lederhosen | Not the rape meme

Not the rape meme

I've seen a few people posting the "don't rape her" meme and I've left it alone because, while I agree with most of the sentiments, there are just a couple of wrong notes.

laochbran had a good post about the problems with it, which I won't repeat here. I'm just going to pick on these lines:

don't tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape.
don't imply that she could have avoided it if she'd only done/not done x.
don't imply that it's in any way her fault.
don't perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions.

I can understand why these lines appeal. The "she was asking for it" defence is as ancient as it is despicable, and the idea that a rapist's crime is in any way diminished by his victim's having taken risks needs to be stamped on, hard.

But "if you do this, you're less likely to become a victim of crime" is NOT the same statement as "if you don't do this, and you become a victim of crime, it's your fault". I agree that rape-avoidance tactics are not the primary answer to the problem, and should never be allowed to give the impression that women who don't follow them are legitimate targets; I don't agree with the implication that for those reasons, we shouldn't teach them.

Everybody has the right not to be raped, regardless of whether they're sitting in a high-security house with a shotgun under the pillow or blind drunk among strangers at a party. But in our less-than-ideal world, some things are riskier than others, and along with the right not to be raped, women have a right to know and understand the risks, so they can decide for themselves what chances they're willing to take.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yes, I agree.

It would not be helpful to mention, let alone dwell upon, failure to understand or follow risk-avoiding behaviour with a newly-raped person, but I for one don't thing we survivors can feel empowered unless we know there are ways to reduce the chances of a re-occurence.

It would not be helpful to mention, let alone dwell upon, failure to understand or follow risk-avoiding behaviour with a newly-raped person

Yes. I meant to acknowledge that in the post and it fell out somewhere along the way while I was writing, so thanks for reminding me :-)

I can't think you'd actually do that, but yuz welcome :-)

I think what you're pointing out here is the very difference between "victim" and "survivor" itself.

Rape victims (those in the immediate stages during and after a rape) do not, indeed, need to hear anything that they will internalize as "you deserved what happened" any more than the victim of a bicycle accident needs to be rolled around in the dirt at the crash site while their wounds are still open.

Yet, once things have healed over some, part of taking back the idea of one's self as an independent being can be looking over the events before and during the assault, and identifying the good and bad choices made and decide what to do if it ever happens again.

Not everyone who has ever been raped is still a victim. Some of us have lived beyond it, after all.

Corr

I think you may be right.

Dammit, that's what I was trying to say! Bastard :)

Although, actually, I'd go with rape-avoidance tactics being the primary response. Because I don't believe there will ever be 'no dickheads'

IMHO, rape is one aspect of a broader problem (people being messed up generally about sex and relationships). I think rape-avoidance tactics might be the most effective way to reduce the incidence of rape, but I suspect addressing it by tackling the root problem would come with a lot of other benefits too.

(All that is based on fuzzy gut feelings rather than any hard evidence whatsoever.)

"I think rape-avoidance tactics might be the most effective way to reduce the incidence of rape, but I suspect addressing it by tackling the root problem would come with a lot of other benefits too. "

You can't say that and not spill it all, can you?

Sorry, not quite understanding you there - rephrase?

That's too good to pass up-- give details! I'm fascinated.

(Ah, now I get it. Just wasn't parsing your previous comment the right way, for some reason.)

Nothing too original or insightful. Basically, %lbrgeneralisation mode = on%rbr that we mystify both sex and gender more than is healthy. Two consequences of these are that men (a) don't empathise with women as easily as with one another (leading to a lack of respect) and (b) think 'sex' is the answer to a lot of complicated problems (insecurity, anger, boredom, etc etc). I think the combination of those two has a lot to do with why so many men who wouldn't dream of nicking another man's wallet are willing to coerce a woman into sex.

But that over-mystification is harmful in lots of other ways too. It creates an environment where parents believe it's somehow harmful for kids even to know the basics about how their own reproductive organs work (see this story, for instance, in which Seventeen magazine was pulled from thousands of stores for an article titled 'Vagina 101'), which hurts kids through STDs, unplanned pregnancy, and - probably most common of all - needless worrying about things that are perfectly normal. With adults, well, how pathetic is it that a good portion of the male population still turns green at the gills at the mention of menstruation?

It also sets up the expectation that people will pick their friends almost exclusively from their own gender; I doubt many of my LJ friends live that way, but there are a great many people out there who do. (I suspect, with no solid evidence whatsoever, that most rapists would fall into that category.) Quite aside from any other consequences, eliminating half one's potential friends from consideration purely on the basis of gender undoubtedly leads to a vast number of missed opportunities.

I don't think eliminating that mystique would entirely eliminate rape - there would still be the occasional sociopath - but I think it would greatly reduce the incidence. Most people, no matter how loathsome to the rest of the world, don't view themselves as bad guys; according to a study I came across earlier this evening while looking for some other stats, something like 84% of male rapists didn't believe their actions were rape, which probably has a lot to do with how they excused it to themselves. Better empathy for the opposite sex would presumably make that particular illusion harder to sustain.

It might also go some way to reducing the harm that rape does. While it's a complicated issue, I think the mystique is probably part of why rape seems to be so much more traumatic than a similarly violent non-sexual assault would be.

What you're saying makes sense.

I've always felt that most people see gender as "picking sides." And when you're on two different teams, you've got to play against each other, see..

Corrvin
(more of a water boy than a team player)

Yup. I think I invoked Joe Jackson's "Real Men" last time this topic came up, since it says it pretty well...

I'll add to this:

The culture that supports rape is the same culture that supports racism - both are cultures of one group using force to maintain its standing above the other group.

The vast majority of forced sexual situations (which may or may not meet the legal definition of rape) are committed by someone the woman knows: 46% by someone she was in love with; 22% by someone she knew well; 19% by an aquaintance; and 9% by her spouse (only 4% by strangers). (Based on a 1994 report of Sex in America - one of the most representative sexuality surveys run in the US.) So rape-avoidance tactics are often of little use because I woman doesn't think she's in a situation to need them in most instances of rape.

The number of men who state that they would force a woman into sex if they knew they could get away with it is startling. (I can't find the statistical reference - problem of revising my Human Sexuality notes over the years - but I'm fairly confident that it is over 50% in one study.)

I could go on - but I'm sure you really don't want to read my lecture notes for the next chapter I cover in Human Sexuality.

Argh, I used % instead of &. That'll teach me to be clever...

Oh, you mean that root problem. Oh. Well, yes, you're right. Again. Bastard :)

He's like that. Often. I agree. And what makes it worse is that I have to respect, love and admire the mind that produces it.

Well, yeah.

Back in the days when I lived in a neighbourhood nice enough for Neighbourhood watch, they used to pass out leaflets on how not to get robbed, and I don't recall anyone complaining about perpetuating the victim culuture then. OR suggesting that it legitimised the act of theft.

sol.
.

I do agree that women have a right to know and understand risks - but I would like to point out that as a woman, it's very hard to reach the age of about 14 without having these drummed into you.

We are all told, repeatedly, not to walk anywhere alone after dark - or sometimes even in daylight (parks are dangerous places!), not to take public transport in the evening, to lock our doors when driving alone and not to go into carparks alone at night, not to get drunk when we are out with people, and so on... It amounts to a curfew, and I suspect the person writing the meme was trying to get at the fact that while this may be useful information to give to young girls, it is both a little insulting (we know, and we are already taking as much care as we can). Especially as this kind of advice appears to put the responsibility of rape prevention back onto the woman.

Which is not to say it isn't good to be informed about new and nasty tricks people might be playing, such as date-rape drugs etc.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, exactly. I suppose I just feel significantly curfewed already - as though I would be seen as having taken a foolish risk if I got attacked walking home from the tram at night when I'm at work late, when in fact anything short of staying at home or always leaving work during daylight hours would put me at risk, since I've been told to be wary of walking, driving, taking public transport or taking a taxi!

I suppose the real trouble is it's all very well to be informed about risks - but really, the risks we are informed about are so all-encompassing that it is virtually impossible to live without having to take one of these 'risks' daily. To me this suggests that we should be trying to make the activities of daily life less risky, rather than telling women they have a responsibility to keep themselves safe at all time, when this more or less impossible.

I hope this isn't too incoherent, but it touched a nerve.

Catherine

Especially as this kind of advice appears to put the responsibility of rape prevention back onto the woman.

IMHO, that responsibility lies with everybody who can make a difference to that situation - men and women both. It isn't fair that women have to do part of this job - the man's conscience should be able to handle the whole thing. But until we succeed in making this world fair, which isn't going to happen any time soon, anybody who counts on it treating them fairly is in real trouble. I don't think telling people "this world is unfair, and you need to protect yourselves against that" is condoning that unfairness.

I suppose the real trouble is it's all very well to be informed about risks - but really, the risks we are informed about are so all-encompassing that it is virtually impossible to live without having to take one of these 'risks' daily.

Sure, and I'm not saying women should attempt to live risk-free lives. There's no such thing. But there's a lot that can be done to reduce risk without cutting onto one's lifestyle very much - for instance, picking a parking spot in the morning that'll be safer to come back to at night.

And while the average 14-year-old might know that there are a lot of dangers out there, I'm not convinced she knows so much about how to deal with them when things start to turn bad. For instance - at the age of fourteen, if a guy had grabbed your wrist and refused to let go, would you have known how to get away?

Oh, I'm all in favour of self-defense courses and sensible reduction of risks, as well as education the children (male and female, on both risks and responsibilities, for that matter). And I agree, letting people know that the world is unfair, and let's find a sensible way to live with that is a good interim measure while we try to make the world fairer :-)

But the advice never fails to irritate me firstly because, as you may have gathered, it does tend to be patronising when directed at adult women (which, sadly, it often is), and secondly because on all four occasions when I have been attacked I have been in allegedly 'safe' situations - broad daylight, in the company of people I knew, etc. And it irritates me beyond belief that the first question asked on the occasion I told someone else about one of these events was "Well, what were you wearing?"!!

Which has the odd (and admittedly foolish) effect that I'm fairly sanguine about walking around the city at night if I must, because if I decide to be paranoid about risk situations, I have to be paranoid about walking home from work in broad daylight, which is just silly. And my little inner unionist points out that if enough women DID wander around the city at night as if it were safe, it would eventually become safer...

Sorry, I am definitely losing any thread of argument I might have had. And I'm not disagreeing with you so much as quibbling at bits of it...

Catherine, much less argumentative than she looks. Really.

We are all told, repeatedly, not to walk anywhere alone after dark - or sometimes even in daylight (parks are dangerous places!), not to take public transport in the evening, to lock our doors when driving alone and not to go into carparks alone at night, not to get drunk when we are out with people, and so on... It amounts to a curfew, and I suspect the person writing the meme was trying to get at the fact that while this may be useful information to give to young girls, it is both a little insulting (we know, and we are already taking as much care as we can). Especially as this kind of advice appears to put the responsibility of rape prevention back onto the woman.

Unfortunately, I don't remember ever being told any of this. My parents saw nothing wrong in letting me catch a train home at night (nearest train station to my parents house being separated from a main road by a small public garden, full of shadowy corners, and a carpark, with the interior of the shelters invisible from any place other than directly in front of said shelter), or going to parties by myself (as long as that didn't involve them doing anything). My mother still thinks that doing martial arts is silly, even after I told her I was doing it for self-defense reasons, because I "shouldn't need to". My driving instructor was the first person to insist that I get into the habit of locking the doors when I get into a car.

What I know about not getting into these situations is what I've picked up from common sense, and listening to that little voice in the base of my skull which says to go the long way tonight.

Personally, I think we should be better informed about risk assessment, and signs of danger, rather than an all-encompassing "DO NOT". Some day, you may have to do the "DO NOT", and how will you choose the less dangerous path if they're all dangerous and you don't know how to assess the risk?

Risk assessment sounds like an excellent idea - which should be taught to everyone at schools.

I'm sorry if I made assumptions about what I believed to be common knowledge - if anything, my family tended to the overprotective, combined with the attitude that anything bad that happened to me I had caused by not being careful enough. As I said, not very objective on this one!

Catherine

It's all good - by making those assumptions, you flicked one of my switches. I'm not objective on this subject either, but my family has a strange combination of overprotectiveness, blind spots, and self-interest. Assumptions about the degree of care received during childhood really flicks my switches, for reasons of... Well, example follows:

I play bridge, have since I was 11. It was generally assumed that my parents were tutoring me, up until the point where I laughed at the suggestion two years ago. They were working, tired, and too busy to do anything with each other, let alone me. It was also assumed that they were aware of the behaviour of some of my fellow under-25 bridge players (and, less visibly, some of the adults). Another assumption: That I would use the support network that was apparently there for young bridge players if I needed it. I needed it, didn't know about it, and assumed that the behaviour I was experiencing was condoned because there was no help to be found anywhere. Since visibly reaching adulthood, several persons have, in conversation, mentioned that they used to be really worried about me, but they thought my parents were handling it. People who didn't think I needed counselling enough to help me pay for it, even after my school counsellor spat the dummy at them? Fat chance.

Umm, yeah. Flicks my switch. Let me just turn that off, now...

where I grew up, it was also pounded into you to not park in shadowy carparks, lock your car doors at night when driving, etc. I think my mom was the first to suggest to lock car doors in broad daylight when driving through unsavory sections of the city.

HOWEVER, it wasn't until I was long since off in Chicago that I found those utterly useless in situations that no one had thought to suggest as dangerous. Hell, riding the El at rush-hour is dangerous as it is. Walking down the sidewalk in daylight (or night) and being UNAWARE of who is around you and who might be following you.

A good sense of what is a risk for you, at that moment is probably the best idea. Otherwise all you see, as you say, is encompassing NO! NO! signs which will prevent you from walking down the street, leaving your home, or opening the dishwasher. I wonder if lobbying for Risk Assesment classes for teenagers would actually help young women (and young men) become better judges of their environment.

The best rape avoidance technique would be to never socialise with men one knows. No contact with the male part of the family. No relationships with men. No contact with male co-workers or neighbours. It's just that some of us happen to think those are unacceptable suggestions.

The best rape avoidance technique would be to never socialise with men one knows.

Only in the same sense that cutting one's own head off is the best cure for a cold. It's certainly effective, but IMHO 'best' is determined by the costs as well as the benefits.

Yes, but all other techniques only focus on stranger rape, which is a very small share of total rapes.

all other techniques only focus on stranger rape

Physical self-defence techniques work just as well against acquaintances as strangers, and much of the "safe drinking" stuff is potentially helpful against date-rape. It's certainly *harder* to protect against acquaintance rape than the 15%-odd of rapes committed by strangers, but I don't think it's fair to say that rape-prevention techniques are completely useless there.

It should be noted that it is a lot harder to make yourself hit/hurt someone you know than it is to react against a stranger. Certainly, it's a lot harder to judge the point at which you are in sufficient danger to justify hitting/hurting.

Not an argument against self-defense, and goodness only knows how you train someone to figure that part out... perhaps

freyaw's comments about teaching risk assessment and response might be an answer.

*wince* Suggesting that whatever illness or pain I was complaining of could be solved by cutting the offending part off at the neck is a traditional family method to effect not hearing about whatever it is any more.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Not the rape meme

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Completely unrelated to the topic at hand...