I was not raped, a man raped me.
I. was. not. raped. A RAPIST RAPED ME.
12
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: I was not raped, a man raped me..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12218
I'm not trying to be rude but I don't understand your post. What's the difference?
The point is to place blame with the attacker instead of the victim.
I wasn't sure what maggie's point was either for a few seconds, but if I understand her correctly, she is making a point about the words we use to describe events. Though a rapist is implicit in the statement "I was raped", the focus is on the person the criminal act was perpetrated against. By asserting that "A man raped me" or "A rapist raped me" maggie expicitly presents to the reader or listner a person who commited the criminal offence against her.
The importance of the difference in the two types of statements is that the latter type acknowledges the presence of the other. Acknowledging that the rape occured is important, but just as important is acknowledging, up front and without equivocation, that the crime was commited by someone. By using the second type of statements we can not forget or not acknowlege that their was more than one person present during the criminal act.
That is, violence against women is not commited by some nebulous 'other', but by real people. If we want an end to violence against women, and to hold people responsible for those acts, then we must be explicit in calling attention to the presence of the persons commiting these acts.
I believe she is saying that she did nothing to bring about the attack. Rather, it is something which was done to her.
I also see this as a commentary on the use of androcentric language commonly used to describe rape as something that happens to women, not something men do.
rape is not just something men do, but women do as well. many men are likewise victims of rape
FYI:
Probably 99% of rapists are men.
Men who are raped are virtually always raped by other men.
Yeah, men typically get raped by other men.
Rape is an expression of power and as such is often an attempt to assert masculinity, which in our society is defined as having power over women, children, and marginalized men.
Rarely, a woman will commit rape. But on the whole rape is very much tied up with our ideas of masculinity.
The only time I have heard of a woman raping a man was if a teacher has sex with a student or something of that nature and it was considered statutory rape.
"I was raped" is not androcentric. "A man raped me" is. "-Centric" does not mean "casts in a pleasant and/or excusing light", but that the thing is the focus of the thought or sentence. You can't bandy about words that you haven't thought about just because you think they convey the general gist that patriarchy is the source of every problem.
Androcentric means speaking or viewing things from a male perspective, which is society's usual response to issues surrounding rape. Saying "a man raped me" is not an androcentric comment.
I usually find it annoying when people denigrate the perfectly valid grammatical construction known as the passive voice, but I think I'll make an exception this time. ;)
Anyway, you have my sympathy, if you want it.
I do not see this as a denigration of the passive voice.
To say "I was raped" places the passive voice on the act of rape, something which is clearly not passive at all. What she is really doing is shifting the active voice onto the rapist by the statement "a rapist raped me," which actually clarifies just who is the actor and who is the object.
Doug S., the "wink" is not appropriate. Your casual offering of sympathy is not appropriate.
Your response to maggie's expression shocks and enrages me.
You assume she doesn't know what a passive voice is, your use of the term "valid" is telling here (it's in opposition to maggie), you assume her statement is some kind of plea for your pity, you ARE NOT LISTENING to what this statement screams at you. Do you want to lecture her on her use of punctuation and fragmentary phrases?
Read it again. Think about it this time, and think of a better response than a wink and a smile.
Thank you Kasia!
Last time I looked rape was a capital crime so why is it being treated like an everyday occurance?
Because it IS an everyday occurance by everyday men. And most men (and many women) just won't deal with that.
Maggie is simply stating "A MAN raped me"...not that she was somehow magically raped by a non-existent entity. Men rape...clear enough yet?
And, as usual...not one genuine ounce of real empathy or support.
I wasn't sure what to make of the wink. I see maggie's statement as a reclamation of autonomy and personal power, a criticism and invalidation of which is wholly inappropriate.
Ouch. I stand before you, chastened and contrite. :(
It's just a pet peeve of mine that every damn "how to write" guide - including the MS Word grammar check - insistently demands that writers refrain from using the passive voice, because of the way it shifts emphasis from the grammatical subject to the grammatical object and produces a weaker-sounding sentence. Normally, I prefer to defend the poor, unjustly maligned passive voice, but in this case, I completely agree with the original poster, who points out the problem with a particularly common use of it. I tried to make a joke about language pedantry, and I guess it fell flat.
As for the offer of sympathy, well... I couldn't tell if the original post referred to a personal experience or not. I guess Gular said it better?
I think I, like you, were a little taken aback because, well, the post is 2 sentences long and devoid of any context to differentiate if its a personal or a general statement. I think your initial comment would have gone over better without the emoticon, though... but not as well as you would have liked.
I think the problem was that this was a very serious, emotional post, and you tried to make light of it.
Just because a sentence written in passive voice may be valid grammatically, that certainly doesn't mean its application is appropriate in every situation. I feel you've probably missed the original author's point.
(See my reply to kasia, above. I was trying to agree with the point of the original post.)
I think the only sympathy someone would want would be for having to deal with cold pseudo-intellectuals like you.
How's this work for you? 'I was raped, and then I immediately signed up for a Grammar 101 course to make myself feel better'. Detached enough yet?
/me wishes he could just delete the original comment...
Uh. As a English M.A., I can tell you there are multiple theoretical reasons for not using the passive voice besides that Strunk and White tell you to. It not only shifts the "emphasis" from the actor to the object, it *eliminates* the actor and makes it impossible to know who performed the action. Did a dog rape you? Did a sandwich rape you? Did your boyfriend rape you? YOU are there; where is the actor? It suggests some invisible unidentifiable entity performed the action.
It's like saying ...
"The car was driven." (passive)
"I drove the car." (active)
Very different.
Passive voice is used often in government documents because it essentially erases the blame and responsibility of the actor. When you have an ambiguous actor, questions about motivation and context are impossible to answer. The author of this post makes the point that *a man* was to *blame*. She was not to blame. Some invisible strange magical anomalous thing was not to blame. A woman was not to blame. A MAN was to blame.
I have to wring my students' necks to get them to properly use active voice, so much of our news media and advertising is written and reported in the passive voice.
This.
Plus, as a journalism student, I've been taught that active voice is exactly that: active. It catches and holds a reader's attention better than passive voice. The main exception is if the recipient of the action is more important to the statement than the actor. For example, "the President was hit by a rock" would actually be a better choice than "some guy threw a rock at the President." Because what you care about first in that situation is the President and what happened to him; hearing about the guy that threw a rock at him comes later.
So in this case, using active is better because emphasis should be placed on the rapist instead of the victim.
Then don't forget to also teach your students these:
"The car was driven to the disposal place. Don't ask me who drove the car, as I do not know."
"The car which was driven by person X was last seen on Tuesday."
"I tried to find more information about the cars, which were driven to the disposal place."
Now try substituting "car" and "driven" with "person" and "raped", and tell me if you find none of the three formulations to be appropriate.
people have already said this, but I'll add-as someone that agrees with you about the passive voice in general(microsoft programs always enrage me when they try to tell me I shouldn't write using the standards of my discipline) this is not the place to go there. This is not a grammatical issue. this is a bigger cultural issue.
If this is about a personal experience, I'm so sorry and I offer help if it's appropriate/wanted.
If this is a grammatical commentary, I agree! The first place to end the victim blaming is to change how we talk about the act.
I like this. a lot.
we have shifted our language a bit -- i'm thinking of several women i know who go from "victim" to "survivor". however, only in my specialized, educated bubble of rape crisis work have i heard people say "your rapist" to indicate a man who perpetrates. we so often focus on the victim.
it's SO important that we name these people what they are, just as we must not use extraneous language to describe our experiences with being raped. (so many women don't want to call it rape, even though it was just that.)
calling a perpetrator a RAPIST cuts right through the bullshit and makes it clear they are a criminal, thus challenges the tendency to normalize and naturalize such horrific events.
thank you maggie - this is so important.
If Maggie's comment was referring to her specific circumstances, I agree with you wholeheartedly. If, however, this post was meant to be taken as a general criticism of "I was raped" vs. "a man raped me," then I would have to say that it seems to me that individual survivors should have the right to frame the experience however they see fit.
calling a perpetrator a RAPIST cuts right through the bullshit and makes it clear they are a criminal, thus challenges the tendency to normalize and naturalize such horrific events.
* * *
Precisely.
It's an ugly word, for an ugly crime, and the people who commit it--the RAPISTS--are filled with ugly emotions and thoughts.
It is thus *especially* important that we wield this term in contexts in which mainstream society, infected by patriarchy, slides into rape apologia: the RAPIST entered the body of his college classmate as she visited him in his dorm and after she refused sex; the RAPIST thrust his member into the body of the half-drunk woman or man who never consented to sex; the RAPIST forced his wife or boyfriend or girlfriend to perform oral sex on him by holding down their head, even when they struggled and tried to disengage.
Thank you for this. I never thought about it that way before.
What a brave post. It screams of raw emotion. Thank you for posting it.
Maggie, I'm sorry someone did that.
Thank you. Your eight words moved me to tears. Just, wow...powerful...
I am very deeply sorry that you were raped - I hope you are getting the best of care and support.
With that said, I really don't see the point of your post.
Changing the language of how we talk about rape isn't going to change the horrible reality - no more than spelling "Women" as "W-O-M-Y-N" or "W-I-M-M-I-N" or "W-Y-M-Y-N" will end sexism.
Wow.
I will not repeat what others have already said, but since you apparently didn't take the time to read the comments that were already posted, replying to those who seem to share your point of view, I will point you to them so that you can mull over the fantastic obtuseness of your comment:
*Stephen Moore - March 1, 2009 11:12 PM
*wiccaman - March 2, 2009 12:07 AM
*GraceMP - March 2, 2009 10:30 AM
*Okra's reply to GraceMP - March 3, 2009 3:29 AM
And of course, the best reply to your comment that I have seen (as of the writing of this reply) is below, by Betty Boondoggle - March 4, 2009 11:28 AM.
Please read and re-think.
Thank you for your courage
"With that said, I really don't see the point of your post."
Of course not, *GREG*. You, as a male, don't have to get it. That's your privilege.
I see the point. Its very clearly designed to stop the "invisible criminal" charade we play when we speak about violence against women.
She didn't get herself raped, A MAN, A RAPIST committed a crime.
Taking the focus off the victim and on to the criminal, where it belongs.
This is not rocket science.
"Changing the language of how we talk about rape isn't going to change the horrible reality - no more than spelling "Women" as "W-O-M-Y-N" or "W-I-M-M-I-N" or "W-Y-M-Y-N" will end sexism."
You really don't understand reclamation. Do you understand, at all, why some wo*men* chose to change the spelling of the word? Is the obvious fact that male is the standard, female the derivation not clear to you?
Must be fun to live in Male Privilege Land.
"I'm sorry for the person who WAS raped. I'm also sorry for others who WERE raped."
Do you also object to this sentence structure?
Ah, now that its been explained I agree 100%.
My first reaction was that it was the exact same. Like the difference between "I was robbed" and "Someone robbed me." But now I see that that phrasing is an issue too. The focus is on ME being robbed, not on the sketchfest who took my money. I never really thought about it before, but our phrasing really shows how society feels about victims in general. Its usually assumed to be the victims fault. Not even just rapes, if I walked through a park at night and got murdered, it'd be my fault. If I got robbed, it would be fault because I "flashed my cash" in the store. etc.
I'm going to make an effort to change the way I talk about these kind of things. Thanks for enlightening me, everyone! :)
This is a very tired topic in feminist circles, I'm surprised as to how many people had not heard of this. Goes to show you that every movement gets newbies into its circles, and you have to repeat the main messages again and again.
You'd think you'd be happy that more people were joining your cause...?
Let's not be too enthustiastic now about sharing with or helping to educate or enlighten others.
Just FYI, these things are essentially what feminism all about. There probably would have been no feminism without women listening to and teaching/learning from one another.
So, because you are tired of hearing about rape, we should just stop talking about it? How are we supposed to stop something we cannot talk about?
So as not to derail the thread, I'm just going to suggest you look up the etymology of the word woman, specifically the derivation from Old English, as it's not derived from man. Please don't mistake this as a defense for Greg, his comments were asinine.
Actually, the word "man" as it was originally derived did in many instances refer specifically to males. The words "woman" and "wife" are both derived from the same original word, wyf.
Perhaps instead of being overly concerned with the derivation of words, while important in understanding their original intent, we should focus on correcting the power imbalances inherent in their everyday use.
Sure, I never said that it didn't. I was simply responding to Betty's comment about the derivation of the word woman. (It was supposed to be a reply under hers, went down here)
destra -- by "newbies," you mean the next generation of feminism/womanism, yes?
Great post. To change society, we first have to change how we think, talk and write.
Newspapers feature stupid headlines like "Four dead in murder/suicide" because they don't have the guts to write "Man shoots wife, children, self." The first headline makes it sound like the man is just another victim of this murder/suicide, which occured randomly as some weird act of nature! But if the gun had been found in a woman's hand, do you think that fact wouldn't have been mentioned in the paper? Then it would be "Mother slaughters father and child."
We're so used to hearing/reading passive voice, it's hard to get away from. Even when I wrote a column on this for my local paper, I caught myself doing it in that very piece.
"1 out of 4 women is a victim of domestic violence." Sounds like a weather phenomenon or something! How about "Husbands and boyfriends beat 1 out of 4 women." Too hard-hitting? Too scary?
And notice there's one statistic that is never given anywhere: What percent of men abuse? If 1/4 of women are abused, does that make 1/4 of men abusers? Not at all. But lets hear what the ratio is. Does anyone ever study the perpetrators instead of the victims? If not, that may explain why rape, DV, and woman-murder are still so prevalent. It's like trying to stop house fires by studying charred bodies. If you want to stop something, look at the CAUSE of it. And no, the victims don't cause their victimization.
Let's not forget the dependent clause, either. Why would I be expected to say "the person who the rapist raped" rather than "the person who was raped"? Isn't the sentence structure of the former often just needlessly complicated?
If you still insist on wanting to mess up language further, try converting the phrase "people who were raped" into active voice without changing its content. Easy?
Jewel, that last comment was not meant specificly for you (as I'm a bit new at this), but don't worry, this one is.
"Newspapers feature stupid headlines like "Four dead in murder/suicide" because they don't have the guts to write "Man shoots wife, children, self.""
If that headline would be stupid, then a headline such as "twenty dead in murder/suicide" would be no less stupid, as opposed to having the guts to write "Man shoots wife, her lover, children, relatives, in-laws, friends, neighbours, pets and self." Just the man is just another victim of a murder/suicide, which occurred randomly as some weird act of nature!
I wouldn't write "Mother slaughters father and child."
"How about "Husbands and boyfriends beat 1 out of 4 women." Too hard-hitting? Too scary?"
Even if it would be too hard-hitting or scary, what it does save you from is the trouble of having to mention a greater amount of agents, such as "Husbands and boyfriends and fathers and grandfathers and brothers beat 1 out of 4 women."
It's entirely possible to mention the offender WITHOUT getting rid of the passive voice. For instance, the sentence "I was raped BY A RAPIST" is still in passive voice.
But either way, it's just ridiculous to mention "a rapist" as the agent in an act of rape, and to say "a rapist raped me" is beyond ridiculous. What other options are there for this? "A non-rapist raped me"? I say get lost!
The passive voice is also the best option if
A) you don't want to reveal the sex of the rapist (even if most people would assume it was a man).
or
B) you don't have any information about the sex of the rapist.
Let's not forget the dependent clause, either. Why would I be expected to say "the person who the rapist raped" rather than "the person who was raped"? Isn't the sentence structure of the former often just needlessly complicated?
If you still insist on wanting to mess up language further, try converting the phrase "people who were raped" into active voice without changing its content. Easy?
can i ask why this turned into a hearing on the passive voice, rather than a discussion of how disappearing the Rapist from the action is a problem? it seems like there's a lot of useless bloviating about grammar details when there should be a discussion of WHY we allow the media/gov't/etc to use lighter language to describe such a heavy matter.
there are a few people who seem to "get it" here, but most of these comments are just asinine to the point of rude in regards to the reality of the original post.
I don't see a problem with it. I see more of a solution which, as I have shown, sometimes is even necessary. If leaving the rapist unmentioned would be a problem, then confusing your readers with ridiculous writing would be the solution.
The original poster gave us no explanation of why it would be absolutely wrong to say that she "was raped".