This post is incredible:
So we learn the rules will protect us. We learn that, when we step out of line, somebody around us might very well turn crazy. Might hurt us. And we won’t be defended by onlookers, who think we’ve provoked the crazy somehow. So, having your ass grabbed at the bus stop, having to go out to dinner with a guy you fucking can’t stand, maybe even having to fuck him once or twice, it’s a small sacrifice to avoid being ostracized, insulted, verbally abused, and possibly physically assaulted.
It’s a rude fucking awakening when a woman gets raped, and follows the rules she has been taught her whole life — doesn’t refuse to talk, doesn’t refuse to flirt, doesn’t walk away ignoring him, doesn’t hit, doesn’t scream, doesn’t fight, doesn’t raise her voice, doesn’t deny she liked kissing — and finds out after that she is now to blame for the rape. She followed the rules. The rules that were supposed to keep the rape from happening. The rules that would keep her from being fair game for verbal and physical abuse. Breaking the rules is supposed to result in punishment, not following them. For every time she lowered her voice, let go of a boundary, didn’t move away, let her needs be conveniently misinterpreted, and was given positive reinforcement and a place in society, she is now being told that all that was wrong, this one time, and she should have known that, duh.
Well worth the time it takes to read.
9 comments:
I disagree with this woman; she should never just "play by the rules" if it means doing something that she is uncomfortable doing, and that absolutely includes "having to go out to dinner with a guy you fucking can’t stand, maybe even having to fuck him once or twice". It is not a small sacrifice! I don't understand why she'd be a position like this to begin with, and then continue to act this way. There's a HUGE difference between being polite to a guy you can't stand in the hope of not making a sucky situation worse, and fucking him to avoid being assaulted.
I think her point is that some (maybe even a lot) women do this because they are taught to go with the flow, are taught that women who say "No" are frigid bitches, are taught to sublimate their own wants and desires because those wants and desires aren't as important - and in sublimating those wants and desires, they are afforded a bit of protection.
Her point is not only should women not play by the rules, but that women should stop being taught these rules in the first place. That women who speak up shouldn't be seen as being bitchy or rude or less womanly.
I love her point about how women are taught not to interrupt men, because it segways so well to that Ruth Bader Ginsburg article in the NYTimes where she was talking about how she once cut off Sandra Day O'Connor, and how even though the men on the bench cut each other and the women off all the time, that was the big news story of the day.
That's a bad, reinforcing that notion is a bad, and using the "Well, you should have spoken up" as a way to blame victims after they have been taught that women speaking up get shit on for it is definitely a bad.
When and where are women "taught" these things?
I've asked pretty much every female I know whether they feel that women are taught these "rules," any I can't find anyone who agrees.
When and where are women "taught" these things?
Throughout every day interactions. It isn't like someone is handed a book and it says, "Here is what you should do and here is what you shouldn't do".
But it is there when people like Ginsburg have articles written about how rude she is for interrupting her fellow judges when the men do it all the time and it is normal. It is there when girls are taught to qualify their answers with "I don't know if this is right, but...". It is there when you're told by friends to just dance with that guy, who cares if you don't think he's cute/nice/funny, who cares if he makes you uncomfortable? He's showing some interest, and it would be rude not to/you could be passing up something good.
It is there when there are discussions about rape where what the girl is wearing is discussed, what she was doing is discussed, as if wearing a short skirt and drinking and being one of "those girls" contributes to the rape, as if she is a victim, but one who is complicit in her attack. It is there in the comments to articles about rape. It is there in most of the articles about appropriate male-female romantic interactions.
I've asked pretty much every female I know whether they feel that women are taught these "rules," any I can't find anyone who agrees.
How about me? Because I think these rules exist. I think they affect different women to different degrees - just like things like street harassment does (which, by the way, is definitely a Rule Enforcer; walk alone and get harassed - walk with a guy, and the harassment tends to lessen/shift in nature). I think it is somewhat dependent on the environment you grew up in and the person you are in terms of how virulent the ideas are. But I do think it's there. Like the idea that women are public property.
I think men and women are equally likely to be harassed. And women are only slightly more likely to be stalked. Women are, obviously, significantly more likely to be raped . . . but rape is one of the most difficult crimes to quantify.
It's especially hard to quantify male victimizations, because many states don't recognize female-male rape as a crime.
Alan Dershowitz once said that rape is the most difficult crime to prosecute -- because the circumstances are often so complex. Even in cases where the alleged rape is caught on tape, jury members often perceive the situation differently. Most of the time, both the accuser and the accused are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
The accuser is protected by rape shield laws that prevent the defense team from examining her sexual history -- even, in some cases, if she has falsely accused other men of rape. The accused does not have any such protection. This is why Paula Jones was able to examine Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinski in court, but he wasn't able to examine her sexual history.
I don't think I'm explaining my point very well.
It's not that I don't think this account is powerful. And I certainly don't think we should be dismissive of any accusation of rape or abuse.
But I do have some problems.
First, I think that statistics on rape are often grossly exaggerated. For example, we consistently hear that one in four college women has survived a rape or attempted rape. It's just not true. The statistic only works if you extrapolate the actual numbers in a way that is entirely unscientific. The Justice Department has done exactly this (albeit in a highly qualified way).
I think outrageous statistics like "one in four" -- because they're so intuitively overstated -- make some people more dismissive of specific allegations of rape. That's unfair. But from what I've seen, those who question the scope of rape victimization are often met with charges of sexism -- which I think is also unfair.
Knowing the scope of the problem is always important from a policy perspecitve.
Second, I think that Harriet Jacobs is wrong. Following the "rules" that she outlined -- letting men grab your ass, dating or sleeping with men you find repulsive -- is a surefire way to get sexually abused. As MediaMaven said, it's not a "small sacrifice!" It is, in fact, allowing yourself to be sexually abused. Thankfully, I don't know any women who think that they have to follow these rules.
Third, I think that accounts like this misstate the problem. Probably the best way to reduce the rate of victimization is to encourage men and women to make safer choices. Most incidents, for example, involve drugs or alcohol. Usually, both the victim and the attacker are impaired. Telling women that they should make safe choices is not the same as limiting women's autonomy or "blaming the victim."
It's undeniable that many victims of violent crimes -- whether male or female -- make unsafe choices. This is not always the case, and we shouldn't assume that it's always the case. But, in general, it's true.
This account seems to imply that victims rarely have control over their environment. But I think we should be telling people that they do have control over their environment -- and that drugs or alcohol can lead to bad outcomes.
I think people can and should make safer choices that reduce their risk of victimization.
Following the "rules" that she outlined -- letting men grab your ass, dating or sleeping with men you find repulsive -- is a surefire way to get sexually abused.
Which is what I think her point is. She outlines the 'rules', and then she explains how those rules don't offer protection, how they are degrading, how what we accept as the rules don't, as a rule, do anything except play into the mindset that women are objects - until a woman is raped or assaulted or harassed, and then the question isn't why isn't she acquiescent, but why didn't she cry out?
The rules suck, is basically what I get from the article. But if you are someone who thought that a woman should be quiet, should allow herself to be harassed, if you've ever told a female friend that the unwanted attention she's received is complimentary, then you have no right to ask why she didn't scream or fight back when she is raped.
It's undeniable that many victims of violent crimes -- whether male or female -- make unsafe choices. This is not always the case, and we shouldn't assume that it's always the case. But, in general, it's true.
It is also true that most rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows. I'm not going to stop getting drinks with friends, and I'm not going to stop getting drunk around friends. I don't do drugs, so that isn't an issue.
But telling victims or potential victims to not take risks like drinking is unrealistic, because it places a burden on the victim the perpetrator doesn't have to follow.
Not to mention, the place I'm most harassed is getting gas, and I do need to do that. I do mitigate my risk by going at inconvenient times for me, which sucks beyond the telling of it. Even in that way, I'm the victim of harassment, because in order to avoid it, I have to alter my (not alluring, in a lot of cases) outfit and when I get gas. The people who harass me "win", and I lose.
You said, "But telling victims or potential victims to not take risks like drinking is unrealistic, because it places a burden on the victim the perpetrator doesn't have to follow."
I agree that it's unrealistic to ask people not to drink. But you can take basic precautions.
For example, don't get so inebriated that you aren't in control of your faculties. Don't leave with someone if you're not sure where things are going. Always go drinking with a friend. If you DON'T want to hook up, make sure your friend knows it.
Don't leave with someone if you're not sure where things are going. Always go drinking with a friend. If you DON'T want to hook up, make sure your friend knows it.
And that's fine, if the person most likely to assault you isn't your friend. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Most sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knows. So, you can take all of these precautions, and still end up sexually assaulted. You can take all of these precautions, and still have a friend take things too far. You can take all of these precautions, and still end up in a situation you don't want to be in - like me, almost getting taken from a bar. I wasn't so inebriated that I wasn't in control of my faculties. I was with friends who knew I didn't want to hook up with anyone. And yet, it was still a bad situation that almost turned into a really bad situation.
Look, I do want to believe that potential victims have control over their environment. But at the same time, I think that those "unsafe choices" are really only brought out to berate certain kinds of victims and for certain kinds of crimes.
I often hear that women shouldn't go out looking a certain way, and if they do they should have known better if they were attacked in the same way a guy waving around a wad of twenty dollar bills in a bad neighborhood should have known better if he gets mugged. But how often do muggers get away with it if they play that card? How often have rapists gotten away with the "she looked like she wanted it" defense?
And that's where the "be safe and make safe choices" thing is a bullshit answer to the question. On the surface and for a lot of people, it is a piece of advice offered in good faith. I believe you are offering it in good faith, and I would take said advice - both in practice (like I do) and in good faith. But - and the "but" for me is big - in many cases, it is used as a diminish the crime committed if the crime is rape or if the victim is of a certain group. Gays get it, trans men and trans women get it, cis women get it, and minorities can get it. And that's the problem. Because only part of the answer is "be safe and make safe choices". The other half of it for me - and what I think the article is addressing - is how we respond to the crime once it takes place.
Post a Comment