I don’t have to tell you that Steubenville is all over the news.
I don’t have to tell you that it’s a fucking joke that Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond, the two teenagers convicted of raping a sixteen year old girl, were only sentenced to a combined three years in juvenile prison. Each will serve a year for the rape itself; Mays will serve an additional year for “illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material.”
I probably don’t even have to tell you that the media treatment of this trial has been a perfect, if utterly sickening, example of rape culture, with its focus on how difficult and painful this event has been for the rapists who raped a sixteen year old girl then bragged about it on social media.
And I almost certainly don’t have to tell you that the world is full of seemingly nice, normal people who want to go to bat for the convicted rapists. I’m quite sure that you already know about the victim-blaming that’s been happening since this case first came to light. You know about the fact that people have actually come out and said that the real lesson to be learned here is that we need to be more careful with social media (i.e. go ahead and rape but make sure you don’t get caught). You already know that people seem to think that being a sports star and having a good academic record should somehow make up for the fact that you are a rapist.
I don’t have to tell you any of that because it’s all par for the course.
What I do want to tell you is that you need to stop using the “wives, sisters, daughters” argument when you are talking to people defending the Steubenville rapists. Or any rapists. Or anyone who commits any kind of crime, violent or otherwise, against a woman.
In case you’re unfamiliar with this line of rhetoric, it’s the one that goes like this:
You should stop defending the rapists and start caring about the victim. Imagine if she was your sister, or your daughter, or your wife. Imagine how badly you would feel if this happened to a woman that you cared about.
Framing the issue this way for rape apologists can seem useful. I totally get that. It feels like you’re humanizing the victim and making the event more relatable, more sympathetic to the person you’re arguing with.
You know what, though? Saying these things is not helpful; in fact, it’s not even helping to humanize the victim. What you are actually doing is perpetuating rape culture by advancing the idea that a woman is only valuable in so much as she is loved or valued by a man.
The Steubenville rape victim was certainly someone’s daughter. She may have been someone’s sister. Someday she might even be someone’s wife. But these are not the reasons why raping her was wrong. This rape, and any rape, was wrong because women are people. Women are people, rape is wrong, and no one should ever be raped. End of story.
The “wives, sisters, daughters” line of argument comes up all the fucking time. President Obama even used it in his State of the Union address this year, saying,
“We know our economy is stronger when our wives, mothers, and daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace, and free from the fear of domestic violence.”
This device, which Obama has used on more than one occasion, is reductive as hell. It defines women by their relationships to other people, rather than as people themselves. It says that women are only important when they are married to, have given birth to, or have been fathered by other people. It says that women are only important because of who they belong to.
Women are not possessions.
Women are people.
I seriously cannot believe that I have to say this in 2013.
On top of all of this, I want you to think of a few other implications this rhetorical device has. For one thing, what does it say about the women who aren’t anyone’s wife, mother or daughter? What does it say about the kids who are stuck in the foster system, the kids who are shuffled from one set of foster parents to another or else living in a group home? What does it say about the little girls whose mothers surrender them, willingly or not, to the state? What does it say about the people who turn their back on their biological families for one reason or another?
That they deserve to be raped? That they are not worthy of protection? That they are not deserving of sympathy, empathy or love?
And when we frame all women as being someone’s wife, mother or daughter, what are we teaching young girls?
We are teaching them that in order to have the law on their side, they need to be loved by men. That they need to make themselves attractive and appealing to men in order to be worthy of protection. That their lives and their bodily integrity are valueless except for how they relate to the men they know.
The truth is that I am someone’s wife. I am also someone’s mother. I am someone’s daughter, and someone’s sister. But those are not the things that define me, or make me valuable in this world. Those are not the reasons that I should be able to live a life free from rape, sexual assault or any kind of violent crime.
I have value because I am a person. Full stop. End of argument. This isn’t even a discussion that we should be having.
So please, let’s start teaching that fact to the young women in our lives. Teach them that you love, honour and value them because of who they are. Teach them that they should expect to be treated with integrity because it’s a basic human right. Teach them that they do not deserve to be raped because no one ever, ever, ever deserves to be raped.
Above all, teach them that they are people, too.
The Belle Jar 
Utterly fantastic, and spot on. I very much enjoyed reading this.
Thank you so much!
just sent you a tweet about this but please don’t miss this opportunity. Two weeks left to get behind this project before it’s dead in the water. http://kck.st/15jl0o2
Well said.
Extremely well analyzed and written. I applaud you.
That is very kind of you, thank you!
Thank you!
So well written and accurate x
Absolutely great article! I just wanted to add that I think a lot of people use this argument thinking that if the issue of rape is made more personal, people will care about it more. It’s similar to the “I realized same-sex marriage is okay now that I know my son’s gay,” type of logic.
I was just talking to someone about how maybe we’re just hard wired to have a difficult time recognizing the personhood of someone outside our immediate circle of friends and family. Which is part of why it’s so frustrating trying to explain the problem of this sort of rhetorical device or logic…so often they can’t see the problems with it.
Yeah, that’s a good point! I do feel like outside of the “imagine if your son was gay,” there isn’t a whole lot of “but what if it was your husband, brother, son” – although I could be totally wrong.
There’s a lot of othering and alienation that happens when we someone we don’t know is the victim of a crime. It’s pretty awful.
You get it sometimes with discussions about addiction and mental illness, I suppose. But then it’s usually discussed in a more gender-neutral way.
I think a lot of people use these phrases without recognizing the inherent problem of referring to a woman via her relationships to men.
And I think we other and alienate and dehumanize people all over the place in our culture. It’s more tragic when we do it to victims of crime because, well, they’re victims of a crime! And you’d think that’d be the instance where all the othering would stop and we’d recognize another human being who has been harmed.
This is excellent. I hadn’t given that line much thought before, but you are absolutely right. Thank you!
Thank you! I feel like it’s something that’s said so often that we don’t think about the implications – I know I’ve used it before. It’s one of those casually misogynistic things that a lot of people say.
This article should be freshly pressed. Millions of people should read it. You should submit it to your local newspaper. This is superb.
Thank you so much! That is super flattering!
“Millions of people should read it. You should submit it to your local newspaper.”
Funny guy.
*applause* Fabulous post 🙂
Thanks so much!
I had never considered that framing in the light you present. Now that I have, I not only agree, but will stop using it. I don’t want to be thought of as someone’s detached appendage- I’m a person in my own right.
That is exactly right. Rape is wrong. End of argument. I am weary of the arguments that state otherwise. The big one that makes me sick right now is the idea that because a woman is dressed any
certain way she is “asking to be assaulted”. As crazy as that sounds some people truly believe it.
This makes me want to cry and yell and make everyone, everywhere read it.
Well said.
Excellent. I feel like you said exactly what I was thinking. I have a lot of things I’m thinking thanks to Steubenville & it doesn’t seem easy for me to articulate all of it. Thanks for voicing a part of it.
Wow, great point. Thank you.
Reblogged this on karen:meandering and commented:
Great read. So true.
Equally sexist: the underlying assumption that all rape victims are women.
Under where is that assumption? I don’t see that assumption here– the blog post addresses the way female rape victims are treated/viewed by others. It says nothing that assumes that rape is only something that can happen to women. Perhaps it is sexist, though, to attempt to derail a critique of the sexist way that female rape victims are treated, by making it into a conversation about male victims. Rape culture has a completely different relationship to rape of females than to rape of males. Is it common locker room practice to joke about raping other dudes? I mean, I guess it could be, but somehow I’ve never heard of such a thing.
of course.. how much time do we spend in guy’s locker rooms?
How about “human victims”? NOBODY deserves to be violated in this way.
This is about female rape victims specifically so I think what Anne has omitted about the males who are also victims is fair. But it’s absolutely unfair to say that rape affects one person more than another based solely on gender. An appalling argument. Rape is rape. Being scared and violated is being scared and violated. You can’t qualify someone’s experience when the experience is THIS horrific by looking solely at their gender. Anne however is not doing this. She’s merely talking about FEMALE rape victims. She’s not omitting males. There’s a difference.
As a couple of other people have pointed out, I’m not making that assumption at all. In this post, I am talking specifically about the way that we use language with regards to female rape victims.
I’ve actually written a post on rape culture and the way that it hurts men, especially male rape victims, if you’re interested in reading it: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/rape-culture-what-it-is-and-how-it-works/
While I want to say that I very much like your original post here, I would never, ever click on any “Good Men Project” link. That site is overrun by MRAs and patronizing “benevolent” sexists.
Hah, totally fair! It was my attempt to explain rape culture to their readers. It did not go over well.
What it makes me think of is the fact that someone being a man’s family member so often does not keep that man from sexual assaulting them.
***
I do see the argument for humanizing issues for people by making it personal, but when it is done in this catch-all list form it makes women be only real in relation to men. I do think it is different than asking one person “What if this was your daughter?” one-on-one. But Obama talking about “our women” meant he was talking to men. Not women. It found that so alienating.
I do think there are times it makes sense to say “what if this was you? or your life?”, but I also hate these lists of Things Women Are.
Very good point. Aren’t most sexual assaults committed by someone known to the victim? So saying “imagine if she was your daughter/son, niece/nephew, friend” hasn’t stopped people from assaulting those closest to them.
man’s family member? Don’t women also have daughters and sisters? How come you guys think that when someone says “She’s somebody’s daughter” they’re talking about somebody’s FATHER?
I think more to the point, it’s unnecessary. During an attack, it is very helpful to talk about personal things. “My name is Quinn. I love animals and have three cats and I like to quilt with my mom.” this evasive strategy is WONDERFUL in humanizing yourself WHEN AN AGGRESSOR IS IN THE ROOM WITH YOU.
After? Well it’s a little too late.. It doesn’t have the same effect and it shouldn’t be the focus.
@KKohne I appreciate the overall content of this post, but had shared your concern about failing to acknowledge male victims of rape.
Thank you saying this.
At the risk of being considered less than or a misogynist or chauvinist for replying to this post, given the cause and effect relationship that is presented here I still must reply.
I agree with the content. I agree with the purpose. I agree that the act of rape is a vile repugnant act that has not been given equal justice for the individuals who these acts have been done to or equal punishment to the perpetrators of the individuals who have done these acts in relationship to the act. I even agree that using the form of rhetorical device,”You should stop defending the rapists and start caring about the victim. Imagine if she was your sister, or your daughter, or your wife. Imagine how badly you would feel if this happened to a woman that you cared about…” does not humanize the individuals whom these acts were done to. I even agree that society’s priorities are out of whack.
But what I don’t agree is that this manner of expressing can presuppose for future girls, women, ladies that by referring to them in this manner say that “we are teaching them that in order to have the law on their side, they need to be loved by men.”
Our legal system is not making the penalty for such acts so reprehensible to the perpetrators that they feel that what they get from perpetrating these acts on another in such a way doesn’t outweigh the consequences of the act.
The legal system, it’s pandering to perpetrators and status as well as inaction to meet the needs of protecting its citizens and minimizing the consequences of these acts against its citizens is more at fault than expressing a descriptive relationship.
What I don’t agree with in this article is what is presupposed by this article, defining a woman by her relationship is a demeaning manner of expressing worth or value. It is not.
Unless the author finds the act of being a mother or a daughter, a sister, or a wife a vile or repugnant and worthless way of being or experiencing life or of no value, defining the relationship as valueless only if a woman is given the definition as “person” does not hold true.
We as humans make sense of experience by putting it in a contextual relationship. By demeaning the value of the definition of the relationships of wife, mother, sister and/or daughter, demeans the woman and minimizes what incredible value those relationships have in the world and the value that it brings to the individual and to society.
You said that “what does it say about the women who aren’t anyone’s wife, mother or daughter?” Can you give me one instance in all of history where a woman cannot be at least one of these? No more than you can describe a man and say they are not a father, a brother, a husband, or a son.
I have heard women say they want equal rights. Women are not asking to be exactly like men. They are asking that what they are, what roles theuy have, what relationships they present themselves as to be recognized on the same playing field as worth equal value.
I heard it said by some of those in NOW and other feminist organizations that a woman is not equal and free unless you are independant woman and/or a lesbian.
You don’t get equality by diminishing the value of the definition of the relationships that women are. These are relationships that only a woman can be. They are not the limitation to them; they are the framework upon which there value can be recognized in a manner that no man ever can.
You get equal rights by magnifying the value these relationship have and make them as precedence for justifying how and why women are able to surpass expectations with increasing value in the other roles that are thought of to be valuable to and for them.
When you say “I am a person”, so is a man, so what value does that have. Women are not men. Women are equal in value. Now how to recognize the value from that which is different calls for distinctions to be expressed and recognized.
A man is defined in relationship as well, a son, a husband, a brother, a father. It is a illusion to think that a man has more value because he holds this relationship or a woman has less value because she holds the relationship that she has. Value is never a constant it is a subjective ever changing experience that is either expressed, received or withheld, recognized, established and /or experienced,..
OR IT IS NOT. When it is not then the individual has to be expressing it until it is.
I appreciate and agree with much Camile Paglia’s writings on feminism and its impacts on todays culture and society.
“Every man must define his identity against his mother. If he does not, he just falls back into her and is swallowed up.”
“A woman simply is, but a man must become. masculinity is risky and elusive. It is achieved by a revolt from woman, and it is confirmed only by other men. Manhood coerced into sensitivity is no manhood at all.”
“Young feminists have been sold a bill of goods about American feminism. The enormous changes in women over the past 40 years are constantly and falsely attributed to the organized women’s movement of the late 1960s and ’70s.”
“We cannot have a world where everyone is a victim. “I’m this way because my father made me this way. I’m this way because my husband made me this way.” Yes, we are indeed formed by traumas that happen to us. But you must take charge, you must take over, you are responsible.”
A woman has value and worth in any role she finds herself in or determines that she desires to be in.
And society relates to each other based on the roles that they are able to define, for themselves, in order to recognize how to ascribe value to it. You can not define what another finds as valuable you can only express what you recognize is valuable from and for you.
No one can define your value for you nor take your value away. You must be the one who presents your value and you are the one who gives it away… NOT even a scumbag rapist in their sick twisted mind that thinks they have the power to remove your value with a vile act of control, self hatred, and thievery can take your value.
You are not a victim unless you decide that is the relationship that you want to experience your value from.
The premises you put forth are merely rhetoric and not backed by any proof of logic – I see only your opinion back by feeble quotes. A response such as this is an attempt to hijack a blog, not respond to the author’s content. Your opinion belongs on your blog.
I support “The Belle Jar” in removing your post.
annesquared are you not also sharing your opinon. You say my post should be removed because “it is not backed by any proof of logic response such as this is an attempt to hijack a blog, not respond to the author’s content. Your opinion belongs on your blog. “.
I was not aware that I was supposed to debate with proofs here. Sorry. I wasnt even trying to debate. I was saying what I agreed with and what I disagreed with. I was laquatious with my response. I apologize if that offended. I was unaware of the blogging etiquette.
As a matter of fact this is the first blog I have ever responded to or commented on a blog. I followed this link from what a friend had posted on Facebook. I have never written a blog, I dont have my own blog.
And actually there is scientific evidence for what I shared. Are you aware of any cognitive studies or behavioral science studies, or perhaps you have read any ALfred Korsybskis work from the 1930’s or gregory Bateson’s work.. Perhaps you are aware of cartesian logic, or non aristoleon logic. The logic that I presented actually follows that form of logic.
That we are not victims unless ascribe ourselves with such a label and the only thing that I disagreed about this article was what was presupposed by saying that a woman has value as a person alone and not in the definiton of the relationships.
What is value at that point? It is nothing more than a subjective experience that makes everything a comodity and removes value from the equation. Perhaps you are aware of the different mathematical models that express logic in a manner that doesnt express this. but
But if X = X then X can not simultaneusly equal Y unless Y is a sum of parts that equal X.
IF this is true
Then the logic of the equation I am presenting.
X = a value
Y = a value
and X cant know the value of y and y can not know the value of x without a recognized accepted value differential and that is subjective to the observer and the ability to create a greater level of stimulus recognition to that which is being presented for the other of X or Y to recognize a accepted level of value.
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_of_a_function
In other words If A woman has to recognized as valuable at the chunked of logical level of data i.e. a person, and every other individual has to be recognized at that level then you are not celebrating the wonderousness of the difference you are making everyone conform to a comodity before they are accepted as valuable.
In other words . A woman has value as a woman, she has value as a wife, she has value as a mother, a daughter, as a sister, a worker, a teacher, a boss, an author, a world leader, and all the other various roles and relationships that she would be in.
And so does a man.
And though I do not think it was the intention of the author to presuppose that they did not, I dont think that the author was aware it was presented in a manner that presupposed that relationship.
But thank you for pointing out blog etiquette to me. I hope this reply wasnt to lengthy.
wait now. You may not agree… but I think that Raygn has presented a very cogent and supported argument. At least return the favour and support your rebuttal with more than just petty insults.
I think what the author is saying, and what I agree with, is the fact that you should not have to be defined by others to be worthy of respect.
I am my own person, not just my husband’s wife, my children’s mother, my parent’s child.
Rape, and everything that comes with it – the emotional trauma, the chance of pregnancy, the threat of disease, the physical pain, and the ridicule that this girl had to endure, since not only the boys but the news agencies decided to broadcast her name – is an attack on another human being, period. That should be enough to condemn rape without having to imagine it being done to one of our own “tribe”.
@Raygn Leisure: frankly, I think you’re missing the point, and you’re still being something of an apologist for the power/rape culture in which we live (not to mention, attempting to hijack the hell out of an incredibly eloquent post).
It’s not that being someone’s mother/wife/sister/daughter is so repugnant; it’s the implied ownership that comes with such a statement. A more appropriate approach to such an argument might be, instead of “what if she was your wife/sister/etc..”?”, asking “What if she was someone you knew, a member of your family…” etc. to put it into the context of the person to whom you would make that argument.
Yes, I am a daughter. Yes, I am a sister. I’m not a mother, I’m not a wife. Somehow this society values me less because of the perceived lack, and because I’m not “under someone’s protection”, I don’t dare go into a bar by myself. And in the context of the rape discussion, it implies that I have nobody to leap to my defense. Well, shit. If I were being attacked, I would hope that SOMEONE would leap to my defense, but I’d certainly bloody well try to defend myself.
My point (and the author’s, I think): Saying “your *” anything is, by definition, POSSESSIVE, and dehumanizes the subject of the “your” statement.
That’s part of the problem.
Society is a nominalized construct that is incapable of taking away any value that you do not give it. You are a woman,.. you were born a woman,.. you are not a victim,.. a victim is a self positioned identity that has to be accepted in order for it to be realized…
I am not missing the point. I recognize what is being offered. What I am also saying is that there is a presupposition presented here has an impact on the ecology of the relationship that, though I do not think was purposeful, does not fit the cause and effect relationship that has been presented.
This kind of argument is on par with a preacher that says something that is not intended in the midst of an eloquent sermon because it adds to the point and then the congregation leaves the sermon believing that they are limited by a secific dogma that they adhere to.
Thank you, Raygn Leisure. This is an excellent comment and continuation of the discussion. Blog comments are NOT solely for cheering agreement, and you respectfully and eloquently voiced many of my own relevant concerns and perspectives. (Thus alleviating me of the compulsion to do it myself!)
Thank you. I agree with this comment, and was hoping someone else disagreed with the original post’s premise (but not the sentiment) as I did. You stated it much more eloquently than I could, though.
Raygn,
Thank you for your post. Though I did like the general idea of what bellejar presented in her blog, it fails to recognize the fact that for many humans to experience empathy requires a means to personalize the experience. Providing the context of a person’s own loved ones is an excellent means to facilitate this understanding.
The other flaw was the assumption that “wife, sister, daughter” describes a woman in relation to a man. ‘Wife’ describes a relationship to a man, however sister is just as likely to be a relationship to a woman, and daughter is equally likely to be a relationship to a mother or a father. In fact, with current paternity stats being what they are, a person described as a ‘daughter’ is significantly more likely to conceive that term as a relationship to a mother.
So, if one wants to argue that relationship does not define a person, fine. For some people, relationships do not define them, for others they do. I for one am a wife, mother, sister, daughter, and those relationships do have a great deal of weight as I consider my identity as a person. I also have many other relationships: friend, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, cousin, mentor, manager, etc. which also have a role in my identity. With the exception of wife, each of these other roles have equivalent probability of being with women as with men.
To say that acceptance of these roles also necessitates acquiescence to a misogynist societal construct is frankly ridiculous.
Kia
I think you’re ignoring the heart of what Anne said here. She isn’t saying that being a wife, mother, sister, daughter, etc. isn’t valuable. She pointed out that men are not generally framed in such a way; in other words, we don’t have to describe men in terms of their value to us (as our fathers, sons, etc.) in order to value them.
It’s a fair inference to adduce that women considered simply as women, as people, without any particular personal relationship to the speaker, are less valued, if we have to define them as “our mothers, our sisters, etc.” in order to make a point. Obama’s usage of this phrase which she quotes is a perfect example. No where does he say that we need to be sure that, say, economic opportunities improve for men, because they’re our fathers, our sons…(I’m getting tired of typing all these relationships!) and in fact you very rarely hear anyone frame an issue in those terms around men.
Up thread, someone pointed out that one place one DOES occasionally hear it is in discussions of mental illness, where there is often an ungendered attempt to personalize the devastation that mental illness can wreak on families by saying “these are our children, our parents, etc.” But it’s hard to think of any other context in which men are discussed in these terms.
And THAT’S the point. Not that we don’t value female roles, but that the very fact that we have to mention them in contexts like this is indicative that women are inherently less valued than men.
All good points, but I do want to say – some of that “what if she was your sister” does sink in. There’s an appalling video on YouTube filmed about this attack, with a drunk, giggly boy in a blue jersey going on and on about how funny the rape was, making jokes about her being dead, etc. Nauseating. BUT, listening in the background, there are a couple OTHER young men talking about this rape (which apparently they didn’t personally witness), that it is/was disgusting, that one of them has a little sister and that ain’t right, etc.
When writing fiction, you have to give the most horrific character a “Save the Cat” or “pet the dog” moment, something that helps the reader “connect” with that character.
I could WISH that people simply saw me as worthwhile because I am a human being, rather than because they love their mother or sister or daughter. Current reality is that men have the power, and we’ve got to win them to our side. If them imagining their daughter being raped does the trick, so be it. Civil Rights movement succeeded in part because people SAW peaceable human beings being knocked down by fire hoses and menaced by dogs.
wow….never thought of it that way but man, do I agree. A act of injustice against a woman is not wrong because she is someone wife, mother, sister, daughter…it is wrong cause we are all humans.
Powerful.
Wonderful post. I couldn’t wait to show it to my daughter. Especially after a weekend when Ann Coulter talked about “forcible rape,” as if rape needs a modifier.
Forcible rape? So.. what..? There are other kinds?
It’s like describing this banana as a “banana banana”- you know.. as opposed to all those other kinds of non banana bananas out there..
Beautifully written post — and such a relief to read. As the mother of a child with disabilities, there was much that resonated with me — particularly how our culture, however well-intended, uses language and paradigms that inadvertently keep those with disabilities in an inferior place, defined only by their being somehow “lesser.”
I hope this gets a wide audience, and I look forward to exploring more of your blog and writing.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
great read
Whoaaaa sorry I didnt realize that blogs just add to the original reply and make them longer…. I just saw this.. Sorry all
I have, in so many instances, used the “wives. sisters, daughters” argument when talking or writing about violence against women and the pervasive rape culture in society. After reading this, I can tell you that, going forward, I won’t. Thank you, Belle Jar, for educating me and for opening my mind that much more.
The wife, sister, daughter devise never angered me because it is EFFECTIVE! Of course no one should be raped regardless of what their status is or isn’t to other humans, the reason it’s used is because it helps morons put things in PERSPECTIVE! The reason we have disclaimers on shows like “Jackass” and “Beevis and Butthead” telling viewers that sticking a fork in your head is dangerous and should not be attempted” is because people are IDIOTS! YOU may scoff at those warnings and say “I’d never jump off of the roof of my house! Do they think I’m stupid??”, and their answer would be a resounding YES, because many HAVE attempted such buffoonery. The wife/sister/daughter device compels morons to stop and put a face and heart and soul on to the victim/potential victim that they otherwise might see as just a nameless human. Yes, some people NEED these aids. To make it a gender/sexist thing and say it’s another example of how a woman only has worth if she is the wife/sister/daughter of a man is just whacky. If there’s morons that need cartoon visual aids to help them understand the impact of rape–so be it!
Probably one of the most intelligent blogs I’ve ever read. I never really could articulate why the ‘wife, sister, daughter’ argument seemed to contrived, patronizing and insincere. We criticize the rape culture in countries like India, but, here in North America, we’re not as removed from that horrible misogynist mindset as we’d like to think we are. The fact that a woman is a human being should be reason enough that society should value them. How awful that in 2013, this point just doesn’t register with so many people. If a woman is no one’s wife, sister or daughter, is she not entitled to the same level of compassion and decency, as a woman with family connections? Now I see how grotesque that argument really is.
Excellent article. You’re a very good writer. However, I would like to point out an aspect of your argument that I find problematic. If you or anyone else has a counterpoint or any insights to add, I should very much like to hear them.
If there is one offence to morality and law that is perhaps comparable to rape in how it shocks the conscience and affects the life of both victim and those in the victim’s life, it would be murder. (This is not some macabre understatement: some survivors of particularly brutal rapes do say they would rather have been murdered, and the tragic conviction in their eyes leads my heart to believe them. However, I venture that most people would– if pressed to rank any act above rape in some vague and flexible hierarchy of egregiousness– pick murder.)
With that in mind, I wonder whether you would have as much of a problem with the “what if that person was your sibling/child/parent” rhetorical trope, if the context were murder? If murder is generally about as egregious as rape (if not worse), then shouldn’t your humanism-over-kinship logic serve as no less persuasive an appeal to would-be murderers? If it does, then the reasoning– consistent with your logic above– would be:
“Don’t tell a person not to murder another person by asking ‘what if that other person were your sibling, child or parent’; doing that just perpetuates the idea that we gain value and respect only by kinship, whereas in fact all humans have value regardless of their degree of DNA proximity. People are not possessions. People are people. The reason you should not murder another person is not because: “that other person may be someone’s family member, and so ask yourself ‘how would you feel if someone murdered *your* family member’ “? That is not a good reason for choosing not to murder someone. Instead, you should do not murder that person because that person is a person, and no person should be murdered. That person has value because they are a person. Full stop. End of argument.”
I do not mean for my tone (nor my deliberately gender-neutral if cumbersome use of “person”) to sound facetious. I am actually supporting your logic vis-a-vis rape as intellectually valid reasoning. An appeal to humanistic solidarity ought to be an intellectually *and* emotionally sufficient argument against murdering another person. As the philosopher John Dunne put it, “Any man’s death diminishes me, for I am a member of mankind.” Substitute “man’s death” for “human’s rape” in Dunne’s maxim and the logic ought to apply just as forcefully: Any human’s rape diminishes me, for I am a member of humankind. (Or if you prefer to keep things gendered: Any woman’s rape diminishes me, for I am a member of womankind. I, for one, prefer the former, less sexist form, because (a) it also captures rape against males (whether by other males or by females), and (b) the inclusion of men within the word “humankind” retains the onus on men not to rape a woman, on the basis of their intrinsic shared humanity and the respect and dignity owed equally by each human to another irrespective of gender.)
I yearn sincerely for such a humanistic world, a world peopled by those with a humanistic worldview.
And yet this logic is disingenuous and the aspiration a little too futuristically utopian, because it underestimates the reality that humans are biologically hardwired to feel and act more protectively toward kin than to strangers. (Yes, some individuals are certainly capable of overriding this instinct, but the general trend for kinship favoritism is significant). Asking someone how it would feel if a moral offence that they are about to commit were to be visited upon a sibling, child or parent, is an effective rhetorical trope precisely because it serves as an instantly, viscerally powerful mental trigger for putting in perspective the moral gravity of an act.
This is as true for a woman about to do something to another woman or to a man, as it is true of a man about to do something to another man or to a woman. It just so happens that in this context– male-against-female rape– the victim one seeks to protect is female, and so the rhetorical appeal is framed in gender terms of sisters/mothers/daughters. Because our culture runs on a narrative in which women are typically “victims” and men either villainous aggressors or noble protectors, it is understandable that one is wary of seeing yet another instance of men cast in the patriarchal protector role opposite women’s typecast victimhood (“Fathers, think of your daughters! Brothers, save your sisters!”).
But I think that the reasonableness of this device– or at least, its obvious rhetorical effectiveness– might be better illuminated by analogy to some instance of an historical or contemporary appeal to women to fight against some issue of male victimhood (“Mothers, think of your sons! Sisters, save your brothers!”).
The fact that my imagination struggles to conjure a single example or precedent of such a phenomenon points to something else problematic about our culture– for both men and women.
I would think that in order for any appeal like the “wife, mother, daughter” (or its generally non-existent counterpart) argument to be effective, the person being argued to must have empathy…and if they had empathy in the first place, they wouldn’t be raping other people.
Paul, the point that I think the author is trying to make is that the gender-politics aspect of the sister/mother/wife/daughter appeal in the case of rape is all that is necessary to distinguish it from your murder example. In other words, the device WOULD be perfectly reasonable if not for our history of defining women by their relationships with others instead of by their accomplishments and intrinsic worth. Historical and political context carry a lot of weight here. The comparison also falls short in that no one really believes that murder (distinguished from self-defense) is excusable or deserved, whereas some people do think that rape is justifiable in some situations (e.g., if the victim was drunk, wearing “overly” provocative clothing, etc.). The author is pointing out a very specific nuance of gender politics that often goes unnoticed specifically for the reason you presented– that on the surface, it seems exactly the same as asking a murderer to imagine that the victim was someone they cared about. Unfortunately, in the case of (female) rape, it carries ugly connotations /because of history and politics./
Do you remember Michael Dukakis? I do, as I’m from Massachusetts. He ran for POTUS in 1988. And he had a particularly memorable moment in a debate which apparently really turned people off to him because he valued his principles over his over his emotional reactions. Here’s the relevant incident as written up in Wikipedia:
“The issue of capital punishment came up in the October 13, 1988, debate between the two presidential nominees. Because she knew the Willie Horton issue would be brought up, Dukakis’s campaign manager, Susan Estrich, had prepared with Michael Dukakis an answer highlighting the candidate’s empathy for victims of crime, noting the beating of his father in a robbery and the death of his brother in a hit-and-run car accident. However, when Bernard Shaw, the moderator of the debate, asked Dukakis, “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?” Dukakis replied, “No, I don’t, and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life”, and explained his stance. After the debate,[13] many observers felt Dukakis’s answer lacked the passion one would expect of a person discussing a loved one’s rape and death. Many– including Dukakis himself– believe this in part, cost him the election, as his poll numbers dropped from 49% to 42% nationally that night. Other commentators thought the question itself was unfair, in that it injected an irrelevant emotional element into the discussion of a policy issue and forced the candidate to make a difficult choice, while others believed that Dukakis dwelled too much on post-mortem reflections about this incident while the election was still in play in a way that was too self-effacing to the point of appearing self-pitying and defeatist, which only served to demoralize his campaign and reinforce the image of him as a weak leader.”
I was never a huge Dukakis supporter, but I loved his answer and I still do. I don’t think that my emotional response should enter into my logical analysis of the role of the state, its right to take life, etc.
I bring this up because I think it’s relevant to your argument here. In neither of these situations, rape nor murder, should we have to have an emotional reaction in order to see them as wrong. I don’t need to be reminded that the murder of a man is wrong because he might be my son any more than I need to be reminded that it might have been my sister who was raped.
As to your final point, your “Mothers, save your sons!” rhetorical example immediately made me think of one issue that was absolutely framed in those terms”: temperance. Carrie Nation and her ilk were all about women saving their male relatives from the ravages of alcohol. Don’t know that that has any relevance here, just wanted to mention it.
Thanks for enlightening me with the Dukakis example, illustrating how effective the familial analogy is at provoking preemptive and (in Dukakis’ case) vindictive urges against rape– and how oddly alienating it is when someone tries to rise above this and instead preach from an abstract aloof realm of liberalism and intellectualism (as Dukakis did). I *agree* with Dukakis and with you– I WISH we lived in a world of more sensible, reflective, less stupidly impulsive people. But the fact is that the vast majority of people respond best to emotionally visceral rhetorical devices, so if you want to get as many people as you can on board a vast societal campaign to reduce the incidence of rape, you’ve got to use the rhetorical weapons that actually work.
Are those tropes problematic? Sure. There is perhaps something of the “female possession/victim” vs “male aggressor/protector” narrative encoded in the whole thing (as bellejar suggests). But if the alternative is to galvanize people through appeals to “treat women well, not because she might be your sister but because she’s a person”, that just doesn’t really hit as hard. I know, I know, it *should*, but it just doesn’t. The necessary humanistic revolution in consciousness required for bellejar’s idealism to work at a societal level simply isn’t going to happen anytime soon. Humans are hardwired to protect their relations and their “tribe” (in-group/out-group identification and kinship solidarity is deeply rooted in evolutionary advantages), so intensely personal and clannish protectiveness and vengeance is literally in the blood.
So in the here and now, what’s it going to be: an anti-rape trope that actually works pretty darn powerfully for most people (but contains semantics that some armchair intellectuals find “problematic”), or a more intellectually palatable humanistic trope but one that is far less emotionally (and thus practically) effective as an anti-rape slogan for most people. Well, I suppose that depends on what your priorities are: do you want to actually stop rape, or just deconstruct it?
Interesting point about temperance as an example of gender-flipping the kinship frame as an appeal to women on behalf of men (“mothers, think of your sons!”). The closest I could come up with in my head was activists against circumcision (“intactivists”) who– among their rhetorical tactics– present evidence for the harm it does to male infants and thereby implore mothers specifically and women generally to “think of your sons!” and what’s best for them. I discounted this example, however, because in that particular context, I’m led to conclude that it’s really not all that effective in practice: a disturbingly large number of women seem to relish the thought of amputating 30% of perfectly healthy nerve-rich skin from their one-week-old baby boy’s penis, for no medically necessary reason whatsoever– no amount of appeals to “think of your sons!” seems to work on actual mothers themselves in this regard, let alone as a prompt for women in general to reflect more critically on our culture’s weird normalization of male genital mutilation aka cosmetic genital surgery for babies aka circumcision. But that is a whole other topic for a whole other day!
Just adding to that, re: “f the alternative is to galvanize people through appeals to “treat women well, not because she might be your sister but because she’s a person”, that just doesn’t really hit as hard. I know, I know, it *should*, but it just doesn’t.”
I re-read this and can hear how terrible it sounds, but I still stand by it. YES, it SHOULD be sufficiently persuasive to say “stop rape because women are people and people shouldn’t be raped”. But personalizing things down to the family level really does give a sharpness and intimate resonance that the broader scope of humanistic concern lacks. This is the point I was trying to make in my long-winded first post above by way of analogy to murder: yes, you should NOT murder that person you’re about to, because they possess just as much unique dignity, beauty, wonder and potential for greatness as you and every other human does. But the humanistic level is too broad a scope– too divorced from self-interest– to connect viscerally for most people. To the extent it does, an appeal against murder is still far stronger when it’s framed at the more intimate level of “how can I murder that man when he looks and sounds just like my kid brother? how would I feel if someone murdered my brother?”. That was the point I was originally trying to make, but it’s a delicate and one and highly susceptible to emotional misinterpretation, hence my awkwardly roundabout attempt to over-explain every little point.
Reblogged this on Big Blue Dot Y'all and commented:
Please read.
Reblogged this on pen, paper, and my thoughts and commented:
Powerful and true!
I agree that this device can be used in a manner which reinforces a lack of gender neutrality. However I’d like to point something out, in addition to the above stated reality that there are times when this device is supremely effective for people who might otherwise be difficult to reach.
MUCH is taken for granted in this argument. Not the least of which, the truth of feminine roles in any society. Women ARE mothers, daughters, sisters and wives, and NOT just in relationship to men, BUT IN RELATIONSHIP TO ONE ANOTHER! There are so many women (the most obvious in the last days being Candy Crowley and Poppy Harlow) who are missing the point when it comes to these cases, as well, sometimes more than their male counterparts. These rhetorical arguments are for their benefit as much as for any man’s. These roles do not only apply when a man is on the other end of them (including the wife role!) – they are universal. Until these roles are respected just as highly as father, son, brother and husband, there is a good and valid reason to reiterate their value in the public consciousness.
I’m just saying, I think there is a time and place for almost everything, and to remove this (or any) device from its context is to strip it of any meaning whatsoever. Nothing is ALWAYS wrong except the crimes themselves.
Thank you ,.. and well said
Agree. I read this and I wondered where the last 40 years of womens’ upward progress went in the author’s eyes. Last time I checked, nobody I know is living the life of a woman in the 1960’s or 1970’s. Or for that matter, a person who is LGBT living the way he/she used to in the 60’s / 70’s. We haven’t reached parity of course, but there are many other reasons for that besides male domination – one is just plain ignorance on the part of people, man or woman.
Sure, it’s ok to remind people when they fall into old patterns, but going on the war path against male-centrism over some small town rape trial causes a huge dissonance in my mind that tells me there’s more to it than resentment of male-centrism – almost like the author is picking a fight just for the sake of the fight – of course rape is wrong for any reason. Duh. Who is this straw man walking around Ohio preaching the benefits of rape? I know some full-on card carrying rednecks, who in all likelihood beat their wives, yet if they saw someone raping another person, they would just shoot the rapist on the spot. Remember that pedophile priest in Boston (I know there have been a lot) who was sent to prison? The guards “accidentally” left him alone with the general population and the inmates stabbed him in the back. The lowest of society’s low knows that rape is wrong.
But the blog above also doesn’t change the fact that if the girl had any brains she wouldn’t have consumed that much alcohol at a high school party in the first place. What the boys did was a felony – but no matter how big the felony, it doesn’t make her actions on their own any smarter. And if you excuse her stupidity based on the outcome of her stupidity mixed with other actors’ felonious conduct, you yourself are your own worst enemy – nobody asks to be raped, and nobody deserves to be raped, but there are plenty of occasions – this case in point – where had she shown some discretion prior to consuming copious amounts of alcohol, she could have avoided that fate regardless of who was going to rape someone that night. I was swimming at night in Tel Aviv, and some scumbag stole my camera. I should not have left it there for someone to steal. I’m not going to go on the war path and try to find someone who thinks its ok to steal and then tear him down.
When you excuse her lack of judgement by saying the victimization excuses her from responsibility for her own safety, you are the Movement’s own worst enemy. You yourself propagate the image of the little girl who didn’t know better being hurt by this horrible male-centric society. And after 40 years, this attitude is just a caricature. There are women at the top of every echelon of society who have succeeded dramatically over the last 40 years, some in spite of this injustice, they did not let it define their lives. Yet some people never seem to be able to climb out of victimhood – and I’m not speaking of the rape victims themselves, but of those who would use her victimhood to drag out the same old tired rhetoric about this all happening because of a male dominated society – I’m a man who does understand what its like to be discriminated against, but the thrust of this article is not “scumbag/rapist” mentality, but “male” mentality, and I take exception to that – the only thing worse than men discriminating against women is women thinking that an eye for an eye will make everything better.
Last point – the very thing the author rails against is what she herself exhibits earlier in the blog. “Someone’s mother? Someone’s daughter? Someone’s sister?” But several paragraphs above, she herself refers to her as a “16 year old girl”, not a “young woman”, or whatever the empowering nom du jour is. Should we care more about her rape because of her age but not let anyone “apologize” for rapists because she has a sibling or parents?
I agree with the main thrust of the author’s argument, however, she loses support in her rhetoric, which strikes me as quite misguided – the spirit is good, the implementation lands flat on its face because the world view is dated by about 40 years. And if you don’t believe me, why not go talk to the women on top of the world in finance and business and see what they think of the blog and its overall tone?
The value of a woman should not be dependent on them being a wife, mother, sister, daughter, etc. Those should be additions to the inherent human value they posses as humans. I feel that without starting from the understanding that they posses that basic value before any other role comes into play is to devalue their humanity. If we don’t value their humanity it makes the leap to rape easier. It is when we don’t think of them as equals, humans, people then we are causing their objectification. Objectification is the route to rape being acceptable. If they are objects then they have no humanity to be violating their human right to sexual self determination. There can be no exception or arguing against their basic value if we wish to prevent their objectification and rape as a result. This statement is how I feel, not based on any value system other than my own.
The crime these young men perpetrated against this young woman is absolutely without any exceptions/qualifications/clauses wrong. I wish there were a way to get them to understand the value of the humans around them, but I don’t have much faith of them learning it anytime soon.
If we could all value the people around us we would have a lot less crime and violence including rape. The has centuries of tradition in devaluing others culturally to allow for war, genocide, rape and other atrocities. It is time to value human rights over culture, tradition, and religion. This is the path to peace. One of the quickest ways to achieve the desired result is to educate women in third world countries or who are in poverty in the first world countries. This has been shown to impact the whole society rapidly.
We need to expect others to value other human’s equally. Never let race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, etc. divide us, value the individuality and diversity thus valuing each as a unique human. Only our actions towards others should we be judged on.
Amen. Thank you for pointing out the flaw in the “mothers, sisters, daughters” thing. It has always bothered me but I never knew why, and now I understand why it has always struck me as an odd thing to say.
The temptation to use this kind of qualifier is strong. Last night, as I was telling my husband about this story, I used it myself. Then I stopped and said, “…hold up. Why should anyone *have* to personalize rape that way?”
Didn’t you just refer to the significant other in your life as a possession?
If you wanted to use the proper language in the context as it is described you would have said “the male person whom I am married to” or some other non-possessive abstract definition,not “your husband” as they are not a possession and should not be treated as such.
Or are we already at the point when someone brings up yet another complicated way to frame simplistic issues and basically being unrealistic?
If you want to fight something, you need to get as many people as possible on your side. This isn’t the way.
I didn’t think the Internet had anything new to say to me on this subject. I was wrong. I’d never thought of that perspective. Thank you.
I agree mostly with this post, but at the same time, this argument is basically asking the world to care about and respect each other equally, and to love one another no matter kinship or race or culture, etc. That’s a war that’s been fought for many, many years and is, obviously, still ongoing. I understand the point of the article, but the sad truth is that the majority of the world, America especially, is going to care less about a nameless face on TV or in the newspaper than if this were their own mother or daughter or whomever. To say you would care just as much if someone you didn’t know was raped/murdered/whatever else is a straight lie. I’m “human” enough to admit it. Yes, it makes me sad if I read about a stranger being raped or murdered, but I didn’t know them; if I were to find out that someone close to me was raped, I would care an indefinite amount more. It’s an unfortunate truth. The argument about wives and daughters is an appeal to emotions and again while I can understand from a general point of view, taking this argument and the current state of the world into perspective just sort of…diminishes its effect. In my opinion, there are greater battles to be fought in the world of feminism and equality and rape culture than a small rhetorical device that was created to benefit the victim.
I’m so sorry to be the word Nazi but I think you meant “infinite amount more”, not “indefinite amount more” – it was probably autocorrect :-). In my opinion, though, Hailey, you are spot on, particularly your last sentence.
As a man as well as a professional, I was never taken very seriously – until I myself learned how to project power rather than weakness. People took advantage of me left and right. Why? Because I let them. This applies equally to this blog. I’ll admit that projecting power when you don’t feel particularly powerful (and I rarely do) is really hard, but the outcome of projecting power (or weakness for that matter) is that 99% of the person you’re taken for is the person you project.
I learned this after my company took off and was acquired by NewsCorp. Playing in that cesspool of nasty politics, one needs every edge he or she can get – I was fortunate to have a mentor who taught me to project power. I ended up working with Wendi Murdoch, one of the most powerful women in the world – and she deserves to be – she didn’t just marry some rich dude as people accuse her, but she’s also amazing in her own right – one of those people who is super nice, but if you cross her, the following day there will be a big hole in the ground where your house used to be.
She sent me on a business trip to China on two days notice. When I brought my Visa application to the Chinese Consulate, they took one look at who signed the visa application (Wendi), then I was whisked to the front of the line, and I had my passport back with a Chinese Visa the following morning. When I went to pick up my passport the next morning, I think it was the same people waiting in line from the day before. Her name opens many many doors. Unless I’m horribly mistaken, she’d read this and think the same thing – you’re as powerful as you show people you are.
This is something we need to teach girls and boys when they are very young – that all PEOPLE regardless of sex, race, age, or anything else, deserve respect and kindness.
I would like to add this response. Here’s a little quote from the article. The (…) are mine.
“The rhetoric goes like this:
‘You should stop defending the rapists and start caring about the victim. Imagine if she was your sister, or your daughter, or your wife. Imagine how badly you would feel if this happened to a woman that you cared about.’
(….)
Saying these things is not helpful;(…)What you are actually doing is perpetuating rape culture by advancing the idea that a woman is only valuable in so much as she is loved or valued by a man.
(…)
She may be a sister(etc…) But these are not the reasons why raping her was wrong.
”
I disagree with the analysis here. The instruction of the rehtoric is to ask a rape appologist to articulate the difference between a woman whos rape they would not appolgize for, and the woman whos rape they are defending. The hope is that they will be unable to articulate a destinction which justifies the descrpancy in their behavior and stop appologizing for any rape regardless of their love or lack of love for the victim.
The article says that rape of all people should be argued against regardless of their loved or unloved relation to men. And this is precisely what the above argument is also shooting at by highlighting for a rape-appologist that they are making this distinction and forcing them to justify it. So while it is true that the rhetoric highlights an undesired destinction, it is different to say that it is in support of maintaining that destinction.
Let me know what you think, or if I missed something. Love and solidarity!
Ben
Who would be apologetic regarding a rapist? Does apologetic mean that someone else doesn’t demonize a person to the degree you yourself would like to see that person demonized? Someone who waits for the legal system to run its course until the accused is convicted? Let’s talk specifics. How exactly does one apologize for rape?
Sorry I have to call shenanigans on that one. Who are these rape apologists out there selling up rape as the next wave in pop culture? Does anyone out there think that football trumps rape? Look at what happened at Penn State. Joe Paterno went from legend to douche bag in about 30 seconds flat as soon as his involvement in the scandal was revealed. There’s people who used to worship him who are now making the pilgrimage to urinate on his headstone.
I started college in ’93 – and date rape was going on back then too, despite all the safety lectures to the women, the lectures to men on-campus about how to correctly treat a woman in the modern world, and a strict definition of date rape. Then everyone would head from the dorms to the fraternity house and inevitably someone would get raped. Ending rape is kind of like ending poverty or fighting the drug war. Particularly while alcohol is legal, or at least widely available, even to high school kids.
Though I’m pretty sure that alcohol in my college days did lead me to make some rather questionable choices in partners (not to mention questionable interactions with people I cared about), I didn’t blame anyone but myself for getting drunk. As much as it’s not fair, the man is always considered to be the one in control, even if he’s wimpy and she’s really strong, or if he was under the influence and she wasn’t and there is doubt about consent. Just one of those crappy parts you have to accept about being a man. Just like what being a black man in a white man’s world must be like. Or a woman who is still on the way up in what used to be a man’s world.
However, I do know a straw man when I see one. And “rape apologist” certainly fills the bill.
Last weekend, i was at a party, and hanging out with two of my boyfriends friends. Three more guys came over to us and were talking. I put my hand out to greet them, and was interrupted by bf’s friend, saying, “Oh. She’s just _____’s girlfriend.”
He than proceeded to keep carrying on a conversation that was happening before I tried to introduce myself. I felt sufficiently silenced, and literally, ‘left hanging’.
Thankfully, the other friend stepped up. Put his hand on buddies shoulder and said, “Wait, she has a name you know. Maybe she would like to define herself as something other than a possession. Or don’t you think that she has that right?” I said, “Thanks man, I appreciate that.” Introduced myself, and joined in the conversation, when the new comers asked me a question.
The friend who was rude, was kind of pissed, and uncomfortable. But he has never failed to introduce me by name again.
~
Sometimes, all it takes is a ‘Hey, think about what you’re saying,’ and you can change things. And I think that this is especially important if you’re a dude, and hanging out with your friends. The guy who stood up for me, not only made an impression on the other guys there, but it also made an impression on me. I won’t be silenced by a ‘possesive’ term again. I am my own person, defined by my name, not as someone’s ‘something’.
~
Thank you for this post. It’s important to speak up.
“Women are people.
I seriously cannot believe that I have to say this in 2013.”
Why not? The U.S. still has no constitutional amendment that states that women are equal to men. 41 years after the ERA failed to become law, a few things have changed for the better, some have worsened, and most remains the same. Women are still treated as property, disposable playthings, and (in medicine) as pathologically defective. Although a constitutional amendment isn’t an instant cure-all, it’s an essential step that is overdue. The culture won’t change until the law does, and each generation (and every woman) will have to fight the battle for “personhood” all over again.
Sorry Ironwing, but some of your statements are flat out wrong. I don’t know where you live, but from where I’m standing things have improved as much for women as any other distinct group of people, perhaps more. Doctors, lawyers, scientists, powerful national politicians, industry and corporate leaders – all women. How on earth do you get away with the assertion that things aren’t any better?
ERA? Come on. I have a learning disability / mental health issue and while it is still legal for insurers to deny coverage, I’m covered under employment law, and that level of understanding toward mental health had to come from horrific catastrophes that are not only very violent and very recent, but there’s still a debate about whether assault weapons and high capacity magazines should be legal. I’m 36, physically healthy, make $220,000 per year and I cant get health insurance for any price – I have to go on the Obamarama plan. For ADD. At least women can get married, as long as they’re not lesbians.
There have been women in the workplace since World War II, and women who rose to the top through any obstacle put in their way, especially men who don’t treat women as equals. You’re playing the “gender card” and encouraging victimhood.
Women are not only people, but they should not allow themselves to be victims of a contrived conspiracy.
Thanks for mansplaining to us little laydeez that we shouldn’t “overreact” when it comes to equality.
Oh, this is so important. Tweeted this and am reblogging. This needed to be said.
Me too. Thank you so much for writing this Bellejarblog.
Reblogged this on Susan Daniels Poetry and commented:
Needed to be said.
Thank you! Well said. I appreciate the cussing.
Most of this works in my arguement for not wanting to get married & have kids. People can sometimes define a women by their relationships to other people. As if their worth is in being a mother or wife.
Was it really necessary to destroy your well articulated ideas by inserting the f word periodically. It was jarring and inconsistent w the otherwise intelligent and eloquent presentation. It added an unnecessarily adolescent tone that I don’t think was your goal. Otherwise, well said.
It’s not an “adolescent” tone unless you’ve got a giant stick wedged up your ass and you’re so whiny about “tone” that a few adult words will distract you from the gist of the piece.
It’s especially sad that a woman speaking out forcefully about misogyny is scolded to be more “ladylike.” And, yes, I know you’re a woman from your avatar. Women enforce patriarchy, too.
Did she use the term “lady-like”? Way to put words in her mouth and twist it into something that quite simply, it wasn’t. Just bc someone finds saying “fucking” to be adolescent, taking away from the piece, doesn’t mean they are enforcing patriarchy for Christ sAke. I personally love dropping the fucking f bomb, but don’t accuse those who don’t find it as appealing as myself (how dare they not like a strong woman cursing!! The nerve!) of perpetuating patriarchy. Get a fucking grip.
i agree with this generally, but still have issues. 1) the author is assuming that rape apologists are all men. in the coverage she’s alluding to, there were plenty of women talking about their promising athletic careers too. her argument that the “mothers, sisters, daughters” line of reasoning is detrimental because it only makes a rape victim valuable because she means something to a man is ridiculous. i’m pretty sure women care about their mothers, sisters, and daughters too. it humanizes the victim to anyone. 2) her assumption that value means ownership is also stupid. i can value someone’s friendship, or love, or them as an individual, but that does not come close to a claim of ownership. i want to be on this girl’s team, i really do, but i think she goes too far with the patriarchy.
Excellent
I don’t agree. I personally don’t see the ‘sisters, wives, daughters’ idea as apologizing for rapists at all, and doesn’t necessarily make their worth connected to men. It is just a 100% common sense argument (especially in this case of the rapists being teenagers), that if anything, condemns the actions of the attacker(s) even more strongly. It is what I want to scream incredulously at these scumbags. It highlights how completely they are not thinking morally, they are not thinking compassionately, they are not thinking at all! But if ONE idea could possibly get through to someone like this, it should be this concept. Every boy has at least a mother. The idea of thinking about your mother or sister or wife is not relating importance to men- it is trying to drive home the obvious point that these victims are PEOPLE who are important in the same exact way as people you know are important. It actually drives home the exact idea that you are claiming this idea doesn’t encompass.
One of the finest things I have accomplished in my life is to raise a daughter who is a STRONG woman that NO ONE will EVER f with.
Let me start by saying there is never any excuse for rape. Let me also clarify that I haven’t seen the Youtube videos or the full court transcripts. My knowledge is restricted to what I’ve read and from TV news.
I would like to raise something which seems to have been glossed over here and I’ll start with a quote:
‘So please, let’s start teaching that fact to the young women in our lives. Teach them that you love, honour and value them because they are human beings. Teach them that they should expect to be treated with integrity because it’s a basic human right. Teach them that they do not deserve to be raped because no one ever, ever, ever deserves to be raped.”
Perhaps if this girl had been taught to have respect for herself, she wouldn’t have been party hopping and drinking herself into oblivion. Bad things happen to stupid people, In a different situation she could have been robbed or killed. Neither of those eventualities are right either and are not gender specific.
The likelihood of this girl being raped had she used a little self control, stayed sober or at least stayed conscious would have been greatly reduced if not next to nil in this situation.
This doesn’t excuse the behaviour of others but she has to shoulder some of the responsibility.
You have no reason to call her stupid.
No, she is NOT responsible for this.
SHE DID NOT DO IT. She was just there.
So you feel superior.
Do you think if you pass out from a reaction to a medication you take that you are somehow responsible for anything that happens to you? NO!
I stand by my comment regarding taking responsibility for your own actions and your comment suggesting I feel superior is not appropriate and quite frankly childish.
Read my reply again. There is no excusing the behaviour of the boys, Rape in any circumstance is wrong. Posting nude photos of her is reprehensible.
The girl didn’t pass out from taking medication. She drank herself into a stupor and passed out. Don’t make it sound like she was Rebecca of Sunnybrook farm who succumbed to a bad reaction to a Tylenol she took. She went party hopping and got plastered to the point of passing out. That is irresponsible behaviour and had she been in control of her faculties may not have put herself in the situation which transpired.
Thanks for providing such a succinct example of how to be a rape apologist and how to blame the victim.
Also, even if she IS stupid she does not deserve to get raped!
Yeah, a girl or woman who drinks or goes to various parties doesn’t show “respect for herself.”
Seriously, fuck you, you slut-shaming asshole.