(Crossposted in an edited form at UneFemmePlusCourageuse )
(Note: this is not anti-male. This is anti one male and others of his particular ilk.)
I gave a speech today on Take Back the Night marches (something I've been involved in for the past few years) in my notorious speech class , and wow, pardon , I didn't define rape for the uninformed entitled twenty-two-year-old men of America! Quelle horreur ! Because nobody could possibly know what that word means unless I, Gen Dusquesne, widely-renowned legal expert, informs them. I mean, Gott in Himmel , maybe all of his forays into the rooms of drunken girls who would never give him a second look sober were rape! Maybe that time he jumped out of the bushes and proceeded to fuck a girl was rape! He couldn't know! Because I never told him, in the one speech I gave on the topic. So he can't set boundaries for himself, he can't be expected to change if we uppity women won't give him exact instructions on what rape is and how not to do it.
Yeah, it was this guy . And here's his exact words,
"There is a lot of ambiguity in your speech. One of the greatest problems with sexual assault crimes is actually identify [sic] what a sexual assault is, because the line easily becomes fuzzy. Therefore, the problem step was not completely clear. If you can't clearly identify the problem, you can't ask people to take an action."
Hmm. Hmm . "Kein Problem ?" Let's look at some of the statistics I used, shall we?
"One in six women and one in thirty-three men will be sexually assualted in their lifetimes. College women are four times more likely to be sexually assaulted. According to campus police, there were four incidents of forcible sex offenses on campus during 2006. Sixty percent of sexual assaults are not reported to the police."
How is the problem not clear? Sexual assault itself is a problem. I don't give a shit if you define it as an unrequested ass slap or a full-on violent rape. They are both problems, one is more serious than the other, but they both represent facets of the gross lack of respect for women's bodies in our society. All forms of sexual assault are problems that need to be taken care of to ensure equality between men and women in our society. I've been harrassed on the street and I've been raped, and no one should have to go through either experience. The fact that a funny story one of my friends told me the other day (in which his friend went to New York City, got on the wrong train, ended up in a bad neighbourhood at 3 am, asked a guy for directions, was told to give the guy $10 if he wanted directions, laughed it off, walked away to find a group of "unfriendly looking guys" waiting for him, and turned around to find $10 direction guy waiting again) was hilarious for him but sent chills up my spine? That's not okay. That there are neighbourhoods that I know far better than my boyfriend does that I would not feel comfortable walking through at night without him or another trusted male there with me is not okay. That this freaked me out so bad is not okay. That a dude has come up to me and a female friend telling me his name is "Ben Dover," and asked where our boyfriends are, with three huge friends behind him, is not okay. That my high school boyfriend thought it was okay to have sex with me when I had already told him no is not okay. Got it?
No, I don't think you do. RAINN 's definition is,
"Sexual assault is a broader category that the Justice Department uses to classify rape, attempted rape, and other violent felonies that fall short of rape. Rape is defined as forced vaginal, oral, or anal penetration."
(I referenced RAINN multiple times in the speech. So he has an easy source to look stuff up.)
But really? What his comments read to me as is, "you haven't given me all the answers in five minutes. Therefore, I will keep on being a rapist or potential rapist and I will not question my actions or think about this further, because I have not been spoon-fed absolutely everything, simply told some important facts and that it is wrong."
Then again, maybe it was just my repeated references to sexual assault as a cultural problem which could be changed rather than a "natural" one that luckily for him can't be changed. He doesn't want to lose his easy excuse, don'tcha know.
Fucking bastard.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The obtuse entitled man.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10863
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I'm probably just arguing for the sake of arguing. And I have the idea that perhaps most men who argue in this vein are doing the same thing. And maybe we feel entitled to argue because of some patriarchal notion. I'm not really sure. It's something I'll need to consider.
So anyway. I don't like the characterization that any man who tries to say that rape can be "inherent" just as much as social are trying to just make sure they are still free to go around raping women. For instance, I think that, and yet I'm quite sure that I'm not just protecting my future ability to rape someone. I think instead that the idea is that whether rape is about sex or about power, there will always be some men who are willing to do that.
Is it a cultural problem that can be changed? Yes. Is it also somewhat just based on the fact that it is possible, and so someone will do it at some point? Also yes. Just trying to recognize that fact doesn't make me a rapist and it doesn't invalidate the argument.
I'm also never quite sure, are you trying to suggest that rape can be completely eliminated because it is exclusively a matter of culture?
No one just does anything. That someone might commit rape "just because" means that they see no reason not to, and that itself is cultural.
It's not exclusively a matter of culture, there can also be a degree of individual pathology involved, though I don't think that's so in most cases. One thing it is definitely not is inevitable.
Are you suggesting that we will come to a cultural point where there is absolutely no risk of rape by anyone at any time?
Short of some 1984 big brother scenario I just don't think that's realistic. Some people are just bastards; always have been, always will be imo.
Here's another link you can recommend to this entitled moron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
It may not give him a spoon-fed definition of what rape is, but it's a little preview of what the cops and the judge will tell him when he tries to whine that the women in his speech class didn't give him an adequate definition of what not to do.
Here's another link you can recommend to this entitled moron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
It may not give him a spoon-fed definition of what rape is, but it's a little preview of what the cops and the judge will tell him when he tries to whine that the women in his speech class didn't give him an adequate definition of what not to do.
This is what the way-cooler-me that I dream of being would have said: "Wow, if you really don't know what sexual assault is, I'll have to tell all the women I know to avoid you when you're drinking."
DoubleB--
Yes, I do think that there can be a time when no one ever rapes anyone. And no, I don't think it will come as part of a totalitarian state. In fact, in such a state it would be all too easy for those with the ultimate power to rape others. I do believe it will come about when people stop accepting so easily the idea that by human nature, we are all bad, and there is nothing we can do to change this, and start believing that we must be decent people and not treat others as objects but as people with the same worth as we have. And yes, I am idealistic, but that doesn't mean I need to start supporting a social structure which does not value me or my values.
Yoshimi--
Yeah, well, I might've just given him the idiot treatment if he had actually said anything, what's annoying is that he wrote it and I didn't read his evaluation until after class. (My idiot treatment can be pretty harsh, but this guy is always playing at smarter-than-thou because he's a science major, no offense to any science majors who aren't assholes.) So really, unless I want to be very awkward, rebutting him probably won't work well.
"Yes, I do think that there can be a time when no one ever rapes anyone... I do believe it will come about when people stop accepting so easily the idea that by human nature, we are all bad, and there is nothing we can do to change this, and start believing that we must be decent people and not treat others as objects but as people with the same worth as we have."
Well, a few millennia of religious thinkers, philosophers, politicians, academics, and many other very wise people haven't yet figured out how to excise the human potential for violence against other humans. Some fraction of any population always seems to be willing to take what they want from others, simply because they can. Homo Homini Lupus est. Maybe that will change someday but I wouldn't expect to see it in any of our lifetimes.
Well, a few millennia of religious thinkers, philosophers, politicians, academics, and many other very wise people haven't yet figured out how to excise the human potential for violence against other humans. Some fraction of any population always seems to be willing to take what they want from others, simply because they can. Homo Homini Lupus est. Maybe that will change someday but I wouldn't expect to see it in any of our lifetimes.
And guess what? It's just this kind of thought that makes this future so difficult to achieve.
I don't see why looking at evidence and making rational assumptions makes things harder. Idealism is kind of interesting in the way that religion is kind of interesting. I'm sure it's nice for the people involved, but I prefer to just be rational even when it's less pleasant.
As I said in an unrelated post, animals in the wild just kill each other when there is competition for resources, and the strongest ones do whatever they want at the expense of the weakest ones. We don't say that the animals are "evil", it's just what they do. We are animals too. We can train ourselves to be kind and considerate, but that's not our nature. Our nature is the same as ever other life form.
And who says we need to be in constant competition for resources? Lions fighting over a heard of zebras is one thing--there are only so many zebras in the herd. And the lions will not take more than they need. We, as humans, have a tendency to do just this. Hence the complaints about "no tax cuts for the rich" and universal health care from the right wing--they do not just want to have what they need, they want far more than that to the detriment of others.
And furthermore, since when are rapeable women a 'resource?' Even if you want to say that there will always be competition over things such as money, land, food, et cetera, how can you say that rape is a logical part of our nature by these methods? Unless, of course, you believe that a woman's agency is just a commodity like those other things. In which case I'm not sure this is the right blog for you.
"And guess what? It's just this kind of thought that makes this future so difficult to achieve."
I hardly think that it's "just" this kind of thought that makes the future so difficult to achieve. Facts are stubborn things. Most of the important things we would want to do in the world aren't just going to yield to wishing that they were so.
Hey, if you or anyone else ever finds the magic formula by which no one will ever again rape, rob, or kill, I'll sing the Cal fight song for ya. I won't be holding my breath, though.
I hardly think that it's "just" this kind of thought that makes the future so difficult to achieve.
"Just" as in "exact" not as in "only." I think you knew that.
Hey, if you or anyone else ever finds the magic formula by which no one will ever again rape, rob, or kill, I'll sing the Cal fight song for ya. I won't be holding my breath, though.
Defeatist, defeatist, defeatist.
Guess what, you've just dismissed the possibility of change. Which means you're probably not going to start working towards it yourself anytime soon, you're just going to go on assuming that people are by nature bad, selfish, and all those other things, and dismiss people like me and those who have done more than I have as crazy idealistic hippies with no hope of succeeding--and you may not like the system, and when you commented on my blog you said it didn't benefit you, but you are perpetuating it. I know it's harsh but it's the truth, and you're not the only one. You are a pawn of a bad system.
First off, I haven't gone so far as to tell you what you are, "crazy idealistic hippy" or not. I'd appreciate you not doing the same in return by labeling me as a "pawn of a bad system". Nor, for that matter, am I being dismissive. Whatever productive efforts you or anyone else are undertaking to prevent or prosecute rape or to raise awareness of the problem are to be commended.
Perhaps we ought to get our terms and understandings of the situation in order. For the sake of argument, it seems that we're dealing with two notional categories of rape that are distinguishable by precipitating factors. These are those that are promoted or encouraged by the culture, and there are those that are simply endemic criminal violence. This is, I grant, an artificial distinction, as all of the former clearly are the latter, and it could be argued that many of the latter are the former. We cannot draw clear lines between them. And we won't be successful in determining perhaps the significance or incidence of the first category: to what extent rape arises from cultural factors. No one has any quantifiable data on that, nor is the phenomenon one that is ever likely to be quantifiable at all. It can be debated, but never established empirically enough to support an argument either way.
It's easy enough to concede that whatever cultural factors exist that promote rape ought not to. That's a no-brainer. What I would argue however is that rape will still exist: the second category will still be with us. We're probably always going to have some level of criminal violence of all categories in the world. That isn't because we're bad, but because we're human. Everyone is selfish sometimes and in some ways, and at the fringes there will always be some people who act violently to take advantage of others for their own purposes. Conceding that lets us look realistically at the circumstances that promote that, and work to ameliorate them.