Allllll that being said, I need to go back to homework, and if I check my blog I won’t do that. So I’ll be gone for a few days, comment as much as you want, but don’t expect a reply right away.
Sometimes I wonder if I would be more motivated to do my homework if I wrote it in this little box for writing blog posts instead of on Word. Like if I could convince myself it was procrastination instead of work…
To refresh your memory, this is going to be about reasons why people might not believe D and E, that is, that men who rape should be convicted of a crime and that women who are raped should be treated as victims and given whatever help is needed.
D has some overlap with C, which is the belief that what happened wasn’t really rape. Specifically with C2, because if a woman is “promising” sex or is a “slut”, then maybe she didn’t consent to the sex, maybe it was against her will, but she deserved it anyway, she forfeited her right to say no, and therefore the nonconsensual sex wasn’t a crime and the man shouldn’t be punished. If a person sees it that way, it belongs here. If they believe that it’s impossible to rape a slut (this often comes in the form of the belief that it’s impossible to rape a prostitute), it belongs in C. It’s kinda fuzzy, but I don’t think it makes a difference where you put it, as long as you think about it.
Another case in which there’s overlap is in marital rape. Marital rape has been very, very slow to be outlawed, and there are still some problems with some of the laws and some countries that haven’t made it illegal yet. I figure some people think that getting married means giving perpetual irrevocable consent to sex at any given moment with your spouse, and so husbands by definition can’t rape wives. But maybe also some people think of it as wives owing husbands sex (marital duty and all) and so even though they technically haven’t already given consent, it’s not a crime for a husband to force sex on an uncompliant wife. In case anyone is wondering whether marital rape “really counts” as rape, look at the effects it has on its victims: “Women raped by their intimate partners are more likely to be diagnosed with depression or anxiety than those who are victims of physical violence and those who were sexually assaulted by someone other than one’s partner (Plichta & Falik, 2001).” Now, what know-it-all anti-feminist can tell me how women can avoid marital rape? Do you think if they would just dress modestly and get dinner ready on time it would all be ok? Or do you think maybe this is at least one case where the burden to stop rape is totally on the perpetrators and the society that gives them ideas about how men should treat women? (Dear god, someone’s going to tell me women only get beaten and raped when they deserve it and I’m going to have a heart attack.)
Anyway, there’s another argument for D: men are sex-crazed beasts who can’t control themselves once they see a little cleavage (or a little leg, or an unprotected virgin, or whatever). Therefore, when they rape, they shouldn’t be held accountable for it. First of all, this is offensive to men – well, it should be. My boyfriend finds it offensive, but the guy in the link sure doesn’t. He basically says men have no moral agency (despite himself being a male religious leader!) but instead of following all the logical steps from that to come to other conclusions about men, “He said women were ‘weapons’ used by ‘Satan’ to control men.” I don’t think these people really believe that men can’t control themselves. I think they believe that women are magic – black magic (cue Jimi Hendrix). Not necessarily literally, but I think they believe that women have the power to lead otherwise righteous men astray, and that once the women have started applying their magic, the consequences are ineluctable and women should know that and take full responsibility for starting the chain of events. I think this is again related to the reduction of a woman to her sexuality, and equating women with sex. You get people who are afraid of their sexual desire, and because their sexual desire is towards women, they consider women and sex practically the same thing. You can see this sometimes in the way people use women as a metonym for sex. These people don’t bother to stop and think that half the world’s sexual desire is towards men.
But in response to that, some would say, “But testosterone! Men can’t overcome their sexual desire, and women can!” And so I must admit that some people actually do think men are sex-crazed beasts who can’t be held responsible for their actions. I guess that’s a legacy from the Victorian era, and it gives us the gift of Woman as Gatekeeper (or, as I like to call it, Vaginakeeper. Except that kind of sounds like a new menstrual cup) and Man as Initiator. This sucks, because pre-written scripts for people to follow on the basis of their genitalia don’t work, and because this idea causes some sexual assaults in the first place. Woman as Gatekeeper puts the burden to say no on the woman, making the man think that a lack of no means go ahead, and Man as Initiator means that the man feels he’s supposed to keep pushing until he gets a firm no, or otherwise he’s not manly. It also means women are afraid to say they want sex and and to talk openly about sex, which creates other problems. But back to the point – why should we not believe that men can’t control their impulses so women have to pick up all their slack? Because it’s not true. If any man would like to argue that it is true, you’re going to first have to admit to me that you’re a rapist, or would be if the women around you weren’t so good at fending off your attacks and locking themselves in their rooms.
Then why do we put all the responsibility on the woman? Why do we think teaching women to be careful will work but teaching men to ask won’t? Even when we know that sometimes women are careful and still get raped, while no man who asked and respected the answer raped? Because putting all the responsibility on women preserves male privilege. Men can keep saying it’s not their problem, they don’t have to deal with the reality of rape, don’t have to hear about it or learn about it, don’t have to try harder or start respecting women more, don’t have to feel uncomfortable with the idea of belonging to a group that oppresses another group, and then say that it is the problem of women and they have to follow this list of precautions to deal with it. Blame it on biology and ignore the fact that the social structure is causing it (one of the favorite plays in the oppression playbook). Then men are off the hook and can keep pretending sexism doesn’t exist, because they don’t have to see its effects.
If this weren’t about protecting male privilege, if this were really about protecting women the best way possible, then women would not just be taught how to avoid rape (as if that were completely possible), but also what to do if they were raped – how to avoid getting an STD or getting pregnant after a rape, how to preserve evidence so that they can prosecute their rapist and protect future potential victims. But as much as I had heard about how to dress and act, I had never heard how to proceed in the event of sexual assault until I became a feminist, and as much as our society is concerned about teaching women to fear, it’s not always terribly concerned about putting money towards (properly) processing rape kits – sometimes, but not always. (By the way, roughly how to proceed is on my page Stuff Everyone Should Know.)
Now onto E. This is perhaps the saddest one for me, although really, we’ve got some stiff competition here. Some people think that women are property. They want their wives and girlfriends to be faithful, but they define faithful differently than I do. To me, faithful is an attitude and actions follow it. To them, faithful is a physical state. To me, if someone is touched against their will, it was against their will, which means their attitude, their desire to be faithful, didn’t change, and so they are still faithful and guiltless. To them, if someone is touched against their will, they are tainted, whether they want to be or not. Therefore they reject women who have been raped. I’m sure it must be incredibly painful to know your significant other has been sexually violated, and I can imagine it stirring up complicated emotions, but it can’t be as bad as being the victim him or herself, and to abandon and scorn (not to mention leave destitute) a person at the time when they need support the most is something I cannot defend. Furthermore, I think some people who react that way do so not out of the complicated feelings of dealing with rape, but out of “honor.” Putting “honor” above the rights of a person is abhorrent.
I would like to close by acknowledging the well-meaning people who will read this and get nervous that if feminists get their way, we’ll have women stripping and passing out drunk in the street. First there are the people who are nervous about that because they find it immoral. They need to relax a little bit and accept the fact that people will do things from time to time that they disagree with. Then there are the people I was really trying to acknowledge here, the ones who are afraid those women throwing caution to the wind will be their loved ones and who fear that their loved ones will mistake what should be (men shouldn’t rape naked drunk women) with what is (some men do rape naked drunk women). Although I stand by all my arguments as to why that is not what we need to focus on and yet what we always focus on, I promise not to persuade any women to do risky things just for the sake of being feminist, or even oppose (certain) self-defense classes and the like. Being risky and being feminist aren’t really related, that’s just a misunderstanding of the point of talking about victim blaming. People seem to think that when I say all of this, I’m saying it to women about how they should act, I guess because that’s who we usually talk to when we talk about rape. But I’m talking to you, men. And I’m talking to the women who aren’t the victim, the amateur (and professional, for that matter) commentators of all sexes and genders, because as much as I want women to do whatever they can to take care of themselves regarding rape and everything else, I know that we also have to get the rest of the world to stop blaming someone for their own rape after it has already happened. It has to stop. I know you mean well and some of you don’t belong in any of the other categories, you’re just genuinely concerned for the safety and well-being of those you care about. Good for you. I’m just trying to open your eyes to the fact that the way the most people think is common sense for how to protect them may not be the best and is definitely not the only way. I’m not secretly a misogynist trying to trick people into advocating policies that will create more rape; I really think the views I’ve espoused here would help, not hurt, women.
Because victim-blaming and sexism are linked, and because the vast majority of rapists are men, I’m going to discuss the scenario of a man raping a woman here. I intend to write separately about male victims, and again about female rapists, later on.
Also – I’ve been using the terms sexual assault and rape pretty much interchangeably. In reality, the terminology varies from state to state, but generally rape means penetration of an orifice and sexual assault means anything else sexual, both of course done without consent.
Finally – in my explanations I say “men/women are supposed to…” a lot. That means the patriarchy wants them to, society sends them messages that in order to fit into society properly, they should. It is of course not what I believe in. People get other messages as well, nothing is black and white, but these are strong parts of our culture that I think most people notice pretty easily.
Now. To think that a rapist should be convicted and a woman should be helped, we have to believe that:
A. A sexual act occurred involving this woman.
B. This particular man was the one involved in the sexual act.
C. The woman did not consent to the sexual act.
D. A man who engages in a sexual act with a woman against that woman’s will has committed a crime.
E. A woman who is engaged in a sexual act against her will has not committed a crime.
Thus it stands to reason that any victim-blaming or rapist-excusing behavior would stem from disbelief of one or several of these ideas.
Interestingly, A is usually not contested, at least not from what I overhear in the blogospere. I’m sure there are some cases where the defendant says nothing at all happened and the spectators agree with him, but they don’t seem to catch on much. Presumably a woman wouldn’t make up having had sex, even non-consensually, first because of the evidence problem, and second because women aren’t supposed to be having sex.
B is also not a terribly controversial one. If the woman really was raped and she’s just got the wrong guy, it was probably a stranger rape, which is less controversial because it fits the idea of rape-by-physical force on an innocent virgin walking home that is much more popular than the idea of a nice guy taking advantage of a drunk girl or not understanding that consent needs to be affirmative or a husband taking out his anger by rape. The first scenario can still lead to victim-blaming, but if B is the problem, that’s more the fault of the technique used to find the suspect than the fault of the woman. I can’t see a good reason why any woman would purposely prosecute the wrong guy, letting her real rapist go free (ok, I just thought of a scenario, but that’s just because my mind likes to find a way to make anything implausible true), so it was probably an honest (though horrible) mistake and therefore not a reason to vilify her, although of course we need to try to fix this problem.
C is where things start to get interesting. So interesting, that I have to have a sub-list to keep track of everything.
1. Enter the term “regretted sex.” Maybe she consented at the time, and then regretted it later. That’s plausible enough. It probably happens to both women and men. But then people say, and therefore, she decided to falsely accuse him of rape. What? Ok. I’m sure it happens sometimes. Everything has happened once, I usually assume. But if you regretted sex, why would you want to make a controversy out of it, why would you want to testify about it in front of a court, why wouldn’t you want to just forget about it? I see two possible reasons. One is that you could convince yourself that it really was rape if you were able to convince others that it was, and that way you could ease your conscience or whatever part of you is bothered by the regretted sex. I can see that happening rarely, but not very often. When you think about how few rape victims report rape, you have to imagine it’s not something most people get into lightly. That must be more than just “regretted” sex to drive you to such extremes, not to mention to totally throw the guy you wish you hadn’t slept with to the wolves (or attempt to, anyway).
The other possibility I see is that the woman thinks the man will tell everyone they had sex and doesn’t want to be seen as a slut, so she tries to make herself seen as a victim. One important thing to stress here is that this situation is the product of patriarchy. If women were not “supposed” to be virginal and were allowed to express and enjoy their sexuality as much as men are (but without going too far, as sometimes patriarchy has men do) without being labeled “sluts” and being subject to hatred and contempt, the prospect of people finding out that she had sex would not bother her any more than it would bother him. On the flip side, if men weren’t pressed to prove their masculinity by having treating sex as a way of “conquering” women, he would be less likely to tell the whole school that he had sex with her. Thus, if this problem does exist, it’s not the fault of feminists; very much the opposite. (I don’t understand when male rights activists want situations like this to stop and yet oppose feminism.) If it does exist, of course the defendant should be let off the hook. Feminists have to avoid the trap of being so un-victim-blamey that they become falsely-accused-blamey. But the reality is, false accusations are a minority of cases (even according to those who say they’re much higher than the accepted numbers). And fortunately, our court system considers the defendant innocent until proven guilty, so no matter what feminists say, in the absence of evidence, if the court does its job properly, the defendant will be let off the hook. In light of these two pieces of information, I think it would be wise to stop hounding alleged rape victims, since most likely, the defendant will not be wronged. It will happen sometimes, and that’s tragic, but what happens much more is that real rape victims don’t get justice. In any case, this problem is the reason why we have trials in the first place; it’s a real concern (unlike many of those to follow), but we know that already and are already using a system that is supposed to take that concern seriously.
2. I have a new hypothesis that some people think that real true consent actually is given at some point before either the woman tries to initiate a sexual act or the man tries to initiate one and the woman gives affirmative consent. (This woulc be a good time to look back a couple of posts at my post on consent if you haven’t seen it, so you’ll know where my opinions are coming from.) Obviously some people believe that not screaming no means yes. So that could lead them to think they are being totally fair in ruling that this is not a case of rape, if she admitted to not having said no. But I think it goes even further than that. I think some people have gotten it into their heads that if a woman smiles, or flirts, or wears a miniskirt, or goes into their room alone, or gets drunk with them, or takes off their clothes (note: the ruling in the link was later reversed :), or starts doing one sexual act, that they already have consented to another. This is wrong for two reasons: first, consent to one act is not consent to another, and you have to actually give some sort of yes to some form of question that is clearly about sex for it to count as consent to sex. Second, consent can always be withdrawn, so even if I get to a party and find a guy and say “I want to have sex with you,” he doesn’t have a license to rape me because if we get naked and then I say I changed my mind, the consent is over. If we get in the middle of it and I say stop, the consent is over. (Same goes for him, of course.) If people don’t understand these three concepts: consent is affirmative, consent to x != consent to y, and consent can be withdrawn at any time, they are liable to call rape consensual sex and call rape victims liars and probably sluts.
But I’m interested in why people would reject any of those three principles. To me, it looks like a whole lot of regular old male entitlement. That means they come from the idea that some men have that they deserve sex, that it would be practically a crime against them for a woman to “promise” sex (by smiling, flirting, wearing a miniskirt, starting to have sex, whatever) and then renege. This is just a messed up world view. First of all, let me introduce you to your right hand. Next, get over yourself. Women do not belong to men and the men who think this way, sorry, they’re just wrong. The antidote for this is respect for women as human beings, not sex objects.
But perhaps some people think not that what the woman should have done was “promise” sex and then follow through, but to not “promise” in the first place. Perhaps they see rape as the just punishment for women who do things that hint at sex, and think that the threat of rape is necessary to keep women in line, acting modestly and chastely and so on. This is simply the other side of the same coin. People who divide women into virgins and sluts will see the former paragraph as being about sluts and this one as being about virgins. If you’re not completely immaculate and virginal, you’re a slut, as there’s nothing in between. If there’s nothing in between, there’s no playing your role halfway – consenting to something and then stopping, or looking like a “slut” but not acting like one. If someone starts to play the role of slut, they must be one, and sluts say yes to sex every single time, so they can’t possibly be raped. If someone wants to be a virgin, they have to really be a virgin; otherwise they deserve what they get. Again, the antidote is respect for women: we need to understand that women are sexual AND more than sexual (full human beings) at the same time. They don’t have to choose one or the other. Having sex or acting sexual doesn’t mean they forfeit their rights.
This is getting long, so I think I’ll cover the even more depressing D and E later.
Girly Thoughts 