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 
I agree with you, though I think you missed a point. You seem to give the impression that all rape victimes are female. However, men have suffered rape as well. In fact, the few cases I’ve heard, many of the men were told to “suck it up” because rape is against females. While I agree with you, I believe that the other side should be brought up as well, because EVERYONE can suffer from this.
As for current rape culture, it is disgusting that ANY sympathy is given to the rapists. Rape isn’t a disorder, it’s not a disease, it is a conscious choice and those who make it deserve NO sympathy from ANYONE. No intention of spamming, but currently there’s a petition out (https://www.change.org/petitions/cnn-apologize-on-air-for-sympathizing-with-the-steubenville-rapists) demanding that CNN apologize for sympathizing with the Steubenville rapists and disregarding the ACTUAL victim. Fuck that.
Thank You for Saying it how it is!
ugh, I’m sorry but I think that being a wife, sister, daughter and mother are the best things about me, if that makes me “owned” then so be it. I think that my worth as a woman is EXACTLY tied up in these aspects…it’s mortally wrong to hurt someone BECAUSE it’s morally RIGHT to LOVE someone. mother, daughter, sister and
wife are all titles that define the love in a woman’s life, and every woman fits at least one of these categories, so it makes
perfect sense to use them to remind people that EVERYONE deserves to be LOVED and NOT HURT, regardless of whether you know them or not.
“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.” I completely disagree. they might not be the ONLY things that make her valuable, but in my opinion they are the most important. why must we demonize the beautiful feminine aspects of ourselves and value only those things about us that make us appear less vulnerable?
I am reminded of a song by Tori Amos called simply “Girl”. The chorus says, “She’s been everybody else’s girl, maybe one day she’ll be her own”. It brings up not only how lost we become when we do not belong to ourselves, only to others, but how it dehumanizes us, reduces us to the same level as the family car. Excellent article.
I strongly disagree with you. This expression is used to make the story more personal, to make the listener connect to an awful tragedy. If a child drowned in a pool, we might say: “What if that had been my child, grandchild, etc.” when a soldier dies in the war we can relate much better, feel more strongly if we say: “what if this had been my son, grandson, nephew, neighbor, etc. ” I think your anger in your article may come from an anger about the frequent second class status of women but I believe you are very wrong here.
thank you. well said.
Re-blogged this on http://eunoic.com/ !
Trying to humanize victims who are human already.
Reblogged this on kayciewrites and commented:
Researching rape culture for an editorial. This is a fantastic argument… thoughts?
So hey. What a powerful, agonising truth. Thank you for writing it.
Can it be that humans only love what they hold to be theirs? That My Love, My Daddy, My Mommy, My Child is made important, not because of their selves but because they are Mine? Have you ever heard that ghastly argument, ‘Save the earth for our children.’ As though the planet we live on is all about us and our kids, and the billions of other life forms are entertainment or food or use or nothing. Horrifically selfish: and yet we hear it touted as love all the time. Protect what belongs to Me, what validates Me. Please protect Mine.
It is the easiest way to reach across, this mutual selfishness, because it is assumed everyone shares it.
“Imagine your mother: a possession. She belongs to you and you to her. You are violated by the violation of the first thing you ever own.
Imagine your mother, a person, you love her. How would you feel to see her suffer?”
These are all crass attempts to make another feel something close to them. We only love our possessions. Demanding empathy for the people we love, like treasured gifts. Does it ever work? Do the men – not boys, men – who photograph a girl dangling between them like a doll, do they see their mother there?
Why do we keep trying to appeal to something so base? Is it because we cannot believe that humans could laugh at this girl? That despite hideous and cruel footage, a whole world seems to want to forget her and concentrate on the tears of the rapists, because they are young and play football?
This is why we talk about YOUR DAUGHTER, YOUR MOTHER, YOUR SISTER. They don’t give a damn about anything else. Empathy stops just on the line marked ‘Family,’ on a generous day.
And you are so right, we have to change that. Well done.
I just wanted to say Thank You for your well stated thoughts…
Next time maybe I should say “your son, father, husband,” because for some reason that is deemed worse, unless the victim is gay, and then, you know…. It terrifies and sickens me the way way has been bandied about by politicians and other men (and women) in power as if it were a part of life that we need to learn to regrettably accept.
Reblogged this on Melissa Nosal and commented:
While I could ramble on and on about my outrage over the disgusting acts in Steubenville, I won’t because I shouldn’t write in anger. My post would be a rage-filled mess. So I’ll just reblog this, because it hits the nail on the head.
Agreed. Why are female so much the ‘other’ that males cannot empathize with them? There are certainly some important differences between the sexes but they are actually very few and shouldn’t keep anyone from understanding people of the opposite sex. And even women are too often the ones reinforcing the idea that differences between the sexes are greater than they actually are. Until we stop believing that a person’s sex determines more about that individual than their reproductive role, then too often will we be strangers to each other and that lack of understanding, I think, is why we still have too many of these crimes being committed. Any time any group can believe that they are superior in any way and they have greater power, then crimes against the less powerful group will be committed. A lot of people, especially males, don’t recognize all the “innocent” ways females are dehumanized everyday. The question is are we ready yet to have an honest conversation about this?
Excellent, thought-provoking article, and it raises an interesting point of view. I agree victims are people first, but agree completely with Simon Cohen and also that many need the connection-to-their-world reference that Jason Quest mentions. Can not state it better.
I loved reading this!! It is so refreshing to hear this being said, I don’t think you could have said it better. It must have been a long time since I read something this stirring and true because, needless to say, I cried a little. And how sad is it that I teared up over reading a post about how all women are humans!? We hear this message so little these days that when we do hear it, it seems profound…
brilliant angle here. *sigh*
The culture will not change until young women have the self-love and self-respect to not present themselves as sexual objects. I am not talking about the rape situation at all. I am talking about the work that women did for women in the sixties and seventies. The objectification seemed to be lessening until the early ninties when women in music videos, young women and performers started dressing and acting like ho’s onscreen. They are supposed to be role models. Cultural perspectives take time to change, and young women are right back in the fifties being objectified at every opportunity, at all costs. It has only been in the last ten years (Beyonce, Lady GAGA) that performers started wearing underwear to perform. Men don’t perform in speedos! Until women stop leading with their sexuality out in the world, equality is out of the question.
I don’t see the wife/sister/daughter/ argument as dehumanizing or defining women only by what they mean to a man. First off, not only men have sisters and daughters… women do too, so its not only what they mean to men, it is, however, making a person think of this as someone they care about.
I have heard a similar argument used in regard to young men by those who oppose a particular military action, “We will be sending our sons and husbands into combat, is it worth it?” Does that define men only by what they mean to women? Well, it does fail to include the many female soldiers, but that isn’t the issue we are talking about.
I have also heard people use this same line of reasoning to discuss the need to feed impoverished children, as they show a starving child on the TV screen and they ask, “If this was YOUR child, what would you want someone to do?” I don’t think that means that a child is only valuable because of what that child means to someone else, rather I think people say this to emphasize that all children are just as valuable as the one that means so much to the viewer, and that all are worthy of protection because all are people.
Just my opinion.
Yes, yes, yes and yes. Thank you so much for this post–and especially for calling out Obama for using the same rhetoric. (I wrote the same thing on my blog right after the inauguration speech, but it takes on a much greater meaning in the context of the Steubenville case.)
THANK YOU!! THis is so spot on!
Reblogged this on Northern Lights Cafe.
Excellent article. I tend to agree that “humanizing” the victim is a very natural tendency, and the most facile way to do that is to appeal to familial relationships. But I’ll quote a reply I used in one instance that didn’t mention wives, sisters, or daughters:
__________________________________________________________
@[Idiot on Facebook] – A drunk 16-year-old girl may be a *likely* victim, but that doesn’t make her a deserving victim. These two boys are 100% responsible for what they did to her, regardless of what state she was in at the time. She could’ve been at home in bed, out on a date, studying at the library, hanging with her friends, tilling her vast potato fields, vandalizing an outhouse, composing a terrible sonnet with an inconsistent rhyme scheme, writing letters on behalf of political prisoners, painting “Fuck You!!” backwards onto her toenails, participating in the Pepsi Challenge, unclogging her muffler, speedtexting, illegally downloading a movie, Photoshopping her friends’ heads onto barnyard animals, crocheting a scarf, eating a delicious pastry, or bashing in the head of a scarecrow with a homemade padded jousting lance, and none of these scenarios would make her any more deserving of getting brutally raped, photographed, and publicly castigated by the likes of you.
I can see how this must be complicated for you, so I’ll give you a simple, two-part test for determining whether someone is at fault for being raped.
1. Was [he/she/it] a human being or other living thing?
2. If so, was [he/she/it] being raped at the time?
If you answered yes to both of these questions, then congratulations! What you’re dealing with is a “victim”, who is empirically blameless in this scenario. Go forth and sin no more.
__________________________________________________________
Humanizing was indeed what I was going for, but I hope that what I conveyed with that litany of nonsense activities before the two-part test was, “This is a person who could have been doing any or all or none of these things, and will probably enjoy them all a lot less now after what’s been done to her.”
This post is fantastic!
Many commenters here write about their intense love for their family members, but I’m surprised that there is so much context being ignored which makes “our wives, our daughters, our mothers” more than just a statement about family.
Not yet 100 years since women’s right to vote was recognized (I’m writing from the US), a scant 3 generations for many, and also so incredibly recent that rape was considered a property crime against men (because women were THEIR wives, THEIR daughters). Shockingly few decades since rape was even taken seriously as a crime; before then the only hope of the victim had of addressing the crime was through retribution from another man who cared for her in the form of a beating, and even that mostly happened in movies and the like. We (in the US) STILL share a world with women who are considered by their societies to be the legal property of men, and women for whom this is ancient history still share a society with women for whom those realities aren’t at all distant (such as recent immigrants), and such women are among those addressed by Obama as “our wives, our daughters, our mothers.”
There is also the context of rapists’ practice of targeting people who are alone and isolated– elderly people in nursing homes, mentally ill people with no safety net, disabled people who are isolated with caretakers, GLBT youth who have run away from home, and many others. People who may feel that they are no one’s child, wife, or sister (or husband, brother, son) are disproportionately targeted with rape.
And how might Obama’s address feel to the many wives and daughters whose rapists ARE their husbands and fathers?
Why is it so silly to believe that the legacy of ownership, of infantalization of women, and of second class citizenship affects those who use and hear the phrase, “our wives, our daughters, our mothers”? After all, those legacies are affecting other aspects of our lives: the phrase itself is a response to the fact that we continue to be raped at staggering numbers.
This was exactly my response. This possessive garbage seems to fly right over the heads of many males. She’s not YOUR wife or daughter, dickhead; she’s my fellow human being.
Great post thanks.
This article speaks the truth.
Right on, sister. Thank you. Such a great response to awful stuff.
I really feel like you’re reading WAY too much in to this. Anyone who can sympathize with a rapist does so because they have dehumanized the victim. If saying such things can make them stop to think long enough to realize that this is a PERSON, does it really matter how they got there? You can’t expect ignorant people to just take such a huge leap & realize that all people deserve to be treated with dignity & respect. They need baby steps.
While I get where you’re coming from, I do take issue with your statement that it defines women by their relationship to other people. I am a mother, & while it is far from all that I am, it most certainly defines me in a HUGE way. And I don’t mean in a stay at home soccer mom kind of way, because I’m not that girl at all, but my life & my choices are absolutely directed by the fact that my children (although 19 & 16 now) are always my first priority. I am, obviously, also someone’s daughter, even though I haven’t felt any sort of real connection to my parents in years &, for the most part, choose to separate myself from them. Still, being their daughter has defined me, on some level. And, at one point (twice, to be exact) I was someone’s wife. And, although I ended both marriages for different reasons, the experiences have contributed to the make up of who I am. So, yes, being a wife, mother, & daughter DOES define you. No, it’s not ALL that defines you, but it does. Just as being a son, husband, &/or father defines a man to some extent.
Honestly, it would be just as easy for the supporters of these boys to use the same argument; “How would you feel if it were your son, husband, or father whose life is being torn apart by this rape scandal?” And I am sure there are plenty of mothers out there who are looking at these boys & thinking just that. As I said, I have two teenage sons & I can tell you right now about how much weight that argument would carry with me. If it were one of MY sons, he’d be thanking his lucky stars that the cops/court got a hold of him before I did, because my boys know EXACTLY the sort of men I have raised them to be & juvenile detention would be a cake walk compared to what they’d be in for at home!
I was really into this until you brought up foster children. As a former foster child who aged out without a family, I am still someone’s daughter and someone’s sister. Foster children are not any less “real” or “valuable” than children who were not fostered.
For sure, I didn’t mean to imply that, and I’m sorry if that’s how it came across. I meant people who have been through the foster system and never felt as if they had a mother or father or sister or brother. I know people who have been through the system and never felt as if they had any familial relationships with the people who cared for them.
I completely agree with your blog post..the sad reality that in 2013 we still have to perpetuate the idea that women are actually people is ridiculous and ludicrous. But, at the same time, the argument of “wives, sisters, mothers” argument, as I saw someone stated above helps to bring the issue to a humanistic level. We should not have to, but in this society, it is a way to make the argument more viable. As well, the “wives, sisters, mothers” argument does not have to relate soley to men…just using a different wording to be inclusive to LGBTQ and trans people can make it a useful argument.
Thank you. I am not a wife, or a mother, though I’d dearly love to be. Thankfully, for now, I do still have parents, but they are aging. My sister and I were separated years ago and are just now developing a relationship worth caring about. Every time I hear that phrase it just makes me feel more out of place, less like I belong in this culture. Yet I know I have value. Some days I just have to remind me.
The coverage of the case by the news was pretty sickening, yes… This is something clear and quantifiable. However, I think you are simply looking for something to fit an ideology with the whole daughter diatribe… This is always the issue with these things. When someone speaks against war and says “how would you feel if it was your son, your father, your husband” no one makes a sound. Because it has nothing to do with possession… It has to do with relationships, the founding blocks of human purpose and interaction. You missed the mark here with this one…
this is retarded
As someone who is not a daughter, sister, wife or mother I can’t begin to say how much I appreciate this, not just in this instance but every time such a phrase is used. Because I’ve wondered it myself… Who am I if I am none of these things? It makes me feel less than when, really, aren’t I equal to? Thank you for this. For acknowledging that I am a person for who I am, not for who I am to others. I can’t tell you how much that means to me.
While I agree that the bullshit that’s happened regarding Stubenville is ridiculous, I think this article is a bit over the top – the point of the wife/sister/daughter argument is to make people fell sympathy by imagining it happened to someone close to them. Yes. Women should not be raped because they are human beings. However people to terrible things to human beings (male, female or trans) all the time.
Reblogged this on opposehumantrafficking and commented:
“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.”
Hear hear! Wells said!
Yes, yes, yes. Thank you! : )
Reblogged this on The Lobster Dance and commented:
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.”
Reblogged this on Marissa, Esque and commented:
Brilliant, and necessary ( if depressingly so)
I get it. I really do. But this rhetorical device is not all harm. We humans are not “special” based on our species, our mere personhood. That’s just about being alive and haveing been born in this species. What sets us apart from other organisms, as humans, is, in fact, our deep social relationships. Our motherhood, sisterhood, wife-hood. One person in a howling wilderness? Not a life worth living. And to say we are not defined by being mothers, children, wives…I certainly do define myself as all those. Just not ONLY those.
Wow, all well said. I wonder, were you speaking out this way when Juanita Brodderick told her story of Bill Clinton raping her? Did you demand she get her day in court? I’m sure you did, ’cause you’re so righteous now. I mean, otherwise, you’re a hypocrite, right, saying some poor black kids should be held accountable for rape but a slick white politician should not?
You know, forget I asked.
Obviously you demanded that. I mean, at least now to this day you demand Bill Clinton at least confirm or deny he raped her, right? I realize while he was president he said he didn’t have time to answer it, but, as he’s been out of office for 13 years, he can probably find a spare two seconds to say yes or no now, right?