posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sigelphoenix at 10:52am on 20/04/2006 under feminism and sexism, sexual violence and harassment
sigelphoenix at 10:52am on 20/04/2006 under feminism and sexism, sexual violence and harassmentTrying this again.
Let's talk about terrorism. If you're living in the U.S. (or you receive any news media that allow you to hear us), you're likely quite familiar with the rhetoric associated with terrorism, particularly following September 11. "Use the airlines, or the terrorists will win," "We're Americans who will fight for our freedom," etc. etc. Without assigning value judgments to these statements and their implications (which is oh-so-easy to do), let's just take a look at what they're actually saying. They're about defiance - resisting the attempts of our adversaries to cow us into submission, and holding on to our supposedly God-given right to live our lives the way we want to. Sure, there's some risk - being in an airplane, a place of congregation like a sports stadium, or just a heavily populated city. But in the end, we know that it's not worth circumscribing our lives to win a modicum of safety. Furthermore, the real way to protect ourselves from terrorism is to stop terrorism, not hide from it.
Now let's think about the ways we respond to rape. Sexual assault is, of course, a huge problem for women. And what do we tell women? Don't go to parties. Don't go out at night. Don't be by yourself. Don't talk to men you don't know. Don't get drunk. Don't go to these places, or those. Don't wear this type of clothing, or that. Don't live your life normally, as if you had the right to move around and act freely.
First off, this advice is largely inaccurate. Keep in mind that the vast majority of rapes are not stranger rapes - the assailant isn't some guy hiding in the bushes who jumps out at passing women. Far more often rape is perpetrated by someone the victim knows - a date, a lover, a husband. And yet, we concentrate our "helpful" advice on the rare scenario - the prevention of which requires that women drastically curb the freedom in their activities.
In actuality, this kind of advice does virtually nothing. The women who follow these "rules" with paranoia probably aren't in danger of a stranger rape anyway; more likely, they're at risk from someone they know. In exchange, however, they keep themselves in constant fear and worry, unable to do carefree and enjoyable things that normal people do - excuse me, that men do. They're prevented from socializing or engaging in sexual activity or just walking around the way that we allow men to do. And if this doesn't prevent rape - because it sure as hell won't - then we can feel smug and superior and say that the victim was asking for it. If women don't follow these draconian rules, of course, we judge them - in ways we never judge men.
(Yes, there are male rape victims. No, I'm not being "unfair" to them by not including them here - men are not subject to the kind of "advice" that women are, whether or not they're at risk for rape. Funnily enough, the same men who will scream and wail about the way feminists "exclude" men in discussions of rape do not argue that men should join with women in hiding in their homes after sunset. Imagine that.)
Can you imagine if we turned this attitude around on men, though? Can you imagine if we said, "We're worried about you getting raped, so make sure you never go anywhere without a buddy, anywhere there will be any people you don't know, anywhere there will be alcohol or drugs, or anywhere you will have to walk on the street after dark. Oh, and do not go anywhere wearing that, you skanky ho. What are you, asking to be raped?"
Or imagine if we used the same principle in protecting ourselves from terrorism. If we did, after all, advise people not to fly on airplanes or go to places where large numbers of people would gather. For their protection, of course. I mean, sure, it would mean they couldn't do many of the normal, everyday, enjoyable things that they should be able to - visit relatives out of state, go to sports events, travel internationally.
Or imagine if we treated victims of other crimes the same way. Remember the story about the man who was mugged? "So you were drinking?" "Yes." "What were you wearing?" "A suit." "An expensive suit?" "Yeah, actually, it was." "In other words, Mr. Henke, you were walking around the city streets late at night, under the influence of alcohol, in an expensive suit that advertised your wealth, right? If we didn't know better, Mr. Henke, we might even think that you were asking for this to happen, mightn't we?"
But oh well. I mean, we already tell women that they can't meet new people, go to parties or bars, or walk outside after the sun has set. Wouldn't it be fair to do the same thing to victims of other crimes?
Or we could, of course, adopt the same attitude (though, I would add, not the same techniques) that we do against terrorism. We could say: Here are some measures you can take that will maximize your safety. But we won't ever ask you to do something that unreasonably hinders your lifestyle yet provides minimal protection. We should stop the criminals themselves, and not rely on you to be responsible both for yourself and for the criminals. We're going to try to prevent the crime instead of just (occasionally) imprisoning the perpetrators after the crime has occured. And you can bet your ass that we're going to take it to the perpetrators - because they, and not you, are responsible for the crime. And, of course, we care about your welfare - we're not interested in making you avoid certain activities or behaviors, or in keeping you from being active, or sexual, or otherwise free.
Wouldn't that be great?
Let's talk about terrorism. If you're living in the U.S. (or you receive any news media that allow you to hear us), you're likely quite familiar with the rhetoric associated with terrorism, particularly following September 11. "Use the airlines, or the terrorists will win," "We're Americans who will fight for our freedom," etc. etc. Without assigning value judgments to these statements and their implications (which is oh-so-easy to do), let's just take a look at what they're actually saying. They're about defiance - resisting the attempts of our adversaries to cow us into submission, and holding on to our supposedly God-given right to live our lives the way we want to. Sure, there's some risk - being in an airplane, a place of congregation like a sports stadium, or just a heavily populated city. But in the end, we know that it's not worth circumscribing our lives to win a modicum of safety. Furthermore, the real way to protect ourselves from terrorism is to stop terrorism, not hide from it.
Now let's think about the ways we respond to rape. Sexual assault is, of course, a huge problem for women. And what do we tell women? Don't go to parties. Don't go out at night. Don't be by yourself. Don't talk to men you don't know. Don't get drunk. Don't go to these places, or those. Don't wear this type of clothing, or that. Don't live your life normally, as if you had the right to move around and act freely.
First off, this advice is largely inaccurate. Keep in mind that the vast majority of rapes are not stranger rapes - the assailant isn't some guy hiding in the bushes who jumps out at passing women. Far more often rape is perpetrated by someone the victim knows - a date, a lover, a husband. And yet, we concentrate our "helpful" advice on the rare scenario - the prevention of which requires that women drastically curb the freedom in their activities.
In actuality, this kind of advice does virtually nothing. The women who follow these "rules" with paranoia probably aren't in danger of a stranger rape anyway; more likely, they're at risk from someone they know. In exchange, however, they keep themselves in constant fear and worry, unable to do carefree and enjoyable things that normal people do - excuse me, that men do. They're prevented from socializing or engaging in sexual activity or just walking around the way that we allow men to do. And if this doesn't prevent rape - because it sure as hell won't - then we can feel smug and superior and say that the victim was asking for it. If women don't follow these draconian rules, of course, we judge them - in ways we never judge men.
(Yes, there are male rape victims. No, I'm not being "unfair" to them by not including them here - men are not subject to the kind of "advice" that women are, whether or not they're at risk for rape. Funnily enough, the same men who will scream and wail about the way feminists "exclude" men in discussions of rape do not argue that men should join with women in hiding in their homes after sunset. Imagine that.)
Can you imagine if we turned this attitude around on men, though? Can you imagine if we said, "We're worried about you getting raped, so make sure you never go anywhere without a buddy, anywhere there will be any people you don't know, anywhere there will be alcohol or drugs, or anywhere you will have to walk on the street after dark. Oh, and do not go anywhere wearing that, you skanky ho. What are you, asking to be raped?"
Or imagine if we used the same principle in protecting ourselves from terrorism. If we did, after all, advise people not to fly on airplanes or go to places where large numbers of people would gather. For their protection, of course. I mean, sure, it would mean they couldn't do many of the normal, everyday, enjoyable things that they should be able to - visit relatives out of state, go to sports events, travel internationally.
Or imagine if we treated victims of other crimes the same way. Remember the story about the man who was mugged? "So you were drinking?" "Yes." "What were you wearing?" "A suit." "An expensive suit?" "Yeah, actually, it was." "In other words, Mr. Henke, you were walking around the city streets late at night, under the influence of alcohol, in an expensive suit that advertised your wealth, right? If we didn't know better, Mr. Henke, we might even think that you were asking for this to happen, mightn't we?"
But oh well. I mean, we already tell women that they can't meet new people, go to parties or bars, or walk outside after the sun has set. Wouldn't it be fair to do the same thing to victims of other crimes?
Or we could, of course, adopt the same attitude (though, I would add, not the same techniques) that we do against terrorism. We could say: Here are some measures you can take that will maximize your safety. But we won't ever ask you to do something that unreasonably hinders your lifestyle yet provides minimal protection. We should stop the criminals themselves, and not rely on you to be responsible both for yourself and for the criminals. We're going to try to prevent the crime instead of just (occasionally) imprisoning the perpetrators after the crime has occured. And you can bet your ass that we're going to take it to the perpetrators - because they, and not you, are responsible for the crime. And, of course, we care about your welfare - we're not interested in making you avoid certain activities or behaviors, or in keeping you from being active, or sexual, or otherwise free.
Wouldn't that be great?