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 
my sentiments exactly! While following the coverage on the news- I was appalled at the lack of compassion for the victim- and focus on the fact that the accusers father has never told him he loved him? What the f#@k??? who cares? A child has been raped and that is the media focus? like you sad- hard to believe the mindset in 2013!
Very thought provoking, and a detailed dissection of the “wife, mother, sister, daughter” rhetoric. Women seem often to be defined by how they exist in relationships, rather than how they exist as individuals. Thanks for this post!
In as much as I understand and appriciate the point you are making here, I feel that it is important to point out that you position is extremely hetrosexually biased. A woman can be a wife, daughter and mother and also have no relationship to a man. Please try to embrace all types of relationship models.
Not sure how you can be a wife and yet have no relation to a man?
By being Lesbian
Reblogged this on tantriclemons.
You do realize that even if someone’s parents are dead, they are still someone’s daughter. Unless maybe they were artificially made in a lab. But then I guess you could say she is the daughter of the scientists that created her. However that argument really shouldn’t even be on the table.
Every woman is someone’s daughter, even if that someone doesn’t want her or isn’t alive any more.
Anyway, I think that sometimes you need to shift someone’s perspective, and this could be a tool to attempt to do that because trust me saying “you need to value women as people” isn’t going to set off a lightbulb in anyone’s head.
I’m an idiot and replied in the wrong place but you get the gist.
Women do not have a choice whom their parents are, that is biology. I am not my parents daughter, nor will I ever be. They placed a role, gender, and occupation onto me with out my choice, hence I am not my parents daughter. I am me, a person who is now making and has always made choices for me.
to “L” below, who I can’t reply to: um, male-bodied individuals don’t choose their parents either…
Or how about.. what if it were YOU! Men and young boys get raped too you know. Many a sports-team hazing is pretty much tantamount to rape. Including being penetrated by objects by other men. It happens a lot more frequently than we talk about. So screw this patriarchal crap. I ask all those guys.. what if it were YOU. What if someone drugged You and violated YOU against your will? (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/04/army-criminal-hazing-raped-by-fellow-soldiers-042512/)
I think that the patriarchy & traditional gender roles have a lot to do with the fact that we don’t talk about male sexual assault and rape! And yes, I think an excellent response would be “what if it were YOU?”
I’ve written a bit about how we talk about male sexual assault here: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/rape-culture-what-it-is-and-how-it-works/
Thank you! Women unite in solidarity, FUCK RAPE CULTURE AND DON’T FUCKING TOUCH ME!
AMEN
I’m afraid I just don’t see the connection between asking a person to picture a victim as being someone close to him/her and telling that person that it doesn’t matter what happens to people who aren’t. As far as I can tell the opposite is true. There are far easier ways to say that, such as “Well, at least it wasn’t your daughter, because that would be a really bad thing”.
It should be clear that the apologist already doesn’t see the victim as anything more than an object, and an attempt is being made to address that. You have rape apologists who, for whatever reason, don’t think empathy applies to women who aren’t close friends or family. If they have any empathy for their friends and family then that is probably the best means of getting them to rise above the view of all other women being objects.
If people are going to learn to see all people as equals with a right not to ever have to worry about being raped, then they need a frame of reference. They need to start from their assessment of the needs of someone close to them (even themself perhaps if they’re that sociopathic) and then project the empathy felt onto everyone else.
OK you’re not my daughter, wife or sister. Suppose for a minute I’m not morally aware enough to realise that makes no difference as to your rights. Suppose for a moment that I only care about my daughter, wife and sister (let’s be generous and include my mother as well maybe). How on earth is telling me that you have as much right not to be raped as my sister going to reinforce my barbaric viewpoint?
Ultimately if we’re too hesitant as to how to address rape apologists then their views will remain unchanged. What alternative do you propose?
As a man, that is to say a member of the entitled sex and therefore a “real” human being, you are unable to comprehend a world in which you are not the ONLY entitled sex, not the ONLY kind of real human being. Women are independent of men, we exist whether men are in the room or not. The first thing soldiers are taught is to dehumanize the enemy – it makes killing them so much easier. The instant women are reduced to existing only in terms of their relationships to men, rape becomes a victimless crime.
Wow, way to address a thoughtful post with an embarrassingly simplistic worldview and blatant misinterpretation; I sincerely hope that isn’t an accurate reflection of your (or anyone’s) actual beliefs.
Sir, have you served? Have you volunteered everything for your country, family and rights? If not then as someone who knows military personal and getting prepped my self to serve; your comment, sir, lacks intelligence and empathy for the men and women who serve our country. They do not dehumanize the enemy, they teach how to kill so they themselves are not killed. They, unlike you, understand the importance of life and that there are those out there who wish to destroy us and our way of life. They fight, not to kill the enemy, but to protect their loved ones back home. They understand that the enemy are fathers, sons and husbands. They, sir, understand more than anyone out there who has not served the fragility of life. Thank you for your time.
I’m thinking Robin has some Daddy issues.
Ben- I was thinking this (what you said) as I was reading and I’m a wife, mother and daughter. If someone is close-minded enough that you have to say to them “What if it happened to a woman you care about?” it’s not going to make a difference if you narrow that down to blood relatives. And also– saying that female foster children aren’t daughters or sisters denigrates their history. It may not be a history that you would choose, but to say she’s not a daughter– that’s just bullshit.
“It should be clear that the apologist already doesn’t see the victim as anything more than an object, and an attempt is being made to address that.”
The problem is that the “wives, mothers, sisters, daughters” thing just reclassifies the victim from common property or unowned property to “your property.” What is also ironic: most assaults are perpetrated by someone the woman knows. So some of these rape apologists in fact do believe that their daughters, sisters, and wives (though maybe not sainted mama) should “not wear inappropriate clothing” or whatever. Some of these rape apologists have in fact assaulted their own sisters, wives, and daughters.
I have absolutely no problem telling rape apologists: “Imagine if it was YOU.” I saw one person say, “Well, it was just their fingers. She ought to be thankful it wasn’t worse.” What would he have felt like if someone had violated HIM with their fingers? Would HE be thankful? Somehow, I really doubt it.
I don’t know if my approach is better, worse or neutral. But I do know these people need to stop minimizing what is happening to us — not just the victimization by the rapists but also by the media and the public — and accept that THEY are a part of the problem.
There seems to be a big difference in saying, ” imagine if it was your daughter” and “how can you think it would be wrong if it was your daughter, but if it’s another woman, she asked for it”. As you phrase it, it makes the same point as the original post: what is wrong with people if we can say it’s wrong if it’s someone I care about, but otherwise I can’t empathize?
When someone is murdered, we don’t need to imagine it is someone close to us to say murder is wrong and that even if that person was in a dangerous situation, it’s not their fault. We may feel it more acutely as a tragedy if we imagine we know the victim, but that is not a necessary requirement to understand that they were in fact a victim.
“I’m afraid I just don’t see the connection between asking a person to picture a victim as being someone close to him/her and telling that person that it doesn’t matter what happens to people who aren’t.”
Maybe if one is trying to connect with a particularly misogynist person that is a tactic that may have some degree of effectiveness.
However its effectiveness on dense misogynists doens’t negate its denigration toward women, and I do think it’s denigrating to women. Picture, if you will, a female president addressing the public: “Dear fellow citizens: men have human rights, too. After all, they are our fathers, our sons, and our husbands.” Does that feel alienating? Do you feel like the speech addressed to “citizens” is addressed to women and not addressed to you? Does it make you feel like men are some sort of novelty person who is under the care of women, like a child? Not every woman agrees that this framing feels alienating and othering, but quite a few do, and this is far from the first time this problematic framing has been addressed by a woman.
So to use this framing outside of very narrow circumstance in which one is trying to communicate with a dense misogynist– to use it, say, when discussing rape or women’s rights to the general public, is to privilege the misogynist in the audience over the woman or women in the audience. That is to say, it is a framing that “works” on misogynists and alienates women. So in using it one’s priorities are necessarily communicating with misogynists *at the expense of* women.
If one still chooses to use the argument when engaging with misogynists, one should still be aware of the effect of the framing.
I don’t think it’s denigrating to women. I’m a woman, but in my state, I can have a wife, a mother, a daughter, and a sister. I’m straight so it’d be weird if I had a wife but I could. Suggesting that the framing alienates women as if we aren’t being spoken to as well seems to suggest that all rape apologists are male and women don’t love and want to protect other women the way that men love and want to protect women. I don’t think either of those things is the case.
Sorry, I’m straying a bit. There are women who love women. And men who love men (not just romantically…brothers, sons, fathers, friends, etc). To frame an issue where you are focusing specifically on violence or rights of women, you use an example of women who people love. To frame an issue where you are focusing specifically on violence or rights of men, you do use examples of husband, father, son.
The problem with the framing seems to be that it involves making the other person an object, but I disagree with that viewpoint. I think it makes the other person easier to relate to and helps break past the objectification of strangers that we all naturally tend towards. Framing any situation with “what if this was your loved one?” brings them into our monkeysphere. It’s like how if you are dealing with someone who reminds you of a favorite aunt or uncle, you’re more inclined to think well of them. Rape apologists are in the mind frame that if their friend, son, brother,uncle, etc. made one mistake and then it haunted them for a lifetime, that would be terrible. They’re already claiming him for their monkeysphere.
I believe that most rape apologists are simply already in the frame of mind that the rapist is like their son. Their brother. Their friend. In this case, we could clearly see the reporters empathizing with the rapists as if the rapists were their own loved ones; the media made the case to the whole world that these boys are just like the boys we love. I don’t believe that changing the framing around so that we are instead empathizing with the victim is at the expense of women, I think it’s just a reminder that each woman has a value that we understand on a deep level that can’t possibly be quantified. She is just as much somebody’s sister, daughter, mother as the rapist is somebody’s brother, son, father.
Thanks for posting this.
Maybe what they should be saying, instead of “imagine if this was your sister,” they should say, “Imagine if this happened to you.”
Right on. My favorite response.
Because it’s a little more difficult for a man to understand exactly what it is to be raped. I think referring to the victim as “wife, sister, daughter” is just to say, “Imagine if it was a woman you cared about?”
The term daughter, wife, and sister IS NOT A TERM THAT IMPLIES OWNERSHIP. I do not own my sister- period. But she is my sister, and I love her. And having me imagine what it would be like to have my sister raped gets me a little closer to understanding what the victim’s family is going through.
Unfortunately, you’ll encounter the smart ass who would say “That’s fine. I’d love to get sex that easily.” Which is why one tries to relate this to someone they love instead.
YES! I agree Jill.
I don’t quite think you understood the article. Perhaps another, more careful read on your part.
Thank you for this eye-opening perspective. You have a great voice.
Reblogged this on Danielle Paradis and commented:
My French feminist sister preaches; the world listens. ❤ ❤
Thank you so very much!
Thank you for your words!
I was raped when I was 17 years old by someone I had always considered a mutual friend. This person had been in my home, met my family, we hung out with the same people, we went to school dances with the same group of friends. He was dating one of my best friends at the time. My best friend told me that I called it rape, so that she wouldn’t get mad at me for seducing her boyfriend.
Many, many rape victims are attacked by people that they already know, or were even “friends” with. For the mutual friends and family of these two “acquaintances”, this causes an enormous rift in their lives. People have to decide who they are going to believe. All of my friends except ONE girl chose to “stay out of it”… they all pretended like they didn’t know.. they stayed neutral, which, as another commenter mentioned, makes the victim feel like just as much garbage as if they had sided with the rapist fully. Every time I visit home, those people that are still around, still treat me as if I am their friend. They have no idea of how their lack-of-action effected me (for a few years– I’m above it now) 😉
I have worked my way to an enlightened state, for the needs of my sanity. I understand how shocking a rape is. I can now put myself in their shoes, and see perhaps why my “friends” were incapable of wrapping their heads around what had happened. I can’t say for sure how I would have reacted. I pray to god that I would have fully supported the victim, but you can never predict how a person’s human and body will react to SHOCK. I thank the ‘big guy’ every day that I was able to make it through completely on my own (and eventually with the help of a counselor) Most of that 1st year after the rape, I didn’t know how much longer I’d last. I send love and hope to anyone reading this that was once a victim and is working to make progress everyday.
I’ve told you all of this to point out another huge flaw in the daughter/wife/mother/sister verbiage:
When you ask someone to imagine if it was their mother, sister, or daughter– sure, we can perhaps predict their immediate emotion/judgement: sad, angry, distraught…. but we cannot predict their choice of action. Would they actually defend the victim? Would they decide that the rapist is wrong, and would they tell the victim AND other people their opinon? Would they put their reputation on the line, in the public eye / in the media, to defend the victim? Although I know many may argue that it DOES matter,…. in most situations, it will NOT matter how people FEEL about a rape occurrence. What will make the BIGGEST difference to the victim is how one ACTS on their feelings and judgement.
I am saying that I was and AM a daughter and sister. But that label did not bring forth any empathy which helped my case. If people so insist to continue using this mother/daughter/sister phrase, shouldn’t we at LEAST ask “What would YOU DO if….”, rather than “how would you feel?”
I’m so sorry that happened to you; it is also a really good point.
None of you whiny women cared when our troops raped and murdered middle eastern women. Now you expect everyone to care about a us female.
Bullshit. You don’t know me, or us. Empty, straw-man accusations, and a tired, old attempt at trolling. Go someplace else.
A lot of people care, but mass media tends to shy away from showing anything wrong with the military.
I think we cared a lot. I’m sorry if you were hurt by actions of our troops. I’m afraid some of the monstrosities that occurred overseas were not as prominent in the media. It doesn’t make them any less atrocious in our minds.
You are the rape culture.
Reblogged this on My One Precious Life and commented:
I read a thousand things a day that I already know. Then I’ll read one like this that slaps me in the face and makes me say, “Well, yeah. Of course.”
Thank you for this well put message. There are so many different things that are horribly wrong in this situation, and it’s important to also look at the things that may be well intentioned but are still feeding into a destructive culture.
Right on! An excellent argument, it is a shame that more people don’t think this way already.
I have to disagree. I don’t find the rhetorical turn effective, but that’s merely because it’s desperately trite, whether used for women – as in this case – or in describing “fathers and sons, husbands and brothers” who never return from war; or are killed in inner-city gang wars; or are incarcerated because of race/ethnicity. (And the phrase is frequently used in all three contexts.)
However, the degree to which it might prove compelling isn’t linked to the fact that it humanizes, but that it familiarizes. Frankly, the act of mere humanizing does little to compel behavior. To say, “Don’t rape/assault/kill a person” is far too generic to have any hope of real impact. It’s nothing more than a reiteration of “Thou shalt not kill,” which, while fine as a broad code of behavior, isn’t particularly likely to generate empathy and thus influence behavior.
The language, too, is part of this. “Your” is indeed a statement of ownership (though not by men, since “daughter, sister, and wife” are just as equally applied by women to women … unless one opposes gay marriage, in the case of the last). But frankly that statement is entirely apt.
Of course I own my wife, just as she owns me.
Of course I own my daughters, just as they own me.
Of course I own my father, just as he owns me.
Of course I own my sister, just as she owns me.
Of course I own my brother, just as he owns me.
These are what the emotional bonds of family do. They are FAR more profound and intricate than any other relationships, and they do indeed amount to emotional ownership and even in physical to the degree that I must care for my wife’s physical well-being every bit as she must care for mine. That’s what it is to own.
That mutual ownership is what makes FAR more compelling the expression of grief and empathy when we speak of our mothers, daughters, sons, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives, and husbands.
Put differently, rape some poor young girl or boy, and I’ll express my immense sympathy and desperate hope the rapist enjoys a very long and hideous stay in prison. Why? Because that’s the justice any person commands.
Rape my wife, brother, sister, son, or daughter, and I will find you and blow off your knee-caps. (Then the law can deal with us both as it wishes.) And I do this not because they’re human. I do it because I know and love them desperately. I do it because it’s personal. Because they own me.
Saying “your wife, daughter, sister, mother” isn’t about making objects into humans. It’s about making humans into the people we love.
We do not own the people we love and they do not own us. Ownership implies objectification and removes freedom of action, spirit and thought except in relation to the other. This is not how my family is bound. We are bound through unrestrictive unconditional love.
Ownership implies objectification only to the degree we choose to correlate it to physical ownership. Clearly that is not what we’re talking about here. Neither does emotional “ownership” negate unrestrictive unconditional love. If you cannot see that, and without wishing to offend, it is a failure of vision on your part, not a statement on the clearly metaphorical rendering of the word “ownership.”
In any case, that was a secondary point of the post. Whether or not you elect to define your relationship with your family as “ownership” does not speak to my point, which is about the rhetorical effect of “sisters/wives/husbands/brothers/etc.” I’m happy for anyone who replies, but it is my hope they’ll reply to my central point.
Ownership does not always imply objectification, though the relationships John speaks of can remove freedom of action, more than spirit and thought because those can remain private…but as a wife and mother, I will always consider the promises, loyalties, love, and commitments I’ve made to my husband and daughter before I go running off doing whatever I damn well please. I am no longer free in that sense, they own a part of me, because I love them, because I’d die and kill for them, and I wouldn’t change it for the world. And I have an unconditional love for my daughter, but I wouldn’t say the same for my husband: if he cheats on me, beats me, or harms our children, I would leave, I would learn not love him, and move on, but that doesn’t mean our love is any less great that your family’s.
I do agree that we as women are not just defined by our relationships, as we are human beings first and foremost, and that should be enough in a person’s eyes to know rape is wrong. That there is even a need to define the victim in terms of a relationship for a person to see the horrible crime is a huge fucking problem. But John is making an excellent point. I always felt sympathy and worry when I heard a story of a child being hurt, killed, or kidnapped. However, now I feel it physically as my heart tightens as I think about my own daugther, and the pain I feel at the mere idea of something like that happening to her can be so overwhelming and profound, I can not hold back tears. Now I will pray for that child’s life, for my own child’s life…before it was easier to forget and move on, but now I don’t forget and I mourn their loss as my own. At 16months, she’s owns me and I own her-neither of us being objectified.
Thank you. That was very much needed.
I agree entirely. Sometimes we wish for prejudice not to exist to such an extent that we actually create more than previously existed.
Well said, the expression is used equally amongst men and women. It does not show one as subject to the relationships their lives involve, but is used more because the ones that surround is in our relationships are the ones who have the most profound impact on us. I would rather myself take the pain of a tragedy then have my siblings children, parents, have to bear the burden. I just don’t see the argument here, and think it is written as a very one sided case.
thank you john for your well written and thoughtful response. i personally would aim a bit higher than the knees, but to each their own. and i loved that you wrote “i do this because they own me” – because their pain is my pain, and their pain is not to be endured without action. while the post on/by the belle jar was thought provoking, and i believe there is value in really looking at and addressing our thoughts and language that participate in rape culture, your response grabbed my emotions, and therefore my attention – which is what it was about 🙂
“their pain is my pain, and their pain is not to be endured without action”
Thanks, jenni. I wish I’d written that because it’s EXACTLY what I wanted to say.
John, I completely agree with you. People who choose to use a simple rhetorical device, no matter how trite, to ARGUE AGAINST RAPE should not be lambasted like this. I’m tired of living in a world (or perhaps just a blog world) where even the good guys are crucified.
I’m not trying to crucify anyone. I just don’t think that someone is above reproach just because I view them as an ally. I think that calling out people, even the people who agree with you, is good.
I appreciate your response and apologize for my strong language. I know that your intentions are good here. Making people think is never a bad thing. But I still very much agree with John and others who have posted here. Women have mothers, daughters, and sisters too, and these are not terms that immediately connote ownership. They simply represent an attempt to, as someone else said, give a “face to the faceless.” I don’t think anyone should be criticized for that.
Quoted from the blog post:
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.
— So you’re not trying to crucify anyone, but anyone who tries to use that reference as a means of getting their point across that RAPE IS BAD is somehow perpetuating rape culture?
Jesus wants his cross back methinks.
I was immediately repulsed when I read, “I have to disagree…” However, by the end of your response now, I can understand your position. It is certainly true that I (like most people) feel far more passionately empathetic towards those that are close to my heart – this is exactly why people so often use the wife/sister/daughter approach. People who use this persuasion/relatability tactic are trying to get a rise out of their audience, and making it personal tends to work.
However this does not by any means negate the author’s main point. By addressing a person indirectly, and only insofar as they relate to oneself is a very sly way to dehumanize them in the subconscious – even if that is not the speaker’s intention. There is still a degree of separation here that unnecessarily otherizes the wife/sister/daughter. I respect your attempt to make this gender neutral, but the fact is that this language is far more often applied to women than to men… I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say “our husbands, brothers, and sons” in a similar context.
Sarah, I do think your last sentence is right on. Perhaps “wives, daughters, and sisters” does connote more of the concept of ownership than the male counterparts. But I struggle when you call this terminology a “sly way to dehumanize” and then say that it can be unintentional. I don’t think there’s any way to be both sly and unconscious about your actions; they’re mutually exclusive. In most cases regarding these terms for women, I think it’s fully the latter. No one is trying to dehumanize anyone. Rather, they’re trying to fight for them.
I didn’t mean sly in the sense that someone is intentionally being sneaky and trying to dehumanize others – I meant sly in that sometimes WE don’t even realize OURSELVES the underlying assumptions and feelings that get lumped in our subconscious by using this language.
“only insofar as they relate to oneself … There is still a degree of separation here that unnecessarily otherizes the wife/sister/daughter.”
This is the phrase that I think doesn’t work well, because I don’t think it’s expressive of what’s happening when the rhetorical turn is most often offered, and I think it misses the essential truth behind the turn. It assumes that when one uses a phrase like “mother/sister…” that the definition is “only” (thus necessarily) linked to a relationship and as a result limiting. I see a couple problems with that:
(1) The relationship is itself an acknowledgement of humanity. My sister cannot call me “brother” without acknowledging my humanity, nor can my mother call me “son” without doing the same. The relationship is predicated on the notion of mutual humanity.
(2) We cannot help but have a “degree of separation.” That is the human condition. We are born alone; we die alone; and no matter how much we wish it, we cannot wholly be “the Other.”
There are some, however, with whom we have relationships that allow us to transcend much of that innate Otherness. They are the people with whom we are raised and with whom we share our lives. So when I call my sister “sister,” that name is, as I see it, functions quite the reverse of “otherizing” her. It is a specific declaration that we share a set of experiences and bonds that actively DIFFERENTIATE her from the Other and thus expresses an intimacy not available by any other means of expression.
Far from pushing my daughters away by acknowledging them “daughter,” I am attempting to CLOSE the gap between those two “others” and myself. So when I say to some apologist “What if it was your mother …” I’m demanding s/he reduce the Otherness between the faceless victim and her/himself.
(3) In closing that gap of Otherness by calling my wife “wife,” I am not defining her “ONLY insofar” [emph. mine] as her relationship to myself. She is many things, and calling her my wife does not erase those and thus limit her. Rather, I am using the term which signifies both what she IS and what she is to ME.
Put differently, I did not marry her because she’s a teacher, or because she’s Unitarian, or because she’s a registered Independent (other labels that could be used to define her). I married her because of her human attributes (her wit, her intelligence, her compassion, her sense of humor, etc.), and I would be married to her no matter her profession, her religion, or her political affiliation.
Finally, I think your last point is somewhat unreasonable. I’ve never heard “’husbands, brothers, and sons’ in a similar context” either, but that’s precisely the point. Rape is essentially a crime committed against women, so it’s no surprise that neither of us have heard the terms applied to men in that context. “That context”, meaning male rape victims, is never reported (an interesting issue in its own right), so it stands to reason we’ve not heard of it.
Similarly, I’ve never heard “wives, sisters, and daughters” used when we talk about “a generation lost in the drug wars.” Contextually, gang wars, drug slinging, and the resulting incarcerated populace are associated with men not women, which is why we do not hear the terminology of women associated with it.
In short, this language is “far more often applied to women” than men because the context of the conversation is a crime committed to a vastly disproportionate degree against women. (Likewise inequality in the workplace, in the case of Obama’s speech.)
Truth to tell, I’ve no idea if I’ve “negated” Bellejar’s main point. Negating it wasn’t my endeavor; I simply disagree with it. But I think I do demand we not glibly waive off an expression of good will with the simple understanding that it “perpetuates rape culture.” It may or it may not do such a thing. For all the reasons I’ve listed in two (overly long) posts, it’s quite easy to argue precisely the opposite. In the end I suspect which it does will depend entirely on the sender and receiver of the message.
On the other hand I think easy statements like the one we’re talking about always need to be explored. When statements become clichés, they need to be brushed off and examined, because when people stop thinking about what they say, well, that’s when things get REALLY dangerous.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, John. Your logic is very reasonable and your points are well argued.
I think you misinterpreted the quote you took from my comment that “there is still a degree of separation here that unnecessarily otherizes…” This was my attempt at reiterating another comment on the post, which I’m paraphrasing because I don’t feel like searching through to find it again: “Why do we say, ‘What if it happened to your wife/sister/daughter’ – instead of ‘What if it happened to you?'” This separation is not necessary, and it still paints the female as the weaker sex that needs the protection and ownership of a man.
In regards to the other piece you took from my comment, I said similar context – not same context (so not necessarily concerning rape). I have never heard husband/brother/son language being used in the same condescending and implying of separateness way that wife/sister/daughter language is so often used.
Lastly, I think it is very hard for people to understand the power of our words, and the implicit and explicit meanings behind the ways we use them. I applaud all those in this comment chain who are actively seeking this understanding – and I value your varying points of view.
I think your comment is very insightful.
Very well said, John. The only reason why I continued to read all of these comments is because I was waiting for someone to say everything that you just said. 🙂
While I certainly agree that we should feel compassion towards the victims of rape because they are human beings, and no human being deserves such treatment, I strongly disagree that the argument of “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” is a bad thing.
Now, please note before landing on me with both feet, I am a rape survivor.
I come at this from the perspective of having seen the AIDS epidemic from its onset through today. There was one unexpected benefit of the tragedy played out in the bodies and lives of so many victims: suddenly, everyone in America was finding out that they bigawd KNEW PERSONALLY a “faggot” somewhere (I’m queer too, so don’t take me to task for the language, either).
If you look at the changes in societal views about homosexual acts, then homosexual adoptions, and now homosexual marriage, these have changed to the positive with a strong correlation to the incidents of AIDS.
It is REALLY difficult to hate someone without demonizing them. When you know the person, when you have shared a laugh, a walk, a meal, a shoulder to cry on with them, suddenly finding out that this person you know was (gasp!) gay all along! made huge changes in people’s perceptions of LGBT folks. As this shift happened, more people came out of the closet and it became even harder for people to demonize queers.
I think the case of rape is analogous. The whole Lucretia “death before dishonor” thing (see http://tinyurl.com/Rape-and-Death-Before-Dishonor) converted grotesquely by the Victorians (cf. Tess of the d’Urbervilles) has made it so rape victims are taught that they should be ASHAMED TO BE ALIVE AFTER RAPE. And if you’re ashamed to even be breathing, you doubly should be keeping your “impurity and ruination” a deep, dark secret (B.S. on that!).
One in every six American women has been or will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Make that one in five for women attending college. That means that if you know 10-12 women, you probably know two or more survivors of rape. And since one in 33 men are rape survivors, out of every 50 men you know there’s at least one rape survivor. (http://www.rainn.org/statistics)
Why are people not aware of this? Omertà! The infamous “code of silence”. You know “omertà” derives from hombredad, “manliness”, as modified by the Sicilian omo “man”, from Latin homo? I’m a woman! I don’t need omertà! Neither do male rape survivors! We should NOT have to stay silent about the fact that we are rape survivors!
The more the people in our lives realize how rape has affected us–how we’ve been hurt, humiliated, brutalized–the more they understand that rape isn’t “just” something that happens to sluts or bad girls walking alone in dark alleys. And that even if we WERE “bad girls” we did not cause what happened to us, we are not to blame for the assault upon us, nor are we lessened by it.
Just as finding out that some of us are gay has made our friends and loved ones re-evaluate their attitudes towards homosexuality–has forced them to understand that queers are, first and foremost, PEOPLE–so too will having more folks understand just how many people in their lives, right now, have been put through this harrowing violence change social views of rape and help destroy the damned rape culture (see http://tinyurl.com/Rape-Culture-Shakesville) in America, which validates and normalizes rape as “just some boys having fun”.
Don’t criticize how I articulate what the hell happened to ME when I was raped. Worry more about why the frack I’m “supposed” to be ashamed! Worry why YOU want to shame me and silence me for reminding people that rape survivors are ALL AROUND US.
Thanks for articulating from personal experience what I was arguing from theory. The rhetorical turn is first about putting a face to the faceless. “People” is simply too generic for most to draw an emotional connection. In worst cases it even becomes too easy for apologists to attach any face they want to the victim (“bad girl,” “faggot” whatever).
We cannot merely “humanize” victims. We must be intimate toward them, and except in some very special cases, most humans simply lack the capacity to feel as close to a faceless stranger as they do toward kin.
Thank you for continuing to post, John (and Christie). You’re taking the words out of my mouth. I was abused as a child, and so perhaps it is easier for me to feel empathy for any victim of such crimes. However, if we want to spread understanding and empathy, we need to use whatever means necessary and effective.
Thank-you! Brilliant~
I understand and appreciate your point. However, I would (and have) use the same argument in the case of male victims of violent crime. “Imagine it was your brother / father / son / husband who was beaten because of his beliefs…” As you state, the point of this line of argument is NOT to value the victim only in terms of her/his relation to others, but rather to start reasoning with the apologist on a level that he/she can relate to. Once the apologist cedes that then it WOULD matter, then we can extrapolate to the more abstract concept of, “it doesn’t matter whom the victim is related to, she/he is valuable as a person in her/his own right.” The point is, this wife / mother / daughter / sister / husband / father / son / brother argument is NOT the entirety of the argument, it is only the beginning. Just as I can’t teach you calculus if you do not understand basic arithmetic, I cannot make an argument on the value of human beings in their own right (regardless of gender) if you do not first understand that humans have value.
yes!!!!
This is a brilliant, very well-reasoned argument and it expresses just why I’ve been feeling so uncomfortable with the OP’s argument. Her take on it just didn’t make sense to me, and THIS is the reason why.
I love this article! It reminds me of the issues we discussed in Women Gender Studies, and how women only exist throught ‘the male gaze’ essentially only being seen through the eyes of a man, even by women! With increasing violence against women in places like India and within the United States, it is really important that we change the way we think about violence and sexual assault. It just amazes me when I look up my local sex offenders. Three counts of fondeling a juvinile here, a few sexual battery ocunts there. How are these people walking around on the street? It is quite obvious by the penal system that our society doesn’t take these crimes seriously. These guys get 3 years maz for what they did to this girl, meanwhile she has to live with it for the rest of her life. Does that seem fair to you?
Reblogged this on Note To Self and commented:
Well said.
It is okay for a woman to yell and scream. It is okay for a woman to be loud. When society accepts this, they will start to treat women with more integrity.
Amen!! Thank you so much.
Reblogged this on ajsanders and commented:
I love this. Amen!
I’ve not watched the news on this event, but I would like to point something out. The thing is, the new people can not really talk about the victim all that much. Her identity is kept a secret, at least to the public at large. Obviously her peers know who she is and they have not exactly treated her well. Because the general public do not get to know her,
except in the abstract, the use of the terms sister, wife, and daughter are useful tools to
flesh her out as a real person. It’s not her relation to a man that makes her a person, its
details beyond the abstract.
So, this leaves talking about the rapists, who were identified even before being convicted.
Now, in this instance I have no problem with it despite their ages given the nature of the
evidence.
Now these boys “did” have a bright future and that is now gone. It’s OK to comment on
that just like we can comment on how much money Michael Vick lost by going to prison
for what he did to those dogs.
Here is a video of the finding of delinquency (guilt for a minor)
I’m not surprised that some may be moved by the tears of the perpetrators and their
families.
Who is going to be punished for providing the alcohol to these minors?
I’m sure we can all agree that an intoxicated woman, and certainly a passed out one, can
not give consent. What we also have are intoxicated boys acting very inappropriately
by disrobing here and touching her. Not to mention other intoxicated boys and girls at
the party taking pictures.
On a philosophical level, if we do not allow a woman to give consent while intoxicated why do we hold others responsible for acts performed while intoxicated in the same fashion as
when they are not? Based on the statements made by those in attendance, they did not
think they were committing rape. It was basically considered a prank played on someone
“stupid” enough to drink so much they pass out. Not much different than the usual graffiti or the like done. THEIR views, not mine. This included the girls that were present.
The victim herself claimed that what she went through was not sex.
There are films that do quite well in the theater that happen to do with the stupid things
that people do while drunk. From “Dude where is my car?” to the string of “Hang over films” and innumerable films about teens indulging in underage drinking, etc. Rare, if
ever, do they bother to deal with REAL consequences or portray instances of people
being taken advantaged while intoxicated. You have boys and girls drinking and dancing
and making out, yet no one ever seems to get pregnant or an STD.
Now to a delicate area. Some will call this blaming the victim, etc.
If someone runs across the road without looking both ways and gets hit by a car, people are usually quite OK with us saying that that was an unwise thing to do. I believe that a 16 year old girl drinking multiple alcohol drinks at a party of strangers is also an unwise thing to do. She lied to her parents about where she was going and knowingly ingested alcohol that she was well aware of was illegal for her do so. So, do you want to blame culture for portraying the activities she did as normal, or does she as a real person have to take some responsibility for her choices?
No, I’m not saying “she deserved it” or some such tripe. And if you wish to mention her age, remember that those convicted are the same age. People intoxicated do stupid things that would not otherwise do. At a minimum, we need to act to keep kids away
from such activity or find a way where they can ingest alcohol, but not have to deal with
any more serious events than a terrible hangover which will hopefully encourage them to not drink again.
Putting yourself in danger (as she did) is not morally wrong – it’s just dangerous. Raping someone (as they did) is morally wrong. There’s a difference of a million miles.
I’m not making moral equivalents here. Crime is a crime. I just believe that people need to reasonably act to prevent themselves becoming a victim.
Let me help you out with your truly shit analogy.
If a person ran on to the road straight into the path of an immediately oncoming car, yes we’d probably say this was careless. This is because the limit of human reaction speed and car break performance means that it would be impossible for the driver to stop the car in time, i.e. they have absolutely no choice but to hit the person.
However, if a person steps into the road to cross it, with traffic at a reasonably safe distance, and a driver chooses to speed up and deliberately knock the person down just because they want to and just because they can, then the driver would fucking well get convicted of murder and you wouldn’t hear anyone talking about how the person shouldn’t have been in the road in the first place or how they would have been able to run out of the car’s path if they hadn’t chosen to wear really high heels and a tight dress.
Get the point?
You are confusing an accident (which was my analogy) to a crime (which was not my analogy). Analogies are often imperfect. My point is simply that it makes sense to take reasonable steps to preserve ones life and safety. This not about whether or not one “deserves” to have something to happen, this about the odds being better for you if you take reasonable sane precautions. Neither of us like what happened to her and I wish that it had not happened as I hope you wish also.
You may want the freedom to walk alone in a bad neighborhood naked and carrying a wad of hundred dollar bills, but that does not mean that it was the right choice to do it.
Of course you might actually be perfectly safe since they would assume that you were insane or bait for a trap. *shrug*
Rapists don’t rape because a tantalizing victim ran out in front of them and they couldn’t brake fast enough.
No, but criminals choose their victims based on opportunity. Drinking to the point of passing out increases the odds of becoming a victim. This does absolve the criminal
of their acts, but certain actions make it less likely you will be a victim. It’s why we lock
our doors and don’t leave our car keys in the ignition.
I agree! And I just wanted to point out to Richard that yes, it is important to teach girls and women ways to avoid rape (avoid dark places, etc.) that bringing that up during a conversation about rape is an extremely tricky business that possibly shouldn’t be done, because almost immediately rape victims will see it as a reason to blame themselves. And of course, even if this is not what is meant, due to the nature of the crime, it’s what too many will do. It needs to be brought up in other settings, I believe, apart from the discussion of a rape itself! And when others cry, “too sensitive,” try to remember the nature of the crime. It’s physical, and highly emotional/psychological. Avoid things that will look as if we’re placing blame. It can and should be done in other ways. Blame should never be part of the equation, and we should do all we can to avoid the appearance of blame and to help rape victims know that they are NOT TO BLAME.
Well said.
You seem to be assuming that all rape apologists are male (although I do believe that most of them are). However, do you think this argument also applies to female rape apologists? If you omit wife (unfortunately, if you were to make an appeal to less progressive thinkers, seeing as we live in a heteronormative society) and say to a woman: ‘what if it was your daughter or mother?’, then I am defining a woman in relation to another woman. As for Obama’s rhetoric, I feel the same in that it does not have to necessarily be an exclusive appeal to men- women too have mothers and daughters (and wives!) and I think that by relating the issue to loved ones the argument becomes poignant. Do you think because we live in this heteronormative society, by grouping together mother, daughter, and wife, it automatically becomes an exclusive appeal to men? I’de be interested to hear thoughts- still trying to make up my mind about this.
In regards to Obama’s speech, just look at the quote one more time:
“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.”
It is clear he is speaking only to men. If women were included, it would be ‘your lives’ not just ‘their lives.’ The word ‘their’ separates women as a whole group from the discussion and makes us ‘others.’
I think the idea of the original article isn’t that women are being defined by their relationship only to men, but that they are being defined, period. However, I don’t think this is done intentionally. Like you, I believe it is meant to relate the issue to loved ones, as you said. It is unfortunate that we have to appeal to the empathy of others at all. It should really be enough to say, “Women are human beings.”
This was such an eye-opening piece. Thank you for sharing this perspective! So many times we seek to make sense of these types of tragedies in the only ways we know how and in doing so, our own deep-seeded beliefs are shown. This piece demonstrates our need to keep reevaluating, keep listening to each other, and keep learning for each other. Thank you again for this piece – I am a person, I am enough.
Reblogged this on Geeky Book Snob and commented:
I am taking a moment away from talking about books to reblog a very important post. This is not my post, this is written by The Belle Jar. What is written here is EXACTLY my thoughts on the Steubenville case AND the rape culture in which we find ourselves in – incredulously, in 2013. I couldn’t have said it better than what is printed here. Well done, emotional post worth reading.
In all honesty, I have never once considered that the “daughters, sisters, and wives” rhetoric referred to women as they relate to men specifically. I just assumed it spoke about a person’s inclusion in a family. To me this is why it is an effective means of humanizing someone who we don’t know personally, since so many of us are also a part of a family. I actually find it almost offensive that the article seems to ignore completely the fact that WOMEN also have daughters, sisters, and wives (!). By ignoring this the author takes a route that is worryingly counter to her own perceived values and goals.
In addition, I have never felt that this type of rhetoric has been employed any more than the “sons, brothers, and husbands” rhetoric that is often spoken in regards to soldiers fighting overseas, etc. To me this is also a problematic logical step, as it is not backed up by any solid facts (and I am not at all saying that there isn’t any evidence to support this assertion, just that there isn’t any provided here, and again, the article’s premise seems to rely on it).
I am certainly willing to grant that I’m wrong in how I’ve viewed this speech device (like everyone, I can’t help but be biased by my own experiences, or maybe in this case, lack of experiences, with these kinds of issues), however, I wish that the article had done more to address the logical steps taken in saying that this rhetoric does in fact only refer to a woman’s relation to a man. Partly because most of the article’s premise relies on this fact, and partly because, I happen to believe that this type of speech really can help to humanize victims, and that we shouldn’t just throw it out without first properly analyzing if or why it is in fact a problem for our society.
What I find most concerning is that this blog post pursues the convention of referring to someone’s family in a manner that brings it dangerously close to the underlying horrific act itself.
We can all agree to disagree about whether or not making reference to a daughter or sister or wife is effectively objectifying women. The fact remains that those boys did something unspeakable to that girl and we as a society are not sufficiently outraged about it.
I agree that no ally is above reproach – to that same end I think it’s reasonable to level our criticism of this blog post even though (hopefully) most of us can agree that a tragedy occured that demands justice and greater societal awareness.
I don’t agree that this type of rhetoric is problematic or offensive. The terms daughter, wife and sister aren’t necessarily tied to male value. Some wives are married to women. They are all daughters of women. Some are sisters of women. I also don’t think anyone is suggesting that men should only empathize with women they’re related to. It’s just a starting point. Obama’s feelings about women are shaped by his wife and daughters, and shouldn’t they be?
The problem with asking boys to imagine themselves as a victim is that some can’t. Or maybe they’ll imagine a group of girls forcing sex acts on them, with enjoyable results. Some boys also can’t imagine their sisters or mothers or any “nice girls” getting drunk or dressing sexy. In that regard, the analogy isn’t always helpful. For boys who can imagine their sisters/girlfriends getting drunk (or drugged against their will), making that connection could inspire empathy and protective instincts.
I think the “if this was your wife, sister, or daughter” argument has its uses, but it’s limited. For one thing, it plays into the double standard–there can be the implication these women are virtuous and to be placed on a pedestal, while other women are fair game for male sexual predators. We need to get to the point of saying that all women, like men, have the right to be in charge of their sexuality and their actions, and whatever they do, no one has any justification for raping them.
Making them people gives them responsibilities. Like the responsibility they have for their own safety so they dont drink too much then pass out and sexually assaulted.
But women hate responsibility, it removes them from the power of victim status.
Drinking so much that you pass out is not a good thing to do in general. But if a man drinks too much and passes out, the worst he might expect upon waking is finding graffiti has been drawn on his face.
Only one thing causes rape: Rapists. Not the way a woman dresses, or how much she drinks. If you don’t wear a seat belt and you get hit by a drunk driver, is the accident your fault for not wearing a seat belt? Or is it the fault of the person who was illegally driving drunk? Rape is not something women should have to live in fear of or plan to avoid, it is a crime. How many times have you gone out and thought, “I shouldn’t drink too much because someone might murder me.”
Also, placing the words “victim” and “power” in the same phrase is laughable.
“Rape is not something women should have to live in fear of or plan to avoid, it is a crime.”
Yes, it IS a crime. And in an ideal world she would not have to plan it. However there is a reason we have lock on our doors, we don’t live in an ideal world.
Certain things can make the odds of bad things happening to you increase.
A wise person acts to decrease the odds.
This does not absolve the criminal of their acts, but acting to ensure that you do not become a victim is a far better thing to do than just count on the kindness of others. She lied to her parents, preventing them from possibly protecting her. She choose to illegally consume a large amount of alcohol, rendering her easy prey to other intoxicated teens. And those teens were for the most part strangers, making the odds that someone would act on her behalf against the acts of the “cool kids” less likely.
Your analogy of not wearing a seat belt is faulty. Is the accident “your fault”? No.
Would putting on your seat belt increase the odds of you surviving the accident with less
damage? Yes.
I’m just as dissapointed as everyone else about the backwards news coverage of this rape case, but the writer of this article is spending a lot of energy focussing on her anger with a phrase used by people trying to show empathy for the victim. She states that its 2013 and this type of rhetoric (i”imagine she was your sister, mother, daughter, wife”) is reductive of women because it implies that you must be loved by a man to be valued. WHAT?? It’s 2013 – you can be the wife of a woman, the sister of a woman, the daughter of a woman, and the mother of a woman. I don’t see how that phrase implies a relationship towards with men at all.
Women can and do have sisters, daughters, and wives. Why the assumption that these terms must be referring only to their relationships with men?
Exactly. This is precisely why I think this post is moronic.
Oh man, I’m so sad you already took the “fuckyou@feministscum.com” email address, because I really wanted that one for myself.
You know, I start further back when I’m talking to my children. “No one has the right to touch another person AT ALL without their expressed, COHERENT permission.” With obvious exceptions for pulling people out of the path of an oncoming train & getting them medical attention. We don’t hit, hug, kiss, kick, nothing without asking first… yes, I know it would be weird to ask someone if you can kick them, but you get my point. My body belongs to me, your body belongs to you, it is not for anyone else to use or touch, PERIOD. It seems so basic. We say this to children when they’re little to help them avoid abuse, the lesson is still valid though.
Reblogged this on pennyleighcook.
I have to share my view. I feel for this victim, no one should be taken advantage of or forced to do something. HOWEVER, this girl was known to binge drink and blackout. As a female I believe we also need to teach our daughters that you need to avoid certain situations that put you in a bad situation.
But not our sons? That’s classic female rape apology and victim blaming. It simply IS.
I think the second half of her second sentence (“no one should…”) would be directed at sons, wouldn’t it?
I am seeing a lot of supposedly intellectual debating of the OP’s exquisite take on an endemic mentality that is so all-pervading in our society, that even those above who are pecking at the symantics are doing so from behind the shield of support of victims – but whom in fact are merely defending a traditional narrow-mindedness out of lack of what I assume is decent education in logic, and even less in the humanities and/or history.
First suggestion I’d like to make to anyone caring to heed – read Riane Eisler’s “The Chalice and the Blade”. It was a real eye-opener for me. I am a 33 year old man, but read it when I was twenty out of the suggestion of a close friend whom patiently realized nobody had ever attempted to shed a proper light on the matter of human rights and women’s studies. (Hell, didn’t even know women’s studies existed until she helped me).
With that said – women’s liberation is the single greatest hurdle for our civilization to overcome and if surpassed in an enlightened fashion, it will automatically give rise and assist any other egalitarian causes that exist in our society. This includes racism, rape-culture, homophobia, class warfare issues…things are coming to a head very quickly and I thoroughly believe a blunt and strong-handed stab at this crucial aspect of our world would in one fell swoop raise the consciousness of human beings to a level I would be proud to know my children will be propagating into the generations to come.
I have a 7 year old daughter, 4 month old son, and come from a family of mostly women struggling to survive in a white-male dominated, mysoginist world – molestation and rape were hallmarks of our upbringing and I am sickened to find each and every day/week/month that it is commonplace. Commonplace! For men/women/boys/girls/whatever class – this shit is COMMONPLACE and has been for aeons in the Theistic/paternalist cultures which have only been able to dominate out of extreme brutality; and the brutal and warlike cultures ended up winning out, and writing the history books we utilize to bring up our future generations. Think about this folks. Anyone questioning the OPs original content or approach should consider getting some help, maybe volunteering or taking classes.
Western societal ethics aren’t that different from that of the Taliban, it’s just more technologically advanced and better at programming its masses than they are.
OP: your original post is going to help me as I read/re-read it now and then to make sure to keep myself and my perspectives in check. Truly, well said.
Beautifully written, Sir. It is this kind of perceptiveness and compassion that gives me hope for a real and honest change in the societal programming that has created such a patriarchal and misogynistic world. I have no doubt that both of your children will be brought up in a home where people are people and the eye is blind to gender/race/religion/class or sexual orientation. Thank you.
Ah, thank you. Very good point, my education level is literally 45 credits in on a network administration associate at a community college. I still have a long way to go, certainly.
You seem to have thought a lot about this topic and as your post progressed it was clear that it came from the heart. I just want to say that you would make your points a lot better if you resisted the urge to show how educated you are. In the first paragraph alone where you complain about “supposedly intellectual” arguments you misuse whom and misspell semantics among other things. I don’t think grammar nazis have any place in comment threads, but you have a natural talent for writing and it’s a shame to see your arguments made less effective by overreaching.
Hah, for a second I thought this was directed at me. I was like, “Whaaaat? I didn’t use the word semantics at all!”
Plus I never try to show off how educated I am because seriously, compared to most of my friends, I’m not.
Ah, thank you. Very good point, my education level is literally 45 credits in on a network administration associate at a community college. I still have a long way to go, certainly.
The author is correct that no one deserves to be raped. When the verdict was announced that the convicted rapists will be sent to a detention center for a year, I noticed many people wishing for them to be raped in prison. This is sad and unfortunate, since we should not let vengeance replace our sense of justice.
Thank you, thank you! I wish I was
brilliant enough to have written this!
Although I would never put these
Feelings into such clear concise order
I feel them equally as strong! Well done!
This is definitely well said. I will share that on facebook.
Brava!
Wow — the person that wrote this article is angry and I am too about this case. Three years combined for those two rapists is certainly not sufficient punishment for them. That is a travesty
But I don’t agree with her take on the ‘what if it was your wife, sister, daughter’ comment. Rapists DON’T EMPATHIZE with the person they are raping which is why it’s necessary to attempt to make them relate to their basic feelings, which is ‘What if someone did what I’m doing now to my mother/brother/daughter/etc.? How would that make me feel? And should I make someone else feel that same way by raping?’
This sounds a lot like the Rob Portman Republican Senator that was against gay marriage until his son revealed that he was gay. Switcho chango abracadabra all the sudden Mr. Portman is for gay marriage because he realized how not being able to marry affected his son.
It’s critical to come down to the narrow-minded egotistical person’s mentality to get them to understand how their actions affect other people.
This is a very compelling and well-written argument. I genuinely appreciated reading it, and understanding the ‘mothers/sisters/wifes/daughters’ argument from a different perspective. In thinking through your explanation of how it devalues women (by basing their value on relationships to others, presumably men) rather than recognizing their intrinsic value, I had not realized what a ____________ (misogynistic?) overtone the argument has.
As I struggle to fill the blank in the preceding sentence, I wonder if the word I should be using is “paternalistic.” Or perhaps if this was a word, “parentalistic.” My world view changed when I had a daughter. I only have one child, but I assume it would have changed similarly if I had a son. But in having a child, I came to value things differently, and to reflect upon the value of life and the significance of crime and human brutality in ways that were profound beyond my greatest expectations. When I hear someone say, “imagine if it were your daughter,” while I recognize it as a rhetorical tool and a cliche, I have to also admit that it stirs a deep emotion in me. I don’t think it is because I’m a man and have a daughter. I think it’s because I’m a parent. To that end, “imagine if it were your daughter” could just as easily be “imagine if it was your child.” “Mother/sister/wife/daughter” could be replaced with “parent/sibling/spouse/child.” The reason I don’t think that is going to happen is because the gender-neutral version of the saying lacks the rhetorical flourish.
If a little boy was raped, I’m not so certain that mainstream media (or the President) would be coming out and saying, “imagine if it was your father/brother/husband/son.” So I’ll admit–there clearly is some gender bias going on here. I don’t think the mainstream media would talk about the rape of a male in the same way that they do of a female. (I certainly haven’t studied this and could be wrong; I’m just talking about a hunch here). I guess that with this paragraph, I’m trying to acknowledge that I understand the saying is rooted in some sexist or at least gender-specific conceptions.
But that said, I hope that you see some glimmer on the other side of the coin as well. Like the president or not, he’s a father with 2 daughters. I like to think that he feels the same way that I do–I like to think that all parents have a deep and abounding wellspring of protectionism for their children. Watching the news regularly rebuts that thought, but I’ll hold out hope nonetheless. In that same vein, I would encourage you to try to see that from time to time, a comment of this nature (‘what if it was your daughter’) isn’t motivated by misogyny or sexism or spite of any sort. Sometimes, it might just be a parent relating to a tragedy and trying to understand how they would feel if it was their child.
In this case, I have no sympathy for the rapists. (That seems to be a pretty safe bet in just about any instance…I cannot think of a circumstance where I would feel bad for a rapist). But I do feel bad for the victim–and I cannot imagine how I would feel if she were my daughter. Fatherhood changed me, and that’s the lens through which I see the world now–I’m not just a person, I’m my daughter’s father. It informs and admittedly colors my whole perspective.
BRILLIANT!!! Thank you!