To QGrrl
Q Grrl Writes:
November 16th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Cough up the statistics please.
http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS_2004_Section2.pdf
Among other things, there were 859,000- aggravated assults in 2004, versus 94,000 forcible rapes. the vast majoprity of those assaioults wqere men on men.
This comment was written by carib.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Carib, that appears to be a stastic for rapes reported to police. Since the vast majority of rapes are not reported to police, I don’t think your statistic is very meaningful.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
Radfem:
Going by my personal experience, my DA was a woman, the head of the Sex Crimes unit was a a woman, and many of the prosecutors in my office were women.
There were quite a few women judges.
In the police department, I saw a good number of female cops( including a few female detectives).
Now I was a big city prosecutor, so my experience may have been different from the norm. Dunno.
My juries typically ahad lots of women on them
I triedan attempted rape case, in which the defendant got 15 years. He was on probation at the time.
i also remember a ” he said, she said” rape trial in which the guy , a first offender, was convicted and got 13 years.
Those don’t seem like light sentences to me, and our jurisdiction had lighter sentencing judges than most!
This comment was written by carib.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
Ampersand Writes:
November 16th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Carib, that appears to be a stastic for rapes reported to police. Since the vast majority of rapes are not reported to police, I don’t think your statistic is very meaningful.
Hey, we can only count that we can count. Those are the best stats out there. If there are better stats, lets see them.
This comment was written by carib.In any case, its pretty clear that the vcast majority of violent crimes are men on men assaults, which was the point I was trining to make.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
“Dunno what happened in the Kobe case, frankly. Seems that case kind of fell apart, and the victim decided to take the money.”
Afterwords, he issues an apology in which he conceded that he understood how she could have believed that the encouter was nonconsensual. However, there is not really an account of the events where she could believe that it wasn’t consensual and he could have reasonably believed otherwise.
The case “kind of fell apart” because the “slut defense” worked, because she was getting death threats, because the courthouse staff kept “accidentally” posting confidential materials where the public could access them.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
You wrote: What is the population of men, out of the general population, who engage in one night stands? Now, is that population of men, the ones willing to engage in one night stands, more likely to rape women than the general male population?
How is this relevant?
It’s relevant because a number of posters on this thread think that one night stands are inherently riskier than official dates. That would only be true if the population of men who engage in one night stands was statistically more likely to rape than the general male population. I’m saying that I don’t believe that to be true; that there is no difference in the level of rape being committed by the general male population, and the subset of the male population who engage in one night stands.
Violent misogyny is not “human nature.”
Unfortunately, it is. We can reduce it, but it will always be there. Again, men are ALWAYS going to want toi have sex with women who don’t want have sex with them and a few of those will force women. That’s not going away.
Funny, because when the crime being discussed is theft, the general attitude is entirely different. No one believes that theft will ever be completely eradicated, but generally people are willing to change behaviors and tactics to help prevent theft. Not so with rape; rape is ghettoized as a “woman’s problem”, and the onus is on women to prevent themselves from being raped, rather than proactive tactics to prevent rapists from raping. For one thing, we know that men who have been convicted of rape in the past are far more likely to rape again in the future. Yet typically, we sentence rapists to either probation and time served, or to very short prison sentences—shorter than for any other violent crime. What’s up with that? Apparently, our society doesn’t really regard rape as a serious crime—otherwise, there’d be a serious prison sentence to go with it. Will long sentences deter other rapists? Maybe not—but they will take those proven to be a risk to society off the streets.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Well, La Luba, we had a 15 year old girl who was gang raped here and her rapists received three months of sheriff work detail and two years probation. Long sentence isn’t it?
There was a witness who saw part of it, and one of the rapists threatened her with violence if she testified about it. That tacked about three months work detail to his sentence. Incidently, he was on probation already in another county, but that did not affect his sentencing.
People did protest, for all the good it did this young girl, who attempted suicide twice the first year after the rapes. The judge was really dandy too, making statements that if she’d been a nun or a virgin, it’d be different. She wasn’t the *right* kind of victim, and she was Black and I really don’t think our prosecutors out there consider Black women who’ve been raped as victims.
This judge was not one of the two female judges out of our 25 total judges either.
If you want to lengthen the sentence, usually there has to be either an enhancement or separate charge if a weapon especially a firearm was used. Or a gang enhancement. Either of those by itself may add ten years, which may be longer than the rape sentence without them added. One guy did get a 50 year sentence mostly on the weapons’ charges, and he was convicted for rape, even though he was the accomplice and not the actual rapist. Because of his rape conviction, the police, prosecutors, etc. are not really looking for the one who actually left his DNA inside his victim. Case closed.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
November 17th, 2005 at 7:17 am
Because this thread is getting too long for someone who only has dial-up, and because I may need to go into hospital at any time, I’m declaring this thread closed.
Please do not post any more comments here, and thank you to everyone who contributed to a productive discussion.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 7:50 am
Women to Blame for Being Raped?
There’s an old myth that women who report being raped were actually ‘asking for it’ in some manner. Unfortunately, this myth isn’t so old: a recent survey finds that a disturbing percentage of people in Britain believe that women do…
This comment was written by Agnosticism/Atheism.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2005 at 7:29 pm
[...] We live in a rape culture where many people continue to blame the victims of rape and domestic violence. [...]
This comment was written by Official Shrub.com Blog » Blog Archive » Think women have achieved equality? Think again..Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Women’s worth goes down according to how many sexual partners people think she has had.Men’s worth goes up according to how many sexual partners people think he has had.We live in a rape culture where many people continue to blame the victims of rape and domestic violence.We buy into the myth that all men (even minors) are, at all times, willing to fuck a “gorgeous” woman and any man who would pass up sex with a remotely attractive woman is
This comment was written by Step Inside Me.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
[...] Nick Kiddle wrote what is hands-down one of the best posts I’ve ever read on this after a bunch of people piled on to blame her for getting into a situation where she honestly feared for a moment that she was going to be raped. They basically said that if you don’t want to be raped, you’ll have to give in and only be in sexual situations with men that you’ve gone through the tedious dating process with. Well, Nick doesn’t want to do that–she’s just gotten out of a situation where she felt like her boyfriend was controlling and she’s understandably not interested in going there again and she thinks casual sex is the best method for having a sexual life without putting herself in situations where she feels subject to male control. I find it fascinating that rape is being used in her situation as a fallback for the people who think that women should only be able to express their sexuality in relationships, knowing full well that most relationships are male-dominated. It’s a clear-cut case of how sexual violence upholds male dominance, even though most men are not rapists. [...]
This comment was written by This is what they mean by “rape culture” at Pandagon.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 11:28 am
[...] I’m a big fan of feminist blog Alas, A Blog, though our politics are pretty far apart. This morning I came across this post from Nick Kiddle, on the patriarchy-reinforcing effects of telling women not to do things that put them at risk of rape. 0—– [...]
This comment was written by Asymmetrical Information: November 2005 Archives.Report this comment to the moderators
November 28th, 2009 at 12:56 am
[...] live in a rape culture where many people continue to blame the victims of rape and domestic [...]
This comment was written by Male Privilege vs. Female Privilege | AlekNovy.Report this comment to the moderators