Or at least think very little of them.
You see, people who blame rape at least partially on the victims operate under a few assumptions. One, that rape is about sex, two, that women can drive men to rape by provoking them, and three, that rape should be something that is expected as a risk.
Examples:
"When it comes to rape the rapist is absolutely the criminal. However, girls that are drunk and dressed provocatively act like bait for a rapist. Being drunk and sexy is like walking through the ghetto covered in jewelry. Girls that are not dressed scantily and are not intoxicated have every right to complain if they are raped. Although provocatively dressed drunk girls are not the criminals, they have absolutely no right to complain if they are raped. When girls dress to get the attention of guys, getting raped is a risk they are aware of ahead of time. They know some guys are rapists and they know they might attract the attention of those rapists. The sad part is that girls continue to feel looking sexy is worth the risk. "
"Rape is an appalling crime, but we need to realise the basic instinct on the man's part that drives them to commit such an act. There will never be an antidote for it, and although it is unfair on women, it will continue to happen. Women need to be aware and take steps to make sure they don't become victims. If this means dressing modestly or drinking in moderation, so be it; it is no good women's groups claiming this is unfair - that is the same as saying it's unfair to get wet in the rain because you don't have an umbrella! "
I got this from that appalling Daily Mail Study.
Okay, so now to crush those two stupid assumptions. One: Rape is about sex.
WRONG.
Rape is not about sex. It is about violence and possession. The involvement of the genitalia is just the means used to do that violence, to take control of that human being and rob them of their human dignity or free will. Rapists do not rape because they are overwhelmed with sexual desire, but because they want to rob their victim of their humanity. If rape was about sex, it wouldn't be violent, and it wouldn't be able to happen in so many situations. Anonymous rape would not exist, and rape would only happen to women who were scantily clad. But it doesn't. It happens to women who wear habits and women who wear thongs. It happens to men, too.
Two: Woman can provoke men to rape.
You see, it's the women's fault for provoking him. And this really is one of my favorite arguments because it's so well conveyed by the statement "that is the same as saying it's unfair to get wet in the rain because you don't have an umbrella! "
Because it operates under the assumption that men, like rain, are uncontrollable objects that have no free will. Men can't control their impulses. They're not like, you know, human beings. They have uncontrollable sexual feelings that they have no responsibility for (assuming that rape is about sex). Men can't be expected to control themselves when it comes to violence because they, like raindrops, can't think, can't make decisions, can't control themselves. Men are not active beings so if they're provoked, they can't be expected to actually resist anything. Of course, rain can't control if it falls, it is not an active being. The same thing goes for men. Men are filthy non-creatures that are going to rape you because that's what they do: they rape. Men rape the way rain falls and soaks. So of course it's the woman's fault if she's raped. She provoked the man to rape.
And three: Rape is to be expected.
Because rape isn't a horrible crime that no woman should have to worry about. It being our responsibility, what with men being the rape-machines they are and women being raped right and left for being sexy, we have to not only worry about rape happening to us whenever we dress a certain way, but expect it as a very likely thing. What's going to keep us from being raped? Men not acting on some primal urge to make us their possessions? HAH. Men are evil and incapable of that. Men shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for any primal urge. And the world is populated by them so DUH, rape is a very likely event. That's why every time you get dressed and go out, you should be wondering, "Will this get me raped?"
IT'S ALL OUR FAULT FOR NOT TAKING THOSE PRECAUTIONS. WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN IF WE ARE RAPED IF WE DRESS SEXY OR GET HAMMERED. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MALE HUMAN BEING AND WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPECT THE LAW FROM PROTECTING US.
At least, that's the world those dudes live in.
In the real world? Rape is more of an assualt and temporary enslavement, and imprisonment or home invasion than a sex act. Rapists rape to make their victims into things, to break them, to make them les than, to rob them of all that makes them human. It's not about sexual desire, it's about sadism. It's about violence. It's the ultimate objectification. So how you dress or whether you get drunk has nothing to do with it.
Men are human beings who are perfectly capable of making decisions, even if provoked. Rapists are the ones doing the raping, they're the ones who make the decision to commit such an act, a decision they're perfectly capable of making even if their victim is naked and passed out drunk. They decide to do that to take control of a human being.
Not all men are rapists, actually, most men aren't. That's something that's actually true. They're perfectly capable of not raping a person, even if "provoked" or aroused. They can say "no." And as human beings, they should be deemed completely responsible for the things they do. If they rape someone, that's THEIR DECISION. ONE THEY ARE PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF MAKING BECAUSE THEY HAVE FREE WILL. That's what being a human being is about: free will. That's why rape is such a horrible crime because it robs a person of that. Men are actually capable of controlling themselves and being decent, self-disciplined human beings who can resist temptation.
And that's why we shouldn't look at rape as an almost certainty. The world is not a rainstorm. Human beings should expect to be respected as human beings and to see others as such. We should expect men not to be rapists, not the other way around. Rape is a hideous crime that should be unthinkable. We shouldn't expect that to happen and act like it's rain because that's just another way of accepting it. And rape should not be accepted. It should be fought. See, there's this thing called human rights, you know, rights you have simply by virtue of being human, and if they're violated, justice should be served. You can't ask to have them taken away, or give them away, or risk losing them. You can't stop being human. And if they're violated, it's the fault of the violater.
You can't blame a victim. A victim is by definition someone who is harmed or made to suffer. MADE TO SUFFER.
IT'S NEVER A VICTIM'S FAULT.
I love how rape apologists talk about how women should "take responsibility" but when you suggest that maybe the rapist should be forced to take responsibility for, you know, RAPING a person, that's just dismissed. The person who ACTS should take responsibility for their actions, not the person who is harmed by another's actions. You can't rape yourself.
I guess my point is that the whole idea that women are to blame essentially dehumanizes men in the way rapists seek to dehumanize their victims. Basically the message that victim-blamers give is that "Men are rapists. Deal with it, bitch."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Rape Apologists and Victim Blamers Hate Men.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11704
What I'm curious about is rapists who do not intend to rape; that is, men who thought their victim wanted to due to a shy 'okay' or responding in anyway. Women are known to go along because of fear, and some men cannot sense that fear, they just see an okay and go with it. I understand they feel entitled to the victim's body, but they don't respect her enough to look into whether the woman is lying because of fear or not. In some cases, they feel she is just playing hard to get.
What do we do about men who truly felt that their victim was okay with it, and would not have continued sex if there was a firm 'no'?
I think you are speaking to another problem, which is entangled with rape, but is not rape. This is the issue that many men seem to be concerned with. We say "you cannot blame the victim for rape" and some people hear "men should have psychic powers". No one is suggesting that. I believe there is a situation in our society where women feel EXTREME pressure and fear to not say "no", especially because sometimes people just aren't entirely sure. Not being sure they want to, their inclination is to say no - but there are fears attached to that and so maybe you don't. Maybe you say "okay" and go along with it, and you regret it later. This is not rape, this is regret. Women (at least myself and those I know) are not confused about this. It is a problem, and one which may contribute to rape. It is worth talking about in relation to the issue of rape. It is not rape.
Rape is when you say no and are ignored, or when you are deprived of the opportunity to say no because someone threatens your life with a knife or a gun, or when you are deprived of the opportunity to say no because you are drugged. It is not when you say yes but feel bad about it later. I have never met someone who categorized the latter as rape. I've met women who said no, more than once, who had difficulty calling THAT rape. I do not think we need to worry greatly about women charging someone of rape because they felt regret (not that it doesn't EVER happen, but reporting a rape is rather traumatizing and I can't imagine why you would go through that just to "get back" at a guy, which seems to be "rape apologists" main fear).
I never meant a woman regretting sex, obviously regret is not rape. I meant a woman who maybe shyly said 'no,' was ignored, and then went along with for fear of maybe rejection. In this case, the man figures she just needed a little convincing, or she was playing hard-to-get, and never thought she meant she would not have sex. In this case also, the man would be shocked to hear he maybe had committed rape, and was sure that the 'no' was playful, because it didn't sound assertive and certain.
Thanks for the clarification, I read it as regret because of the phrase "shy okay". But I think that if a woman says no - no matter how quietly - if the man hears her and ignores it that is rape. I mean, men have heard this definition too. It shouldn't be surprising to them, although I understand that there is also a discourse in society that makes men think that women all secretly mean "yes" when they say "no". And that is something that we ought to work to change. But it doesn't change the nature of what happened being rape. I think this hypothetical guy should be charged with rape. Because he ignored entirely what the woman said - he believed that women don't know what they really want or that it isn't necessary for a man to treat a woman's wishes with respect. Just because you genuinely BELIEVE some sexist ideas does not give you the right to take action on those ideas in a manner that deprives another person of the sanctity of their own body.
But I feel the need to note that I agree it is a complex issue, and I'm not trying to dismiss your point as blatantly wrong. I have fallen prey to my own share of ideas that have sexist roots (i.e. women have a responsibility to always look attractive by wearing makeup and nice clothes). I find myself living according to some of these standards even though I know they are sexist, and I struggle with that. So I feel for a guy who has fallen prey to the culturally pernicious idea that women mean yes when they say no if they aren't screaming or beating you up. The difference is that I do not go around physically attacking other women who say they don't like make up with a blush brush and tube of lipstick. If I did, those women should be able to charge me with assault too. (I get that this is a weird corollary to make, but my point is that just because you believe some idea doesn't give you the right to invade another persons body with it...I realize it isn't a perfect analogy).
Thank you, I understand. This was the example they showed us during orientation in college. I just feel it's unfair to men and women, because in this case the woman was set up to be raped and the man was set up to rape.
I was in a similar situation, only instead of 'no' it was a slight push followed by "we have to get up early." I then was scared to disappoint him, so I went along with it until sex when I froze, wishing he would stop. The thing is, after he finished, I pushed him off quickly, and after hearing me say "I want to go to sleep like I did in the first place," He was absolutely horrified and almost couldn't handle it. He still regrets it to this day. I just wonder if we can teach people they are both to be held responsible for proper communication, because his determination made me feel like I couldn't say no, and my not actually saying 'no' lead to him thinking he was given a green light.
Why can't rape be, "She didn't say 'yes'"? Why does silence or a grudging, terrified "okay" pass as consent? Sex is a mutual act, screaming no shouldn't be what it takes to make it rape.
No, but making it clear to the man you are with that you do not want to have sex with him is, or at least should be, required to identify the act as rape. It is unreasonable to expect someone to intuitively know that even though you are going along with the sex act you really don’t want to. Besides, rape isn’t choosing to have sex even though you really don’t want to. It’s about someone forcing you to have sex when you don’t want to or performing sex acts on you while you are unconscious (such as being drugged or passed out). We’ve all done all sorts of things with and for people when we’d rather not sometimes. It doesn’t mean we lost our right to exercise our free will but that we had other reasons for doing it whether it be not wanting to hurt someone’s feelings or wanting to be accepted. It may be a weak or poor decision but it is still yours and you should own it and learn from it. It is offensive to women who have been traumatized by having something forced on their bodies to compare their situation to a girl who really didn’t want to have sex with her date but did it anyway because she wanted him to ask her out again or not risk having him think she is a prude. One is rape and the other is poor decision making based on low self-esteem. I don't know about everyone else but I don't generally have a pattern of explicitly sitting down with my boyfriends (past) or husband (present) and saying “Yes, you may touch my breast now” or “Yes, it is really, really okay for you to enter me now”. I don’t know how many people would say those things or how many would actually find that very sexy at all. If everything is rape then nothing is. And really, how the frick are we supposed to argue that we are as mentally capable as men to run the country and make important decision from positions of power if we insist on playing the weak little woman who can’t even refuse to have sex when she doesn’t feel like it card? Pick a character.
I disagree. As a survivor of child abuse I have some serious issues saying 'no'. I do however freeze up completely and so am quite obviously not enjoying it and freaking out. I make this clear to partners before I sleep with them. If I was to freeze either before or while I was having sex with them and they don't stop I would consider it rape because I had told them about it beforehand. I also only sleep with people I am dating because of it because that way they know how I normally act and have something to compare it to when I do freeze.
I don't think this is just a result of being a survivor. We live in a society where women are constatnly being told that we have to be available for sex and that rape is something that happens by strangers. It isn't exactly surprising to hear stories of women being raped by their partners/friends and just going into shock mode. We all know the script of what we're "supposed" to do if raped by a stranger but what about when its closer to home? Quite simply, only yes means yes.
You are right.
Right. Thanks for the long article. Moving forward...
you provide two quotes from alleged 'victim-blamers' and 'rape apologists' Sources? 'cause it sure as heck isn't from the article from the daily mail (classy, serious source, btw), which incidentally is a report on an attitudes survey--conducted four years ago (fresh news, in other words).
Second, I must say: twenty-plus years of large chunks of feminist theory and activism insisting against all evidence to the contrary that all men have the potential to rape just by virtue of having the equipment, and this is what you get. it's hardly a wonder some people will jump on the opportunity to go, "See? See? Men can't help it because if all men are rapists, that means they're rapists because they are men, it's inherent to them, so of course they're gonna rape! Just like a dog will bite your hand if you try to pet him when he's fast asleep! It's their instinct!"
Third, I am pretty damn bored of hearing that one about 'rape is nothing to do with sex'. Bollocks. By perpetuating that myth, we're doing victims a huge disservice. If this weren't about sex (along with a multitude of other things, including, I grant you, control and humiliation), victims of rape wouldn't have long-term effects on their sexuality as a result of rape, which all too many do. It wouldn't affect their sexuality (which, I remind you, is a hugely important part of our psyche) anymore than a mugging with beating or a hostage situation in a bank. So long as we're going, 'rape is not about sex, neener neener neener', we fail to give proper attention to one of the reasons rape is so bloody hurtful: because it's a grotesque distortion of the act of love*.
And while we're on the topic of disservice, I'm gonna get started on the disservice done to women in general by saying 'there's nothing you can do to prevent being raped'. Bollocks (again). Of course there are no foolproof methods, but there are ways to reduce risks, and reduce the potential of finding oneself in a really shitty situation. So long as we continue to just insist it's a woman's human right to go wherever she pleases dressed like a skank and drunk as a skunk, we're passing on the opportunity to explain that actually, if you don't get legless, you keep your wits about you and can get yourself out of a crappy situation before it escalates--which is just being smart about your personal safety. Nobody's out there to look out for you; that's something you'll have to do for yourself.
You said it's not the victim's fault, but the perp's. You think that's the salient point of the matter, whose fault it is? Got news for you, it doesn't matter a good goddamn if it's already happened. Yep, you read that right--psych trauma recovery 101: ditch the who's-to-blame game, get down to business getting out of it. You mentioned justice in case those human rights are violated; I'd rather make sure they aren't in the first place, and if one of the ways to achieve this is to make it as tough as possible for the violation to happen is to let women know that there are ways to take care of yourself, you can bet your ass I'm gonna be telling them.
In fact, I find myself getting pretty hot under the color at the whole idea that women are totally powerless to do anything for rape not to happen to themselves. I don't like it when people go around serving women up with scare stories and tell them they're being victimised and are in need of protection. It raises my (classical) feminist hackles like nobody's business, because it sounds too much like the sort of (really) domineering bull that says, 'ooh, women are a bunch of naive dummies, they need to be protected or the big bad other people will hurt them'. The protector used to be the pater familias or the husband, and now these people serving up scare stories say it should be 'the government' or 'the police' or some other benevolently nebulous authority. Makes me narrow my eyes in extreme suspicion.
* in the wider sense, which includes simple lust :-)
I got the quotes from the comments.
And sorry, no, women are not to blame for being raped.
"I don't like it when people go around serving women up with scare stories and tell them they're being victimised and are in need of protection. It raises my (classical) feminist hackles like nobody's business, because it sounds too much like the sort of (really) domineering bull that says, 'ooh, women are a bunch of naive dummies, they need to be protected or the big bad other people will hurt them'. The protector used to be the pater familias or the husband, and now these people serving up scare stories say it should be 'the government' or 'the police' or some other benevolently nebulous authority. Makes me narrow my eyes in extreme suspicion."
Who said anything about scare stories and women needing "protection"? What, like from the law? Like charging rapists with their crimes? The law is designed to protect people and convict criminals, you know, to provide victims with justice. That's not overbearing "aw poor widdle womens need pwotecting" that's just law and order. All people need protection via law. This didn't contain any scare stories. Where are you getting that from? This is a criticism of the victim-blamer's hideous delusions. Not a bunch of scare stories about how this or that woman was raped and how horribly people treated her. This is not a discussion of how women are victimized but of how deluded the logic behind blaming the victim is.
"If this weren't about sex (along with a multitude of other things, including, I grant you, control and humiliation), victims of rape wouldn't have long-term effects on their sexuality as a result of rape, which all too many do. It wouldn't affect their sexuality (which, I remind you, is a hugely important part of our psyche) anymore than a mugging with beating or a hostage situation in a bank. So long as we're going, 'rape is not about sex, neener neener neener', we fail to give proper attention to one of the reasons rape is so bloody hurtful: because it's a grotesque distortion of the act of love*."
We're all very aware that rape fucks up a person's sexuality, but that's not the primary motivation for rape. I'm talking about why rape occurs. It's about POWER. Oh, and you don't need to remind me sexuality is an important part of our psyche. Thanks for being incredibly condescending and rude though. We all know sex is the means by which a rapist hurt their victim, but that's not the motivation. Or were you paying any attention to what this post was even about?
But I'm glad you think that because I'm saying that victims shouldn't be blamed for being raped that I'm saying "ooh, women are a bunch of naive dummies, they need to be protected or the big bad other people will hurt them". Because, you know, thinking rape victims deserve justice is totally the same thing.
I think this is a complex issue and does not deserve being shut down, but neither do a lot of the points in the original post.
I think rape has elements of both sex and power. And you are right to point out that it is simplistic to claim power is the only explanation. But it is equally as simplistic to claim that because rape affects a victims sexuality, it is primarily sexual. I was raped, and it also made me feel powerless, not just in that moment but in several other scenarious since. The effect it has had on my sense of security (which basically means my power to go about my life safely - my power to prevent being hurt by others) is far greater than the effect it has had on my sexuality. From what I have read, not only is rape about both power and sex for the victim, but both also play into the motives of the rapist.
I thought the same thing about eliminating blame. You are right that the crime of rape does not happen in a social vaccuum (I don't think ANY crime does). In the goal of eliminating rape, I would agree that it is more useful to talk about it in sociological terms that do not assign blame. Yet I also think that Wendy made an important point in the original post about how we talk about individual cases, in the way we treat those rape as it happens in an imperfect society. You cant just say "it's no ones fault". Burglary does not happen in a social vaccuum either. We should also talk about the sociological trends and possibilities of burglary. But that doesn't mean that if someone breaks into someone else's house and steals all the electronics, we ought to say "no one is to blame" and not prosecute the case. The reason there is a need to emphasize this in the case of rape, is that the popular discourse of society tends to make a strange exception about rape (and there is much evidence that the reasons for this distinction is sexist).
And third - your point about how women should be educated on how to decrease their likelihood of being raped, how to watch out for themselves. Hell yes, I agree with you. But this alone is the overwhelming response to rape. And it ignores that while you CAN decrease the chance of being raped, you can't gaurantee you won't be raped. I know self-defense, I don't leave my drinks unattended, I try not to wander about dangerous parts of town late at night. I was raped. I left my drink with a friend, she apparently didn't watch it very closely but didn't tell me this, and I was drugged. I made a mistake in trusting a friend who was not very dependable. There is a problem in emphasizing ONLY how women should protect themselves from rape. I'm going to talk about burglary again. We tell people to lock their doors and take steps to protect extremely valuable items (insurance, safes). This is great advice. But if someone forgets to lock the door and their TV is stolen, no one is tempted to say "well it isn't burglary because you didn't lock your door, you were just inviting the burglars to come and steal from you". And we also seek to prevent burglary by telling people not to steal and having a government which regularly punishes those who steal (unlike rape which leads to conviction much more rarely).
Right on.
I think you have to be very careful when assigning blame (which you seem to unquestionably assign to every rapist) because you may end up doing the same thing you are condemning, i.e., blaming the victim. There is research that suggests that male victims of child sexual abuse are more likely to violently victimize others. I think it's more effective to remove blame from the picture altogether because it only distracts us from finding ways to eliminate rape from our society in endless debates about who is responsible for it. Of course, it's evident to anyone with half a brain (apparently, more than a third of Britons are not in that category, however) that the victim is never responsible, but it doesn't solve anything to slap the blame on the perpetrator and be done with it instead of asking "how can we make sure rape doesn't happen?". I think the real question here is what we, as a society, can do to reduce the risk factors contributing to the likelihood of a person becoming a perpetrator of sexual abuse. It would probably also help if we switched from punitive to rehabilitative justice (which is not happening now despite all the lip service).
This is a problem that I have a great deal of interest in myself. How can our society help prevent victims of sexual abuse from becoming abusers? How can we ensure that the victims get the help they need in time for it to make a difference? How can we determine which victims are most likely to become perpetrators? How do we determine which victims who have acted out can still be taught not to be violators?
I haven't an answer to any of those questions. I wish I did.
I do know that there are counseling services available for victims of crimes like these, should those crimes be known about, reported, etc. Too many of the crimes are NOT reported or discovered or believed.
However, molesting someone else is a choice. A first offense could possibly be a case of not realizing that it is not normal or acceptable to do, and perhaps counseling and education could help that particular offender. I can see your point there. However, should a second offense be committed afterwards, then it is absolutely that person's fault, no matter how crappy a childhood they may have had. There are no excuses after that.
I do have sympathy for those victims of sexual abuse or molestation or rape who act out from having been sexualized too young without any guides as to acceptable behavior. And I do believe that many of those children can be helped, can be prevented from harming others if given the opportunity to heal and be re-socialized to understand that it is unacceptable. Not all of them, but many.
Still, perpetuating violence is a choice, and ultimately the victim who chooses to become the predator is to blame for those actions.
Well, for starters, counseling doesn't always work. Especially the shitty counseling a lot of kids on Medicaid are getting. Sometimes a provider basically has a monopoly because they are the only agency in the area that accepts Medicaid. So they have no incentive to do anything, and employ a bunch of completely incompetent LCSWs to maintain the bare minimum of legitimacy.
But that's not even the point. The key issue is that the concept of free will is not grounded in reality. Aside from the fact that a lot of decision-making is exercised on a subconscious level, there are things like fetal alcohol syndrome, as Steven mentioned, and other biological issues that come into play that make one more likely to become a perpetrator of sexual abuse or other criminal behavior. I think you would excuse a person with developmental disabilities and a low IQ for molesting someone because it's obvious they are not capable of understanding what the did wrong. You would probably also excuse a mentally ill person for committing a crime. Now, the next step is to understand that just because a person is high-functioning in some areas, it doesn't mean they are high-functioning in all areas, let alone that they have perfect control over their impulses, even if they would like to suppress them. People don't choose to be antisocial or to have sadistic tendencies on a whim. You and I are just lucky that we are not those people.
I think the most obvious (and easiest to implement) way to prevent violence from happening to future generations is to stop reproducing. Barring that, more parental accountability and transparency in parenting would also help, as well as genetic counseling and healthy lifestyle during pregnancies. But those attitudes are really unpopular in society, so we just wait till the victim of abuse, neglect or faulty genes grows up to be a criminal and then either put them in jail (and sometimes kill them for being a victim of those things, which is the antithesis of justice), or keep slapping bandages on the situation with counseling etc.
Dawkins has an article on Edge about blame, responsibility and retribution you should definitely check out. Basically, the gist of it is this quotation: "Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment." We are not responsible for any of those things, therefore it is absurd to hold ourselves responsible for their consequences.
There's a strong streak of sociobiology in your post that I'm very uncomfortable with.
I think the real problem with rape - especially the majority of rapes that happen between men and women who know and trust them is what feminists call "rape culture".
To give you the short version, a big part of that would be the common view among men that you are not a 'Real Man' unless you have a lot of sex with women.
In this quite commonly held view, sex is not intimacy between two individuals but a competition among men.
And the man with the most notches on his belt wins.
It doesn't matter how you get those notches - as long as you, to use a sales term, "get to yes" it's all good.
In that world view, anything short of a woman kicking you in the balls and spraying pepper spray in your eyes is a "maybe" that can, with persuasion, coercion, bribery, threats and false promises, can be made into a yes.
Lots of men think that way - and no, not just Black guys, or White guys from the trailer parks!
I'm sure a lot of guys you went to college with think exactly that way.
I'm sure a lot of you male coworkers think that way.
I'm sure you have male relatives who hold that worldview too.
From squeegemen to steamfitters to stockbrokers, from derelicts to dockbuilders to doctors, from crackheads to cashiers to college professors many men of all classes and all races think this way.
Focusing on those low income men of color who's families have fallen under the surveillance of the family courts and the criminal justice system will totally not touch most of these potential rapists.
We need to convince men that it's not a good thing to rape women.
The whole "yes means yes" thing is a good start - except that, for many men the whole idea that the standard is based on enthusiastic consent by women, instead of a yes extracted by any means necessary, translates in our minds into "men in general and us in particular not getting laid as much as we do now".
We need to figure out a way to reach the potential rapists, of all races and classes, and win them to the idea that raping women is wrong (which, quite frankly, many men do not currently believe)
Just so you know, being an LCSW has nothing whatsoever to do with the competency of a mental health provider. Being a PhD doesn't automatically make you good at your job or even trained in trauma issues. Most MDs these days don't do therapy at all, only medication management. Whether atherapist is competent has to do with their skills and training, experience, and natural ability. It does a disservice to potential clients to put it in their heads that the LCSW they might have an appt with is incompetent b/c they are an LCSW when that has nothing to do with it.
I'm not sure that is how you meant it but it is how it read to me.
My therapist is an MSW, and she's by far the best therapist I've ever had (and I've had psychiatrists with MD's, and psychologists with PhD's)
I can't believe after all this time we're still rehashing the same arguments. In my experience as a rape victim (multiple times), I have observed that men rape because they simply assume they have the right to use your body. You probably have little or nothing to do with it. Men who rape don't even begin to understand the concept of a woman's right to refuse sex. Rapists get angry at the very notion of a woman's rejection, because how can you be rejected by, say, a chair? Or your dog, for instance? That's how they see a woman they want to rape. Is it about sex? Well, in a manner of speaking, insofar as it's about a man believing he has the absolute right to relieve himself, sexually, by using a woman's body. So in a way, yes it is, but in the context of a totally distorted sense of absolute empowerment.
It's basically like they have power over your free will and body, and a forced sexual act is the easiest way to assert dominance over both.
I would slightly agree with the commenters that assigning blame isn't the most important thing, but it is important for one reason: because there are people who lay at least partial blame on victims, who say things like, "Well, she was asking for it, she was flirting/dressed slutty/acting interested/etc." Imagine how damaging that is to someone who's been raped, especially someone wondering whether they should report it or tell anyone, to hear things like that said about rape victims.
Just because a woman flirts with a guy DOES NOT MEAN she is giving him an invitation for sex. Just because a woman dresses a certain way DOES NOT MEAN that she is giving every guy she comes into contact with an invitation for sex. I agree with Wendy; women should not have to be held responsible for being on guard all the time.
I also want to agree that rape is about power. Plain and simple. Taking power. Just because it effects the victim's sexuality doesn't mean that the act is all about sex.
I like to explain it this way:
If I leave my purse in my car where you can see it from the window, and someone smashes the window and takes my purse, well, maybe it was a little stupid of me to leave the purse out, but it doesn't mean the person who stole it didn't commit a crime and shouldn't be punished. It certainly doesn't mean I was asking for someone to steal it. If someone said I was asking for someone to steal it by leaving it out like that ,they would mean that I should know that leaving my purse in view increases the likelihood of it being stolen, but they don't mean that I shouldn't be upset by it or that the person who did it was right to do it.
Similarly, if a girl gets really drunk at a party where she doesn't know anyone else, it does increase the likelihood of a guy raping her. But it in no way makes it her fault or means that he shouldn't be punished for it. You can say that she could have done things better-- she could have not gotten drunk without friends around, she could have tried to scream louder, who knows. But it doesn't at all mean that it wasn't completely HIS fault for raping her, or that he shouldn't be punished, or that she bears any culpability.
I knew a girl who was raped by a guy in her dorm, who I also knew. Knowing both of them and having heard the details of what happened, I'd like to say that if it had been me, I would have fought harder or screamed louder so that even if it didn't get rid of him, it would be 100% clear that it was rape. So I can say that there were things she could have done better. But I don't know what I would have really done in that moment if I were drunk and tired and didn't know what he would do. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. So I think its naive to insist that there was never anything anyone could have done better, but I think that saying you could have done something differently to maybe prevent what happened doesn't mean it was your fault. Just like if you get hit by a car and you're kicking yourself for not dodging faster-- it doesn't make it your fault.
People need to realize that just becuase the victim didn't do everything 100% perfectly like you would when you had a lot of time to calmly think it through, doesn't mean it was their fault at all.
"Similarly, if a girl gets really drunk at a party where she doesn't know anyone else, it does increase the likelihood of a guy raping her. But it in no way makes it her fault or means that he shouldn't be punished for it. You can say that she could have done things better-- she could have not gotten drunk without friends around, she could have tried to scream louder, who knows."
You are forgetting the fact that her friend(s) might be the rapist. I found that out the hard way and frankly don't appreciate my experience being dismissed like that. I also don't appreciate your equation of lack of screaming with consent; I never screamed when I was almost raped, I couldn't even say "no" - it didn't make it any less attempted rape.
I'm not forgetting or dismissing that at all. I'm talking about statistics. If a woman gets really drunk (drunk enough she passes out or is close to it) and there is no one around that she trusts, she IS more likely to be assaulted. That statement in no way implies that women don't get assaulted in other situations. My post would be incredibly long if I wrote out every possible scenario in which someone could be assaulted, rather than giving one example to make a point.
And my goodness, you obviously didn't read or understand my post at all. I in no way equated not screaming with consent. I believe I was very clear that my friend who did not scream was raped and did not consent. However, as a practical matter its true that if she had screamed, it would have made it more clear that an assault was happening (there were other people around in the hallway). As I said, hindsight is 20/20 and I in no way blame her for not doing that. It doesn't mean she wasn't raped at all. But my entire point is that I can make a factual statement that there was something else that she could have done that would probably have made a difference, without blaming her or saying its at all her fault.
I'm sorry you were raped, but try actually reading my post before getting mad-- you'll probably notice that I agree with you.
I'd like to say that if it had been me, I would have fought harder or screamed louder so that even if it didn't get rid of him, it would be 100% clear that it was rape. So I can say that there were things she could have done better.
Reading that in or out of context... damn. One of the most commom response from sexual assault suvivors, regarding resistnance is "I shut down." The event is so unexpected, so alien that the brain does not know how to handle it.
If a woman gets really drunk (drunk enough she passes out or is close to it) and there is no one around that she trusts, she IS more likely to be assaulted.
That completely ignores sexual assaults from spouses, 'friends' and acquaintances.
From the NCVS (2006) http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0633.pdf
Number of Sexual assault victimization: 260,940
Spousal relationship: 20,190 (9.98%)
Well-known: 71,510 (27.4%)
Casual acquaintance: 69,320 (26.6%)
Those are shitty numbers. Sexual offenders are skilled at hiding their natures from people they know. It's how they operate. They are practiced manipulators and they know how to gain trust.
Well, the point is to read it IN context-- that's why there is a whole post. Also as I've already said, yes, I used one example to make a point rather than listing every possible way someone could be assaulted. I also failed to mention priests attacking children-- does that mean I am offensively dismissing their experience and saying it was not rape? Jeez.
Also, if you read the part where I said hindsight is 20/20 but you never know what you'll really be able to do in a particular situation-- that pretty much takes care of your "shutting down" response. Yes, I am fully admitting that if I were suddenly in that situation I might not know what to do and might not react fast enough. That's a big part of my POINT.
Let me spell it out once again, for those who have issues with reading comprehension.
Take, FOR EXAMPLE, the case of a woman who was raped by an acquaintance in a dorm room. [Note: this does not mean this is the only type of rape. This does not mean it was note rape. In fact, note the use of the word "rape" implying that I do, in fact, think it counts as rape.]
This woman was definitely raped. She did not consent. The guy was in the wrong and should be punished. However, she did not scream. Is it understandable that she did not scream? Of course. Does it mean she consented? Of course not. But the fact is, if she had screamed someone in the hallway would have heard it, and even if they didn't do anything about it right then, they would have known later that they heard it and it would have made it easier to prove her case.
Now, my point is that I can say that in that situation, objectively, it would be better to scream. It will help with the short run goal of stopping the assault and the long run goal of proving that it was an assault. People tend to very naturally think of this. Where they go wrong is extrapolating from that thought that somehow that means the woman was asking for it or it wasn't really rape. See where the flaw in reasoning lies?
Now, obviously I never told this particular girl that she should have screamed. There's nothing you can do about it after the fact and it would have just made her feel bad. Its completely understandable that she didn't and it in no way means she wasn't raped or it was her fault or anything like that.
But now that that has happened near me and I've thought about it, I think I'd be more ready to scream loudly if anything like that ever happened to me. It would probably help me combat the natural feeling of freezing and not knowing what to do.
Victim blaming is bad. But asking people to never even consider what they would do in that situation is ridiculous.
I just want to say thank you for this post. I understand why it may strike some as unimportant, but when you have been raped and then have had to listen to a constant discourse blaming you (the victim) for what you have suffered, it is important to keep stating that the blame lies with the perpetrator.
Also, I thought the CORE POINT of this post is very strong and one which is not made often enough: that apologies for rape are almost always ETREMELY dehumanizing and disrespectful to not only female victims, but men in general.
Regrading sexual assault and power...
For the vast majority, yes I think yes, the assault is about power.
For the remainder the driving force is impulsiveness. Why do I say that? In part it is becuase of research I have been involved in. One study was under the direction of the Department of Corrections, the other with my local university.
For a small fraction, impulsiveness is the issue. The most extreme example is offenders with fetal alcohol syndrome. FAS leads to increased impulsiveness and poor judgment. Wikipedia provides me with the following statistics (as the research I assisted with was not designed to capture impulsiveness and my realization is subjective) :
60% of FAS subjects are charged or convicted with a crime; and
50% get in trouble specifically for inappropriate sexual behavior.
But yeah, the vast majority of sexual assaults result from full-blown sexual predators.
Of course, the population you were dealing with were rapists who got ARRESTED, TRIED, CONVICTED and SENTENCED.
I'm quite sure that population are a very dysfunctional group, with low educational status and lots of family problems.
But what about the non apprehended rapists?
As I would hope you know, the justice system treats people very differently based on race and class - things that would get a low income Black man hard time in the state penitentiary might not even get an affluent White man arrested!
So, the homeless Black guy who commits a rape in an alley gets arrested - but the millionaire White stockbroker who drugs a woman at a club and date rapes her never even gets his crime reported.
Your studies might be more valid if they covered the whole universe of rapists - including the vast majority who rape women they know, and who never even get reported to the police.
"I'm quite sure that population are a very dysfunctional group, with low educational status and lots of family problems."
I am quite sure you are philosophizing from you armchair.
In the DOC study the people under supervision were a cross-section of society. You had very successful people who where 'pillars in the community.' Church, volunteer work, good jobs.
Others were sexually assaulted as children and it looks like they got rewired.
In the University Study my population was every sexual assault known to the police for a two year period. That was another cross-sample of the population.
In regards to you hypothetical rich white man versus homeless black person, you have to realize the homeless person most likely sexual assaulted another homeless person, and the rich white person probably assaulted someone in his milieu. Make that what you will.
But subjectively reading the reports, the police are extremely professional and diligently investigate all of the reports to the extent of evidence and leads, regardless of victim or suspects socio-economic status.
Steven,
You have an amazing faith in the lack of sexism, race or class bias on the part of police departments.
Perhaps that reflects your personal race, gender and class bias and/or your professional and academic ties with law enforcement agencies (I would suspect that it does).
Many observers of police conduct towards poor, inner city and/or minority communities note that cops treat those folks VERY DIFFERENTLY than White suburbanites and/or the affluent.
And most folks who live in such communities (such as myself) would tend to agree with those observers.
There is always a problem with anecdotal knowledge. Sometimes it is right and sometimes it is wrong.
The Justice Center at University of Alaska Anchorage recently did research in to claims Alaska State Troopers, the largest police agency in Alaska, discriminates on a racial and geographical bases.
http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/25/1-2springsummer2008/b_attrition.html
Summarizing the results: Anecdotal knowledge was wrong in this instant. Also, if you look at the chart included you can see how close to cases are filtered through the criminal justice system.
The research I am assisting with should be able to answer the question if the same sort of discrimination is occurring in Anchorage, the states larges city.
You also have to remember that a shift in many locations reading violence against women in general and sexual assaults specifically. Many municipalities now uses S.A.R.T (sexual response assault teams) to improve the process, both from a victims advocacy standpoint and from a investigative standpoint.
It use to be to report a sexual assault someone would go to the hospital, wait for hour, tell the examiner what happened, wait hours or days for the police to arrive, and then retell the story at great emotional toil. The responders, medical and law enforcement were not trained or selected to really prepare specifically with sexual assaults or the survivors.
Does the process still suck? By its very invasive nature, yes it sucks. Are there still rape apologist? Yep. Some of them cops? Yep. Are there still huge transgressions; does law enforcement drop the ball? Yeppers. Is there still room for improvement? Always. But the whole system is improving in fits and starts.
Do women not have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? Do women not act "impulsively" sometimes? Even with your data, it still begs the question of why men commit rape so much more often then women.
Women do get FAS, of course.
But when it comes to sexual assaults, female children tend to target younger children, mostly girls. When they get older they end up assaulting who are somehow 'weaker' (which somewhat limits the population they can assault). When they want to sexually assault a male peer they typically use alcohol first.
Of course, sometimes they act as accomplices for male sexual predators, which is a complicated relationship.
And other times women arrange the sexual assault of their social enemies (a very rare occurrence).
And of course, large portions of male and female sexual offenders admit to being sexually assaulted themselves. Research is still trying to figure out the extent that the abused becomes the abuser, differentials between male and female conversion, and which portion of the abuser population was not sexually abused themselves.
Exactly. So why don't these women attack men? And why don't as many women become rapists as men?
So why don't these women attack men?
They Do
But male victims of female sexual abusers are what's called an "elusive population" when it comes to research. Hypothesis abound about if/why males report less sexual assaults at all, and especially from female offenders, and especially adult male victim.
But the main difference (I think, at least) that women don't assault men is it is just easier to assault someone weaker than you, as opposed to assaulting someone who is stronger.
Also think about it this way.Trigger warning Hypothetical Situation
Most women, I think, would definitely say that is a sexual assault. However, if most men woke up and their partner was performing oral sex on them, it would probably not be viewed as negative experience.
Of course there would be exceptions.
Also, sometimes after a sexual assault the survivor displays behavior that is termed 'over-sexualization.' (I put the term in quotes b/c for some reason, I just don't like the term, but a better one does not come to mind). I don't know any stats or solid resarch off-hand about over-sexualization, that research/expertise is more on the psychological side and the research I assisted in is more law-enforcement side.
I hate to hypothesis from my armchair, but I would readily accept it as true that for those survivors that are oversexualized, male and female express this over-sexualization in different manners.
Ok, my thought pattern on this comment is pretty fragmented. So to sum up why women don't attack men or turn into sexual offenders themselves:
1) Its easier for an offender to assault someone weaker who is weaker than the offender. This limits the targets female offenders are drawn too.
2) female survivors that express over-sexualization in a manner that does violate the criminal code, while males often do express over-sexualization in a criminal manner.
Personally I feel the bible should be only taken in consideration with a good portion of common sense. Like when you are Schindler and people are being offed around you, then you should ask yourself what would jesus do.
But if you are unsure or inhibit others who do not hurt anybody you should also take into consideration that the bible is far from accurate, like the author said.
Victim-blaming could all be summarised as: "Hello! Men are mindless raping machines!"
"Although provocatively dressed drunk girls are not the criminals, they have absolutely no right to complain if they are raped"*
Hello! Men are mindless raping machines!
"Rape is an appalling crime, but we need to realise the basic instinct on the man's part that drives them to commit such an act."
Hello! Men are mindless raping machines!
"If this means dressing modestly or drinking in moderation, so be it; it is no good women's groups claiming this is unfair - that is the same as saying it's unfair to get wet in the rain because you don't have an umbrella!"
Hello! Men are mindless raping machines!
This is actually kind of amusing - try it!
*sign* why is it that only the supposedly man-hating all-men-are-rapists feminists reject this view of men?
That's supposed to be "sigh", not "sign". Sarcasm fail.
My guess for why people say things like this is that they're so wrapped up in their desperation to blame the victim that they don't realise what they're saying. Same with the people who unquestioningly agree with them.
I mean, the only time anyone claims to have such beliefs is when there's an opportunity to blame the victim. For example, if they really believe that men have some uncontrollable instinct to rape women, where is the grave concern that girls are being sent to schools with - dun dun dun! - MALE TEACHERS? Where is the "look, men will always have these primal instincts, women just have to live with it" when a teacher orders a student to stay in after class and rapes her? Where is the horror at the existence of marriage? And if they really believed it, frankly, curfews for men wouldn't seem as outrageous to them as they would to everyone else. But no, restrictions for women (sometimes including curfews) are their suggestions, while they would be offended by any suggestion (try it!) to restrict the movements of the ones genetically programmed to rape and who can't stop themselves.
No, they don't actually believe their own bullshit, although they think they do only when they need to blame the victim. I guess this begs the question: WHY is it so damn important to blame the victim?
* asterisk from my previous post (forgot to add it) = "Although provocatively dressed drunk girls are not the criminals" WTF!!!!!! It's been said many times that rape victims are treated as the criminals, but I'm stunned to read something phrased in such a way as to compare "provocatively dressed drunk girls" with criminals as though that were understandable and normal. I guess if it's morally on par with criminal behaviour, you can convince yourself "they have absolutely no right to complain if they are raped".
It all boils down to fear. If you can blame rape on the victim being a stupid whore, that also implies you can prevent rape. It can't happen to your wife because she's a good, sensible woman. It can't happen to your daughter because she's a good, sensible girl. It can't happen to you because you're just not that kind of person.
We, humans, like to believe bad things only happen to bad people. It gives us a sense of control over our lives. The idea is if we live good lives nothing REALLY bad is ever going to happen to us because we don't deserve it.
A friend of mine recently went through some pretty heavy personal tragedy. She called me up sobbing saying she just didn't understand, "Why me?", "Bad things usually only happen to bad people, am I that bad?"
In reality, bad things don't just happen to bad people. There is no magical balance in the world that makes you get hit by a bus or eaten by a crocodile because you're an asshole and "good" people go unrewarded for their efforts every day. Drunk women at bars in high heels get raped and so do sober women who are sitting in bed at home watching reality TV. Rape can happen to anyone. Female, male, old, young, religious, atheist, conventionally attractive or not, disabled, athletic, drunk, sober, prostitute, CEO, wealthy, poor. The only constant in the equation is a rapist.
But it comforts people to think rape is somehow always preventable. People like to believe if they simply play their cards right everything is going to be fine. It's too bad that's just not how life is.
A person who has developmental disabilities, etc, can be taught the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. As I stated before, a first offense may be a circumstance of misunderstanding or not knowing social mores. However, those with developmental disabilities are not unteachable and do need to be held responsible for their behaviors.
Those with massive developmental disabilities generally have to have supervision throughout their entire lives. Those people have been declared incompetent. Incompetent people are a whole different class from the rest of us, and in those cases, someone else has assumed responsibility for them. In those cases, a lax supervisor should be held accountable for the crimes committed.
As for the mentally ill, there are so many varieties and degrees of illness with the majority able to function with a clear sense of right vs wrong. Why shouldn't we hold them accountable for their crimes? Having a mental illness doesn't automatically absolve someone from acting out. Those who have had a psychotic break or something similar, who are clearly deranged and incapable of understanding right from wrong are the exception, rather than the rule for mental illness. For those who have had psychotic breaks, it is the responsibility of society to quarantine them for everyone else's safety.
Absolutely! I think that we're really doing developmentally disabled people a disservice by assuming that they're not capable of distinguishing consent. And like you said, if they are really incapable of that, then they are incompetent and require supervision.
I also completely disagree that childhood abuse explains/excuses perpetrating those abuses on others. There are plenty of people from horrifically abusive backgrounds who somehow, magically, manage to NOT RAPE ANYONE. Giving such people an excuse to rape by attributing it to their background is still rape apology.
Absence of a "no" does not imply consent. Presence of a "yes" does. I'm disappointed to see that this is apparently a difficult distinction for many people, even some of the people on here.
I look at the childhood abuse explanations as this: a child was taught violence or was sexualized too early, which may lead the child to be inclined to follow the patterns/lessons from youth. But if you're inclined to do something, it doesn't mean that you will. It is a choice whether you follow the patterns of the past or if you break from them. Inclinations are not destiny.
The analogy I can think of right now is cigarette smoking. Many kids watch their parents smoke, and learn the pattern of smoking from them. Some of those kids become smokers, but some are disgusted by the smoking and vow never to start. Ultimately, it is the smoker's decision to start, the smoker is responsible for that. We don't excuse smokers because their parents smoked, but we understand that they learned smoking is a valid, acceptable practice from their parents. We know that once a person starts smoking, it's difficult to stop.
I see learning about a perpetrator's past as an important tool to help those who have had similar pasts commit to breaking those patterns. And sometimes learning the past can help determine that the perpetrator needs as lengthy a quarantine as possible to ensure public safety (e.g. a long incarceration or institutionalization). Acknowledging the ugly past does not absolve them, and I see statements of "He couldn't help it; he was raped as a child" as denying the rapist full status as an adult, citizen, and person.
Just wanted to add something I was surprised not to have seen already- a lot of victim blaming also comes from "Well, if I figure out what SHE did wrong, then it can't happen to me."
Yeah, I think a lot of it does come from that. If you can think you would have handled it better, it makes you feel safer.
I think its very important to separate that impulse from actually saying it is the victim's fault, or it wasn't rape. But I don't think its a bad impulse to think about what you could do differently if that ever happened to you. Its like those classes where they have women practice screaming or saying "this is rape" or whatever. If a woman doesn't say that, does that mean its her fault? Of course not. But you can be prepared with what you would do in a situation like that, and it might help you react faster than you would have if you'd never thought about it.
so we just shouldn't leave our houses, wear anything society deems feminine, look attractive, or go anywhere social.
That's basically the idea of the rape apologists
"Being drunk and sexy is like walking through the ghetto covered in jewelry."
I have to point out that this part of the first quote is not only sexist but classist. Like you were saying how victim blaming implies men can't control themselves, this is saying poor people can't keep themselves from stealing jewelry.
Thank you so much for posting this. You put it into words so perfectly!!
This is so true. I hate that they try to blame women for rape! it makes no sense, how are men not supposed to take the blame. If men are really that uncontrollable then they should be in cages not at parties. But, like i know all of us know, men can control their urges, it just depends if they want to.