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 
This was a fascinating article and a point well-made. I confess myself very annoyed by the fact that just about *all* of the dissent posted here has been posted by men. Thanks for serving as an object-lesson in patriarchy, my fellow dudes-in-arms.
In order to be a rapist, there is some element of the healthy human psyche that is missing. Any argument is going to fall flat. My opinion is that the punishment needs to be enough to keep a person from committing this crime in the first place. And sadly, that doesn’t exist.
I see posts from Catherine, Christie, Jennie, etc. — lots of women agree on the “dissent” side that you noted…I guess they must be misguided then? Just make your point and give up distinguishing yourself from all those ‘men’ you hate being associated with.
I am definitely female and a rape survivor.
The problem with rape culture is that it is so pervasive that you have to break people out of the socialized construction that we are barraged with in the form of “entertainment” that routinely uses rape as a means to advance a plot, in which we have the concept of a rape “joke”, where “death before dishonor” is considered the Right Thing To Do when dishonor=rape.
By rubbing people’s nose in the fact that THEY ALREADY KNOW AND PROBABLY CARE ABOUT one or more people who have been the victims of rape, it helps break the acculturated framing.
If even one clueless wonder makes this connection and feels some of the shock and pain, then the rhetorical device of suggesting that they think about the possible rape victims in their life WORKED.
I am a wife (or will be if ever Texas allows lesbians to officially marry). I am a sister. I had a mother. I have nieces. And the very THOUGHT that ANY of my loved ones would have to go through what I–and many other women and men–have endured at the hands (etc.) of a rapist makes me physically want to retch.
One in every six women, one in every five women who attend college, one in every thirty-three men have been or will be sexually assaulted. One every TWO DAMN MINUTES. (http://www.rainn.org/statistics) And every one of them is one too damn many. I’ll use any rhetorical device or framing necessary to help make this point.
Consider Canada’s “Don’t Be That Guy” anti-rape campaign (http://www.savedmonton.com/our-campaigns.html). IT WORKS! Rape dropped by 10%. But I wouldn’t call the posters or their images pro-woman or feminist-friendly. They are not aimed at mansplaining to women how to police men’s sexuality. They are aimed squarely at potential rapists.
Reminding rape apologists how they would be hurt if the victim of a rape was someone they love doesn’t have to be feminist-friendly either. It merely has to get the message across. Any good writer or advertiser knows that you must accurately target your audience.
The obvious solution, if you want the humanizing angle without the subtle sexism: “What if it was you that was raped?”…
Because rape only becomes a thing that happens to men when someone attempts to frame rape as a feminist issue or refers to rape victims in general as “she.” Then and only then do you get people crawling out of the woodwork to remind us that rape happens to men too.
Because we are never ever allowed to forget about the mens, even when it comes to giving compassion to the victim of the crime.
Feeling a tiny bit cynical today.
Reblogged this on Antebellum Rose and commented:
Well said.
Reblogged this on hey kerimian.
Reblogged this on renashub.
Powerful. Powerful because it is true. Until I read this, I didn’t realize how unkind the sentiment was, because on the surface it seems fine. Thank you for teaching me, something that I am going to teach my daughters.
Reblogged this on katherinefernandez and commented:
I have not read something so TRUE in such a long time. Stop giving fame to those whose actions should be condemned. Treat everyone as a human being, no matter the race, gender, sexual identity, etc. THAT is what we call basic human rights. THAT should be something done by all people, not overlooked and ignored by our society and culture.
I have recently used this argument myself and I fundamentally agree with you about how we value women – but I think you are assuming that rapists and rapist sympathizers would even hear an argument about human rights. A man who rapes doesn’t see the victim as a person. And never will – the woman was a means to assert control and power – a “thing”. People sympathizing with the rapists in this case don’t seem to care about the victim’s “rights” either. Their moral compass is broken – so asking them to obey some universal moral compass (i.e. rape is bad – people who rape are bad, period) is not going to be effective. So MAYBE if I can get them to see their actions in relation to someone they do care about and love (i.e. a mother, sister, friend, daughter, niece, co-worker – anyone they wouldn’t want to see come to harm) maybe, just maybe, they will see it differently. As a victim of rape myself who was horribly mistreated by police, I often wondered if the police had daughters and wives and if they would have been ok with them being treated this way if only to understand why they would treat me that way – I was a nobody to them, a job, another victim in their daily lives, a statistic. But I wondered, if the shoe were on their wife or daughter’s foot, would they feel the same way. I don’t think most people’s intent is to say only those who are loved or “owned” by someone are worthy of dignity. But I do feel that MAYBE they will never EMPATHIZE until it happens to someone they love or can IMAGINE it happening to someone they love. If I can paint that picture for them by mentioning their mother, sister, daughter in that context….then I am damn well going to try. Because asking a rape sympathizer or a rapist to care about human rights and dignity (in general) is by design impossible. They either raped or sympathize with someone who raped, after all. It almost sounds like you share the same distain for those using the argument as those that we are using the argument with and I think it is an unfair categorization. I think the spirit of that argument when I have seen it (and there are THOUSANDS of them on Poppy Harlow’s Facebook page – the reporter from CNN sympathizing with the rapists) is 10% what you make it out to be and 90% simply trying to reframe the argument in the hope (however futile) of getting into the heads of rapists and rapists sympathizers.
i dont know how else to respond here other than reply to a post.
im here to say THANK YOU.
this was a Great blog post, and comments.
TYVM.
In general, I agree with you. I really do. People need to see women as people, rape is bad, and so on. I get it, and I agree.
However, your argument seems to make one assumption: that all rape apologists are men. That only men are making these kind of statements. That women only have meaningful relationships with men, and not other women. “Your wife” could be spoken to a woman as well as a man; you can reference “your daughter” to her mother — the sort of person who might unconsciously become a rape apologist because she believes her daughter isn’t that sort of girl, so of course “it can’t happen to her! She’s a good girl!” Same for “your sister,” “your mother”.
I agree, using that argument when talking to men implies that the man is only going to value women who “belong” to him. But what about when women are using that argument, or anyone (male or female!) uses those terms, those examples, when speaking to women? I’m not trying to tear you or this post down, but addressing these questions would make your argument *stronger*.
Thank you Kristen, my thoughts exactly.
I disagree. I understand what you’re trying to say, but I still disagree.
Even if I say “what if she were your daughter” to a woman, I’m still framing the victim as belonging to/with somone else, and that puts her as “deserving” of protection and basic human consideration.
When the fact of the matter is, it doesn’t matter if she’s anyone’s daughter, sister, mother, friend, lover, wife, or anything. Even if she were of no particular relation to anyone else, she would still be deserving of protection, and basic human consideration.
So- did you actually read this? Does it ever indicate that it is being written solely to men? Or would “I’m not your wife..” imply (to some who can’t imagine a woman being married to a woman) that this had to be written for a male audience only?
I think the point was that all of these “labels” (wife, daughter, mother, sister) only represent a person through their relationship to others. A long stretch of this reasoning would be that if a person was orphaned at birth, had no siblings, no spouse and no children then they didn’t actually exist. I’m not saying the logic is being stretched that far, but I do think the point is IT IS WRONG TO RAPE A HUMAN BEING. It doesn’t matter who they are and no matter what other achievements a rapist may have achieved in life they are still a rapist.
I think this is a good point given that if rape is about control, then consistently referring to women as an extension of another person would only perpetuate the problem.
I didn’t get the sense that it was an assumption of belonging to/having relationship only to a man/men, though it’s predominantly used. Girls/women can be indoctrinated by both men and women that value relies on being with a man or being in a relationship with someone. I think it’s probably a valid argument no matter who you’re talking to…?
That’s a good point – to remember that the speaker could just as easily be a woman referring to antoher women in terms of that woman’s relationship to herself. While the relationship may be a reason why that SPECIFIC person cares, it’s not the foundation for why society as a whole cares.
Well said, Kristen.
I am not putting the original post down in any way. This post is so strong in the wake of what’s happening. It’s a shame that we have to address these issues still. I don’t, however, agree that by using terms that describe relationships with others is being a rape apologist.
“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.”
I think this argument was a bit stretched by assuming that the only people who use these terms are men, or that by using these terms, women are confined to these roles. By calling someone a daughter or a sister, ‘one is advancing the idea that a woman is valuable in so much as she is loved’, period. That’s the argument being made in those instances.
Do I think this post is strong and deserves to be heard? Absolutely. For every woman AND man, girl OR boy that’s been raped or assaulted, there are no excuses for their assailants.
What you addressed really frustrated me when I read this. You took the words right out of my mouth and I couldn’t have stated it any better!
This pretty much sums up my thoughts too.
Where in there did you get the assumption that all rape apologists are men? Or that only men are making these kinds of statements. I think that that was your own projection onto the article.
The problem is that not only men fall in to the “relational value” way of thinking, many women do it too. The reason is that it is deeply embedded in our culture, in our media, and in our relationships that only aware women and very few men even realize it is happening. This is a very male-centric country, and everything a woman is or does is judged by her relationship or value to a man, even if only subconsciously. I was born a man, and grew up as one. I have lived the last year, mostly, as a woman, and the way it has opened my eyes to the blatant, but almost subliminal, misogyny in our society has been amazing. I recommend reading, for everyone, but especially for cissexual heterosexual men, the book “Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity” by Julia Sorano.
Kristen K: It doesn’t matter if the woman is married to man or a woman – it still basing right not to be raped based solely on her value to another person instead of recognizing her as an individual in her own right. You think you are contradicting gender stereotypes but you are missing the entire point of this article by getting caught up in those stereotypes yourself.
People (not just men) tend to value those within their sphere of relationships more than those without. Which is ok. We all care a little more about “our” people. Not just “our” women (as if the possessive pronoun actually implied ownership). I’m not a frequent news watcher, so I am unfamiliar with the story your post refers to. I can’t comment on that – only to say that it sounds like one of many perversions of justice that are all too typical in rape cases.
But really, how in the crap is it wrong to appeal to a man through relationships that he SHOULD value (those with his mother, wife, daughter) in order to get him to recognize evil against a person he is wrongly devaluing? A guy who doesn’t care that woman was raped needs something, SOMETHING, to help him see that it matters and that it’s never a woman’s fault when she is raped.
Why is it ok to use this kind of argument (i.e. one targeted at men)? Because the overwhelming majority of rape victims are women, the overwhelming majority of rapists are men. There is clearly a problem with the men. So yes, make arguments THAT ADRESS THE IGNORANCE OF MEN, dang it.
IMHO, the relationship of “wife”, “mother” and “daughter” isn’t used to express “ownership” by a man. It’s used to express love. It humanizes the victim because it reminds us that she could be someone we love. It’s the same argument we would use to counter proposals that involve sending soldiers off to war: These are your fathers, husbands and sons. You shouldn’t oppose the war because you own these people. You should oppose because you love them, and they might die if they go.
I second this comment, I also never EVER read that wife/daughter/mother = possession.
Even if well-intentioned, it still is defining women by their relationships and if someone needs a rape victime “humanized”, then they don’t understand the horror of it. If someone has a sense of empathy for another human being, they don’t need the latter any more humanized.
And if they don’t understand the horror of it, then don’t they need rape victims “humanized?” I mean… not to state the obvious. Seems to me that efforts to help people understand the horror of it, when they don’t, is a good thing.
I think the problem of ‘relationship’ could rest in the sad fact that many women are victims of sexual abuse by their own family members. Same is true for boys and men. So in reality, while I understand what you are saying Simon, many rape victims would struggle with it.
You’ve given me something to think about. Thank you.
You should oppose rape and war because you love people. That is the point this article is attempting to make and you and many others are clearly missing. All humans belong to the same species. We are all humans. Women, Daughters, Mothers, and sisters also can be sent to fight in the military.
I don’t think that your counter-argument does any more than enforce the reduction of women. I know that it’s well meaning, I know that you want to humanize people. I’m not angry. But women go to war too.
This isn’t a gendered problem. Empathize because they’re people. Living, breathing people.
Very good point. That is the thought that came to mind for me while reading, too.
Simon while you’re sentiment is in the right place I urge you to do some reading up on linguistics and on the power of languages effect on cultural attitudes. Examine how the English language is immersed in words that appear endearing in surface sentiment but in their literal definition are tied to ideas that are derogatory or at least underscore how a woman is “other” : even the word woman adds the prefix “wo-” to “man”: this is a long-standing language practice of modifying the original “good/correct/real” word to underscore how the new word is different and ultimately “less than” -words that simply mean to delineate clearly different objects differ greatly from one another like orange and chair unlike those that differentiate in status/desirability like attractive vs unattractive. From small details to the very obvious, language is an enormous signifier of a cultures previous attitude as well as a useful predictor of a cultures future attitude so while as an adult you could imbue anything with the sentiment your kindly motivated heart truly operates from, you are not the sole person interacting with those words which maybe ultimately be hurtful.
I see your pint and the thing about soldiers also occurred to me. It is the love in those relationships that is important and ergo humanizes victims. However, the worrying thing there is that it very subtly suggests that those people who are not loved by someone do not deserve protection, cannot be humanized, and that it does not matter so much if they are damaged by another human being. Ultimately the argument of this posting still stands, it should not matter who you are; what you do; who you know; or even whether you are beloved by someone else, you should never ever be raped or a victim of violence, whether you are male or female.
Another key issue is that soldiers choose to be soldiers – being sent to war is a part of what they have willingly signed up for whereas (by the sheer nature of what rape is) no one ever chooses to be raped, no one signs up for sexual abuse.
to be clearer: I was not equating rape victims with soldiers. I was equating the language used to engage empathy for they two groups.
This is a really important critique. Your argument, though, is one pertaining to empathy as a whole. Whether for the image of “love” or “ownership” the matter is about how and when someone becomes “human” to another. I think her argument is: a human is a human and that humanness should not have to be made evident by the person’s relevance or relationship to you.
There is different historical context in using the argument of women under ownership of (or being defined by) men than in making the argument for humanizing soldiers, casualties, and “enemies” because of the fact that war kills people. Her post is talking about the insidious ways our culture still determines the value of women by their relationship to other people, a society which once (legally) defined women as property. Women are not given agency.
Her argument could be expanded upon by mentioning how this tactic is used for the “humanization” of all minorities (race, age, sexual orientation, etc.), but its focus is on women because of the specific rape of a young woman by two men in recent media.
Not all rape victims are woman and not all soldiers are men.
THANK YOU!
You are missing the point Simon … a rape victim does not need your or my love she or he needs justice and equal rights. If one has to ‘love’ her or him to understand that rape is unacceptable than indeed humanity has not come fare yet … but than it has not obviously.
I think this is a good point as well.
But what happens to the people who have no one to love them? Should they be raped or go to war? Nobody should be humanized based solely on the fact that someone loves them, because you can’t speak for every single human. Something to think about.
Simon, two points. One, your argument that the people going off to war are “your fathers, husbands, and sons” points to a mistaken belief that everyone in the armed services are men. Two, I find it really insidious that we live in a culture that says rape is only bad if she could be someone we love. Rape is one of the most brutal, awful acts imaginable, and that is true whether the victim is someone lovable or not.
That might make sense if there wasn’t the whole, y’know, patriarchy thing.
Oh go trim your goatee!
Actually it’s a beard now.
Yes, it is used to express love. So does that imply that the ‘unlovable’ are fair game? To say that one is trying to humanise the victim to a rapist has one major fallacy. The rapist DOES NOT CARE. They don’t care if it is a mother, brother, sister, son. They want power. They do it because ‘ at that time, they COULD DO IT. The boys from Steubenville bought into that. They did it because they COULD, because they wanted to. That doesn’t make them poor diddums, It makes them rapists. For all their life, juvie sentence not excluded, they are and WILL BE rapists. They may never accept that they are rapists. But they are.
Thank you for your loving response. But this is not the thinking behind the words, I believe. Instead, I agree with the article’s author about women having been viewed as chattel for too long. A history class I once took included this phrase: “The Indian Tribe moved northward, taking the women and children with them.” Get it?
I agree. I don’t think it’s meant to diminish the value of women, but to remind men that someone they love could fall victim to these beasts who mask themselves as men. Those criminals in Stuebenville deserve prison for a very long time, not this little slap on the wrist and the unsaid, “Boys will be boys.” These are not boys. They are violent criminals and should be treated as such. Apologists for them are shameless misogynists.
Thank you , Simon. Women are not men. We are equal in human dignity, but we are not men. We need to recognize the beautiful differences and stop trying to equal us all out to droids. Women are mothers, daughters, sisters, and that is completely awesome.
Both statements relate the victim (either rape victim or war casualty) to the person making/believing in the statement. However, that does not make the two statements equatable. In the American culture, more often than not the soldiers are considered heroes, even by many who oppose the war. Even if you hate the war and you want the soldiers to come home, people who know soldiers in the war will almost always think, “But at least they’re heroes.” It puts them up on a pedestal, and by association, that puts you on their level, too. You don’t want them to be hurt, but at least they were heroes.
What the “wife, mother, and daughter” argument does is say that women need to be protected from rape because once a woman has been raped, she is now “damaged” or, as we’re seeing with Stuebenville, “a slut”. And this argument says that we need to protect our women from becoming damaged/promiscuous because we don’t want to associate with their shame with us.
And obviously these two could be switched, because men can be raped and women can serve in the military. But in any case, it’s important to note that humans do not belong to other humans. Ever. So to say that the only reason we want to protect a person is because of their association with us immediately states that we are selfish as human beings. Let’s not be selfish, and instead of saying “Imagine they’re related to you”, how about we say “Imagine they’re a person.”
I wish that was the world we live in, I do. But it isn’t. Until we do, I see no harm in saying “imagine they’re related to you” if that’s what it takes to achieve sympathy for a victim or to value another’s right to not be violated.
Thanks for all of the thoughtful replies. Well maybe not so much from Margaret 😉 After I posted, I realized that many might think that I was suggesting that those who are not loved don’t deserve protection. I should have clarified:
I don’t personally think that a woman needs to be loved by a man (or by anyone) to have her rights protected. The author’s stance is that a person’s uniqueness – their humanness – should be the only thing required to guarantee them that protection, and that is absolutely right.
But sadly, absolutely unrealistic for the world we live in.
@Venustribes got it right: the world isn’t there yet. The fact is, we as humans (male and female) often have a *very* hard time empathizing with anyone who we don’t know. That’s how we’re able to turn a blind eye to the suffering of so many, even those in our immediate community.
The attempt to connect people to victims of rape using the “mother, daughter, wife” (and I’d add “sister” too BTW) is an attempt to make us care about them, through the suggestion that it’s possible to actually, yes, *care*. It’s the same gentle coercion we use in PSAs that remind us to pull over when we hear ambulance or fire sirens (“the person they’re trying to save could be a loved one of yours”). The author and many of the replies I’ve received are right: it shouldn’t matter.
But it does. And I’ll speak for myself in saying that I don’t really care if people need to see a stranger as someone they could love, care for, heck even “own” if that’s what it takes to bring them around to the belief that they must support this person.
This is why I can’t stand John Mayer’s song “Daughters” – same mentality.
YES! That song sends me into such a rage. And my mother was using it as her phone ringtone when I called!!! I made her switch it.
I agree — EXTREMELY patronizing, to point of nausea, especially this part:”On behalf of every man
Looking out for every girl
You are the god and the weight of her world” yuck.
Oh, I hate that song! I find it so patronizing! I’m glad I’m not the only one.
Yes. This.
I know too many men who are incapable of empathizing with rape victims without the aid of the wife/sister/daughter argument. They cannot conceive of themselves as rape victims, so that argument just bounces off them.
They cannot conceive of themselves as rape victims because they cannot conceive of themselves as women because they do not truly see them as people.
The “wives, sisters and daughters” allegory is made, not to devalue the personhood of a woman, but to connect with some idiot who is having difficulty recognizing said personhood of women, in general.
As long as there are such idiots who do not inherently comprehend that “a woman is a person,” an individual with rights and personal space sacred to her and independent of any relationship to a man, then such allegory may be the only way to make such a necessary connection. And that’s a tragedy in and of itself.
Reblogged this on Alternative Rambling Mam and commented:
This. Everything this. Please read. x
Reblogged this on Astrid Cook – The Right Writer and commented:
This is everything I struggle to explain about this whole awful story.
You know what else bothers me? It seems that when someone frames it that way, they’re deliberately excluding women as their audience. Take the president’s speech: “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.” Was he only speaking to men? Oh sure, I have a mother and a daughter, but I sure felt like I was left out of the target audience.
Luna– hadn’t quite thought of it as an ‘exclusion’, but that is really what it is. Great point.
I agree with you. I think that address sounds like the speaker is only addressing men. I have never thought deeply about this but I know understand why I feel so deeply disconnected when I hear that phrase. It’s like being in the room when someone else is talking ABOUT you, not to you.
“It’s like being in the room when someone else is talking ABOUT you, not to you.”
Exactly.
Not to sound brash, but if you think about it, given the context of rape(not sodomy) that portion pretty much did apply the the men. It wasn’t meant to “EXCLUDE” women its just that due to the nature of the situation, it was deemed appropriate. Kind of the same manner as what “Paul Birnbaum” said above.
If everything was backwards and the crime commited could only be applied to a male then the “target” audience would generally be women. I do understand why you believe otherwise though…
thanks
You are amazing. Thank you so much for these words.
Exactly!
As a mother, daughter, sister, grandmother, I understand what you are trying to get across. My sons friends all call me mom; always have, and now as adult men, still call me mom. I don’t mind, I find it as a term of endearment. I didn’t appreciate it when I was married and was identified as “Richard’s wife”. I felt as though I was invaluable as an individual. Therefore, in one way, your point is well taken. In regards to using this phrase in explaining a situation to men, well, we need to use whatever we need to use to get the point across. I work as a sexual assault victim services advocate. I am also a femininst. I do, however, have great respect for men and realize that men look at things and understand things in a different way than women. The mars and venus deal. I don’t think, in this situation, that using the titles of mother, sister, daughter is in anyway meant to devalue women, only to assist men in understanding and comprehending the disasterous effect of rape.
Keep blogging.
In Argentina, Belgium,Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway ,Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, CT, DC, IA, MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, VT and WA you could be speaking to anyone.
Exactly my thoughts! Address us as people instead of relations!
Excellent blog–I reblogged it and shared on facebook. Everyone needs to read this.
YES!!! SO TRUE!!
Luna, exactly what i wanted to say. thank you.
Well, except a woman CAN have a wife in some places too. And hopefully more every passing year.
“I am the Steubenville daughter”. By saying this, I mean, it’s happened to us all, most of us. Every woman you pass in the street, is the Steubenville daughter. We have been raped, mocked, taunted, stalked, ridiculed, shunned, laughed at, subjected to other sexual assaults (because must have wanted it, right?). When I say “I am the Steubenville daughter:” I don’t literally mean, someone’s relative. I mean woman. We are all daughters of this Earth. This didn’t just happen to one girl, once. This is us.
what about lesbian couples?
Thank you for including women who have turned their backs on their families in your list of women who are not wives, sisters, or daughters. I had to break contact with mine because they are toxic to me. It’s not a decision that anyone should have to make, but some of us had to anyway – and tend to get left out of conversations like this because it was “voluntary” and we can “re-establish ties” any time we want to. But it’s not that simple – and it does impact our lives, and it does leave us vulnerable to logic like this. I am grateful that you saw that.
Why are women perceived as possessions? Could the statement “wives, daughters, and sisters” not be interpreted as more of a personal relationship directly specific to an individual. Whether you have a sister, daughter, or know your biological mother, we all can consider someone who has been a sister to us, even looked after someone like a daughter, or have received love and kindness from a motherly figure. It strikes more of a personal chord to someone who does not belittle women but exalts them.
Reblogged this on obsecrations.
I understand the principle of the argument here, which is that woman should be valued as individuals as supposed to their value being attached/related to others. I don’t think the message comes across very well because of the strong judgement and tone the author takes. You can’t yell and hate people to change, and in someway it undermines/devalues the message (which is a very good one).
So I am curious though. If I was going to talk to my friends and family about lessons learned from the Stubeubenville case, the first thing I would mention is how important it is to take personal responsibility of your own safety, and not get wasted and pass out. I bet there would be some who says that is an apologist point of view but I disagree. First and foremost we should teach people that they are valuable as humans and they should treat themselves with value (ie, be wise and good to our bodies). The second lesson for me would be about to treat others with dignity, respect and kindness. Because how can we treat others with that type of dignity if we have issues treating ourselves with dignity.
I am not blaming the victim, but to avoid being a victim we need to start by taking care of ourselves. This is all situational though. There are cases where victims are violated when completely sober and seemingly in safe situations. And it’s not just woman, but men and little kids, and elderly, and the list goes on…..
So this is what you do with a degree in English and comparative literature, huh? You pick out specific rhetorical devices used to catch attention, overanalyze the crap out of them, conduct some sort of kindergarten level psychological evaluation of their intentions, and then extrapolate it to all of society. How about you pull your head out of your nether-regions and ACTUALLY talk to people, and particularly men, because of you did you would realize that blaming “men and all their horribleness” is just promoting a gender war and actually setting us women back.
I’ve noticed the same thing when public figures talk about homosexuality: “Many of us have friends or family members who are homosexual.” How about “Many of us ARE homosexual”!!!
Reblogged this on I'm Not a Librarian and commented:
Poignent and true. Stop rape culture now.
Reblogged this on Black Girls Don't Blush and commented:
Wonderfully and well put.
Perfectly put, great perspective and well-stated.
I completely agree. Females, be they little girls, adolescents, young women or elderly are taken for granted.
Rape used to be a capital offence. Even as late as 2008, six states had capital statutes dealing with rape of underaged victims. They weren’t repealed, but stricken by the SCOTUS.
As for ‘ruining’ teens’ lives; the victim’s life was ruined. I believe that sentence of life, with parole after forty years would have sent the unequivocal message that the crime is grave, a first degree felony, rather than a way to get laid.
Sometimes, you lead by example. At other times, you lead by making an example of criminals.
A similar case is slithering its way through the Texas legal system. Twenty males, ranging from their teens to twenties, took turns gang-raping an eleven-year old girl in a trailer house about 90km north of Houston.
Reblogged this on Perspicere and commented:
As Ashley Judd wrote “Patriarchy is a system that men AND women participate in – – We all look for ways to communicate with imbeciles – so we try to help them see things from a perspective that is closest to them… one they can’t miss.
This post here is high level thinking and very few of us can see from that vantage point in today’s society. Thank you for elevating us one blog post at a time.
As Ashley Judd wrote “Patriarchy is a system that men AND women participate in – – We all look for ways to communicate with imbeciles in an effort to help them see things from a perspective that is closest to them… One they can’t miss.
This post here is high level thinking and very few of us can see from that vantage point in today’s society. Thank you for elevating us one blog post at a time.
I cant even begin to explain how MUCH this has moved and touched me!!! solidarity, thank you soo much T.T (there happy tears.. and sad ones to i guess.. a mix)
Reblogged this on writingincrimson and commented:
Excellent points, and a well-written piece. Definitely worth the read.
really powerful and important post. well said. thank you.
While I obviously agree with your general view (women are people, no man or woman should get raped), you’re understanding this all wrong. You’re assuming that women can’t have wives, daughters, or sisters. We use this comparison often because applying basic human relationships to these events makes them personal. Its only your paranoid, morbid and twisted belief that its about women being valued as possessions. Its a very positive thing that people value their relationships with women.
Reblogged this on Fit n' Fun and commented:
Everyone should read this. Its message is one that needs to be heard.
There is no excuse for such vile behavior. I might be stirring up a hornets nest, but I would bet this doesn’t even happen if these idiots were not on a violent sports team that encourages macho bullshit and a culture that treats them like heros for inflicting suffering on other people. On top of that, they live in a bubble that makes them immune to consequences… Makes me want to puke.
The only thing the victim did wrong was make a bad choice about what she thought would be fun. These boys took advantage of a weaker victim, and I don’t give a shit about how drunk they were… There is no excuse for the choices they made.
Reblogged this on Eunoic.
If i had it my way, murdering a rapist would be a lawful act. Rapists don’t deserve to live. Doesn’t matter how young or old you are. They screw up relationships, and traumatize lives.
Yes, women should be seen as full human beings, just as men should.
However, it strikes me that this author’s view of relationships not only is odd but even may actually be part of the problem. This author views relationships as possession, but civilized relationships are distinctly NOT possession.
No spouse — husband or wife — belongs to the other; they’re partners in a grand joint effort, not possessions of each other. Children do not belong to their parents nor vice versa, though parents are responsible for children and children have responsibilities to their parents.
Relationships are not possession. Relationships are connection and responsibility. Relationships are the building blocks of empathy. And at least one of the core causes of inhumanity results from deficiency of empathy. And inhumanity also springs from disconnected, narcissistic feelings of being the only one who matters, a disconnection that is diminished by acceptance of social responsibility like that which comes through healthy relationships.
This author seems to believe that learning empathy through relationships is part of rape culture. Not only do I fundamentally disagree, but I suspect that seeing relationships as implying possession — the way the author apparently does — is part of rape culture. Viewing a connection as implying possession seems to fit with the attitude described among rapists. Whereas viewing a connection as implying responsibility should serve to impede the formation of the level of narcissism necessary to commit such a heinous inhumanity. Relationships must be seen as responsibility, as connection, and as the foundation of empathy, not as possession.
Reblogged this on Elisabeth Bee and commented:
The argument that “if it was your wife/daughter/sister…” has always felt inauthentic, but I could never articulate it. This woman does, with remarkable clarity, about the subtle ways we knowingly and unknowingly support the myth of masculine superiority and feminine inferiority. Thank you.
I never thought of it this way! I would love to read your thoughts on a little boy ( insert adjective here ) a little girl and told ” he only (same adjective) because he likes you.”
Selective Outrage. Evidently this is ok w/you:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/05/war-on-women-rape-survivor-dissed-by-colorado-politicians/
Reblogged this on just one of those day.
Great point. You respect a woman because she’s a person, not because she’s somebodies wife, mother, daughter or sister. Every woman, every girl, deserves respect. Period. What gripes me about this story is not just the apologists who are missing the point. It bugs me that I don’t read anywhere how simply crass, unfeeling, selfish, egotistical, and violent these boys were. I don’t feel sorry for them at all personally, they are getting a fairly light sentence considering the crime. But what’s being missed is that the general atmosphere in the country is so prepped for this kind of thing to happen. Girls are made sex objects from day one, in the media, in games, everywhere. Boys see and hear all this and are influenced by it. There is no balancing story being told, the concept of being “a gentleman” is dead. There is very little in the public educational system or in many dysfunctional families to teach young boys that girls and women are to be respected, no matter how drunk they are, and that to take advantage of a situation is wrong in the worst way. “No means no” is a good start, but it really doesn’t get it completely, because it should go beyond that. That girl might not have been able to say no. My daughter, now 29, told me of an incident at a well-known liberal arts college in Ohio. Two basketball players took advantage of a young woman who was too intimidated, and drunk, to say no. Any boy or man with a conscience would take a woman in that condition home. These two didn’t, they took advantage, and, when the girl bought it to the campus authorities SHE was reprimanded for drinking too much and putting herself in a bad situation. No suspension or criminal charges of any kind for the two basketball players. My daughter cussed one of them out at a party — and She was put on Probation! Sadly, the culture is broken when it comes to this issue. Thanks for your excellent post.
Interesting point. I don’t know if the “wives daughters sisters” technique is used exclusively for women. What I mean is, I’ve heard a few “husband, sons, brothers” used in regard to dead soldiers etc. I think, though, that the fact that the technique is used to convince people that she deserves sympathy rather than shame is pretty messed up. I also have a hard time believing we’re discussing this in 2013 …
Reblogged this on yuplisnin and commented:
I thought this blog was incredibly powerful, and it pointed something out to me: I had been using that wife, sister, daughter thing to try to push people into some sort of proto-empathy though something about it bothered me. This blog defines exactly what it was that I didn’t like. It may be harder to get the point across about the humanity of women and girls, but I will never use it again. Thank you. What a great essay.
Thank you! I couldn’t have said it better!! I’ll reblog this if that’s alright.