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 
Reblogged this on nicolefillion.
I respectfully disagree with some of the points in the article. The notion that the rhetoric of “wives, daughters, sisters” serves as a perpetuation of the idea of women as merely objects doesn’t connect for me. The main reason that I fail to find the connection is for two main reasons:
A: The presupposition that the target audience of the “rapist apologists” is men.
B: That utilziing relations as an identifying characteristic is dehumanizing.
The notion of “wives, daughters, sisters” as perpetuating rape culture hinges upon the idea of a male-dominated relationship. While I would understand why this MAY be applicable to a heterosexual couple, I don’t understand how utilizing the rhetoric of one’s sibling or one’s daughter serves to turn women into possessions. I find it very hard to believe that if I went around knocking on my neighbors’ doors asking them to assist me in looking for my lost puppy, and I was greeted with indifference, and I use the argument of “imagine if it was your puppy,” that anybody would claim that I’m treating puppies in general as possessions. We are falsely presupposing that men are the only relevant audience to the “wives, daughters, sisters” empathy tactic. I fail to see/ would like an explanation as to why these words wouldn’t be spoken to a female partner, a sister, or a mother. I have an answer: because as women, they will naturally be empathetic/sympathetic to any alleged rape victim. In other words, feelings of sympathy are natural in women. This implies that men lack that natural ability to be empathetic to rape victims, and that we require a relatability test, which would only be effective with a woman (presupposition that only women are raped) that “we use to value ourselves.” Wrapped up in this claim is the rude assumption about male nature: that men can only have dominating relationships with women.
Combining these traits of a lack of natural sympathy and an unspoken imperative of dominating women, it’s no surprise to me (my comments are not meant to be malicious or acrimonious) why articles such as these fail to accomplish anything. It’s unlikely that any man will want to assist feminist movements if their/our entire gender is being painted as baseless, crude, salacious humans. Not all men require/utilize the “wives, daughters, sisters” rhetoric, and if they do, it’s not because they see women as possessions. I don’t even think it’s an issue specific to men, but to human nature in general. We tend to turn a blind eye to issues that we have no personal connection to (i.e. we would all assist a dying man right in front of us, or help people we know/love/care about, yet nobody did much to assist those being murdered in African genocides.) To wrap it up in an idiom, “out of sight, out of mind;” but that’s a human nature problem: not a male nature problem. We are human beings living in a community: we will be defined in relationship with one another: there is a difference between an identifying characteristic and a defining characteristic. The crime is not in using relationships as a defining trait: rather, it’s the supposition of patriarchy and domination that is being projected onto its terminology.
So I should not use the argument “our fathers, our brothers and our sons are dying in this war” too?
As a rape victim myself, this issue has brought up a whole lot of memories that I would prefer to have left buried. At the age of nineteen, I was raped by my housemate. This event had a massive impact on my life, and I recieved reactions from both sides. People blamed me for my own rape because I was intoxicated, and said that the guy probably just “assumed” that it was okay. It’s not okay. Rape is NEVER okay.
When people began hearing my story, they would tell me, ‘Oh that’s horrible, I couldn’t imagine how I would react if it had happened to MY daughter.’ I’m sorry that I am not related to you. I apologise for not marrying you. But I am, indeed, a human being. I have thoughts and feelings just like you. I am defined by myself, not the people who may or may not have a connection to me.
I think it is disgusting that this argument even has to be presented. Why do we need to have this conversation? This is not a discussion that we should be having in 2013. Males should not be having to be taught not to rape. It is a common human respect that when someone says no, or is in no fit state to make a decision, you don’t assume yes.
Thank you for being a wonderful feminist and voice towards gender equality. However you seem to totally disregard homosexual relationships. Do you truly believe that the daughter of two women is not a daughter and those two women mot mothers? Or are you simply to self centered to realize and care about things that don’t affect you? Being a feminist used to be about equality. For everyone. Now it seems to be about self centered girls who are only doing it to better their own lives without regards to the rest of the world. Again, thank you for what you are doing but make sure you’re doing it for the right reasons. Don’t be as ignorant as the men who suppress your rights
This argument seems like a stretch. To say that use of the “but what if she was your daughter’ argument to rape apologists equates to “women only deserve protection when valued by men” necessarily, and incorrectly, assumes that rape apologists are men. If you’ve followed the Steubenville coverage with any regularity, the “only men sympathize with the rapists” premise is shown to be false almost constantly. And saying to a woman, as is very commonly the case, that she should sympathize with the victim because “what if she was you daughter” in no way implies that her value is dependent on male sympathy and concern.
Reblogged this on Abigail's Adventures and commented:
Spot on article about rape culture, and how the supposed need to justify the protection of women by constructing them as ‘wives, sisters, daughters’ not only perpetuates patriarchal attitudes, but forgets that women should be respected as individuals. Please have a read.
Damn this is good. I’m a crusty middle-aged man and I this is piece is pure genius. Thank you for saying it.
The “sister, daughter, wife” trope is simply a desperate attempt to elicit empathy from men who can’t feel anything for anyone but themselves.
Reblogged this on Robyn Caddell, World Dreamings and commented:
I Am A Person ….. how can this not make all men shudder!
First off, I completly agree with your take in terms of the media coverage of this trial. It was simply disgusting to watch. Seemed like a lot of the media was more concerned with how the rape charges would impact the lifes of the criminals involved and not the victims!
I must say I somewhat see your point when talking about: “Wife, Daughter, Sister” argument to some degree. Yes, I agree it shouldn’t be needed. I think the issue is more with the lack of empathy from people and not all out sexism. I don’t think when someone says: “imagine if she was your sister.” If you simply changed the term to “imagine she was family.” The message is fairly close and I don’t think there is any ill intent. Also about the what if they don’t have family comment you’ve mentioned. I think that is a little bit of a null argument as they already want you the imagine that women as your family to share a sense of unity.
Another point is those same expressions are used for men. Maybe not always in the same context, but used none the less. “Brothers let us stand together.” Saying something like this is to unite people to think of one another like family I really don’t think there is anything wrong with saying that. Also I’ve seen various crimes were the victims family have said things like “what if that was your son/brother/husband.” Now I’m sure it comes up more for women because there is a lot of violence against women, but once again I don’t think framing something like that is usually sexist. Sure we shouldn’t need to pretend to be family in order to feel empathy or respect for someone. Some people however need a reminder. That’s the sad truth.
Reblogged this on Write To Live, Live To Write and commented:
This, a MILLION fucking times, this. Thank you.
I really like your post. I really do. And I’m not going to tell you that you have it all wrong (God, don’t you just love rhetorical devices?). But I think I might stick my head in the oven. Although not before my fully-formed daughter leaps from my forehead. Don’t call her Athena, don’t call her Woman, but rather, call her Person.
Also, please, send Leda my apologies. If you don’t know anything about our sordid past, don’t worry, it’s not important: let’s keep things nondescript. Just know that she’s a person. Don’t you dare think of her as a mother, daughter, or sister. That would make it far too easy (and too evil) to empathize with her. What a cop-out. Don’t think of her as Greek. Strip her of all context. Then, i’m sure, her story will resonate — in the darkest depths of the river Lethe.
This post really bothers me.
As a woman, and daughter and sister and lover and friend I disagree that these terms isolate a woman and render her to a status of a simple possession of another being. These terms are meant to humanize by putting a recognizable face to an other wise unrelated, unidentifiable individual. These same terms can be flipped, and frankly are just as frequently used by and for men. Referring to someone as brother, son, father, lover or friend isn’t taking possession of the male persona anymore so than female synonyms above.
Is it not better to appeal to the human connection which makes this everyone’s issue rather than referring to the individual as faceless victim? At the risk of significant backlash I warrant to say that you are mistaking relationship by a defined association for possession or marginalization. There is strength in relationships, as the odd adage goes, power in numbers. Make it an issue which men can take “ownership” of, forcing them to consider the effect of rape on the women in their lives that they respect and cherish makes it their problem. It is simple psychology, think about terrible act of random violence toward a man you don’t know, now swap this unknown person for your brother. While neither instance is less or more acceptable it is human nature to take issue with what is more personal. An attack on someone you know is much more fundamentally disturbing than someone you don’t.
Articles which so blatantly disregards the value of relationships between men and women have underpinning tones which lead to the thought that to be a feminist is to eschew relationships with men. Strength can be garnered from all host of life experiences, including support from those we having in our lives, male, female, family, friend, stranger or otherwise. To be secure enough to recognized that some issues are not a gender issue, but a human issue is the first step to making rape and disrespect toward women everyone’s problem.
I am proud to say I am a daughter, sister, lover, friend and a WOMAN. I am an individual. I am proud. I am strong, secure and confident, but I recognized that I am vulnerable. We (as society, not just women – this is most defiantly very prevalent in men) see vulnerabilities as weaknesses. To be vulnerable is now in direct contradiction with power. We need to recognize that there are times, or issues where we can draw strength from the collective to empower us all. I accept support and love from those in my life when needed, but I NEVER feel that my self worth is defined by these titles. They are but supporting characters in my life role as woman, but they are also what bind me to those that lift me in to the spotlight when I cannot go it alone.
To Carla,
Thank you for posting this. I, too, am so proud of being a daughter, a sister, a wife, and hopefully, also a mother in time. I am also proud of my other roles in life, as a teammate, resource, advocate, student, teacher, friend, and lover. I do not hesitate to say that truly, I define myself in part by these roles. They make me who I am, and I am happy with my self-image.
This bit of the original post makes me cringe: “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.” It makes me cringe because being someone’s wife and someone’s mother and someone’s daughter and someone’s sister absolutely does carry value. I choose not to believe that referring to a woman in terms of her roles in life is an insult, or a political tool to keep women from attaining equality in society. Is it really better to refer to me as ‘the manager,’ even though having a job is as much my own decision as being a wife?
Within this post, I wholeheartedly agree that blaming the victim must stop, and that the focus on social media and frankly irrelevant details of the case is wrong, disrespectful, and disgusting. But I think it’s a far cry from saying that referring to women by their life roles is the real problem. It’s not. Rape is. And at the end of the day, I’m prouder to have meaningful relationships – and to be known by them – than to be be called just a ‘person.’ I am more than just a person, and it is precisely because I am more than just a person that I know how to empathize with and respect others. Being the daughter, sister, wife, friend, lover, boss, student, teacher, and advocate that I am makes me much stronger and more powerful than anyone who is defined as just a person.
I think the point is, not that women identify with those roles but, that it takes men imagining a woman in one of those roles related to them “our wives, daughters, sisters, etc.,” in order for the men to value an unknown woman or empathize with her assault, or lack of fair pay etc.
We as a society need to value all people no matter their gender or sexual orientation or race as equal human beings.
Someone wrote on another site that brought this issue up that the writer who suggested they “imagine it is your daughter, ….” that they were “only trying to humanize the victim.” Women are human so don’t need humanizing unless society has given us a less than human position. And sadly, whether men or women are aware of it, our culture has relegated women to second class citizens…human yes, but not quite equal to men. Thus we have men in the military who perceive women as providers only, whether it be of food, health care, or sex, and so whether or not they want to provide sex, male soldiers take it from them. But it isn’t even about sex, it is about men keeping their role, defending their own insecurities via power & control as the dominant gender, the ones in charge.
Parents complain about the masogeny in some rap music, but they don’t hear it in the very language around them.
The women on the so-called reality shows are constantly referred to as girls, but the bachelors whether it be one or many are rarely referred to as boys. Parents love to call their sons their “little man,” but have you ever heard anyone call their daughter “my little woman?” Loisa May Alcotts book by that title is a classic but it is one of the few instances where girls are referred to as Little Women, while boys get elevated to men all the time.
Men are still telling their sons not to be sissy’s not to act like a girl, not throw a ball like a girl, implying there is something wrong with a girl, not to have feelings or to man up, not to show your feelings they have them, “there’s no crying in baseball!” It is everywhere but we are so used to it, we just accept it.
This blogger has asked that we take a deeper look. Instead of defending the status quo, lets do that and encourage “our men, our husbands, our sons, our boyfriends, our brothers and our fathers” to do the same.
I agree 100% to each and every single word you have written! I knew a girl once who was raped at a very young age by someone from her own family. She was shattered, broken! But as she grew, she became a very indecent person…she believed that the world and God weren’t just to her,so by being bad, she’ll repay them! i saw her destroy her life herself..I saw her live like a corpse everyday..and i saw her die….I never understood why she was not given justice before today…but after reading ur post today I realize it was because she was not the “possession” of an important man!
While I could not agree more with the author’s no-nonsense stance against rape and rightful indignation at media coverage such as CNN, her anger has evidently prevented her from forming a rational response. She focuses her anger not on rapists and the media – the perpetrators and perpetuators of “rape culture”- but a meaningless attack on the phrase “mothers, wives, and daughters”. I think it is extremely reasonable to assume Obama would just as easily use the phrase, “fathers, husbands, and sons” as a rhetorical device. Is Obama known to be a sexist? Why assume a sexist intent? In addition, those using the phrase are CLEARLY not offering a reason why women should not be raped. Rather, they are simply personalizing the issue- which is the most effective way to get people to care about any issue-whether it be poverty, disease, or disaster. Worthless article.
These are my thoughts
I watched the “Woman – Female – Lady (I would like to use another words to describe her) report on the case in the court room after these two rapists where given a joke of a sentence. I wanted to vomit. I could not believe that in 2013 I would hear such drivel coming out of a persons mouth. “Feel sorry for them- Their lives are in ruins – They were crying when they apologized” I sincerely hope that their lives are ruined because they had no compunction ruining a sixteen year old’s life. I sincerely hope that they will be registered as sex offenders.
Society needs to realize that it is not only that we stop referring to women as mothers, daughters, sisters, but as people. It is important that young boys are taught from a very early age to respect all people, including women. They need to learn this from the media, from their parents.
The availability of pornography on the net and social media has no doubt made this issue so much worse, as young boys watch this, they believe that all females are their purely for their satisfaction and power games.
Enough said. The ruling of this case is disgusting. It certainly does not show the judge in a good light.
Reblogged this on A Gentle Murmur and commented:
Perfect articulation of what has been bothering me for a while now.
Relationships are what makes us human. What woman isn’t a wife, mother, sister, daughter? Are we supposed to feel ashamed of these things now too?
One other thing- To not feel empathy for those who committed the crime is to dehumanize them. It is a childish thought that there are “good guys” and “bad guys” and to presume that these guys are wholly, 100% evil creatures and strip them fully of regular human empathy is hopelessly self righteous and downright ignorant. All people are vastly more complex than that; possessing both virtues and vices which manifest themselves in varying scales in our lives. While harping on the humanity of women, the author fails to recognize that criminals, too, are people. THIS IS NOT TO LESSEN THE WEIGHT OF THEIR CRIME IN THE SLIGHTEST, SHIFT BLAME, OR ADVOCATE FOR ANYTHING LESS THAN PROSECUTION TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW. However, it is to address the hypocrisy in dehumanizing the dehumanizer and the failure to understand that absolute outrage on behalf of the victim and a sense of deep regret on behalf of the perpetrator are not mutually exclusive. In fact, this is the most humane response of all.
Holy &#(*&@, put down the bong and join us back here in reality.
Everything you attribute to the phrase is incorrect. The purpose of the phrase is to try to elicit empathy out of people who are not, apparently, showing enough empathy. It is not limited to rape, nor to women.
The phrase is used as well for sons, husbands, and brothers. And is used for any type of tragedy, not just rape.
It has nothing to do with the relationships of the victim, and everything to do with the relationships of the person against whom it is being directed. It is saying “What if the victim were important to you? Would you feel differently? Because, every victim is important to somebody”.
When you choose a battle such as this; to try to attribute misogyny where there is none, you degrade the entire conversation of equality and rights. As Ashlee pointed out, you have taken something benign and well intentioned and attempted to turn it into a weapon against everyone.
In doing so, you have made people afraid not only to try to instill empathy in others, but less likely (and even guilty) to feel it themselves.
Now, you may feel happy with yourself as a valiant defender of sexual identity, but, ultimately you have degraded the entire dialogue and frightened off any support you may have had for that egotistical goal.
Reminding people of relationship and importance has nothing to do with “possession”, and everything to do with the fact that some people don’t feel that empathy and need a reminder about why they should.
Relationships are what make us human. Go find a woman who isn’t a daughter, mother, sister, daughter. Am I supposed to feel ashamed of these things now too?
This is the longest blog i have read about NOTHING. Can’t believe that so many are responding so passionately about something so irrelevant.
If I were to say, “Hopefully the war will end so our brothers, husbands and fathers will return home,” does this somehow degrade soldiers’ “humanness”, and de-personify them? What about the women serving? What about orphaned trans-gendered soldiers? Or the soldiers who might have been conceived in a test tube. Get a life people. (And please don’t start splitting hairs saying: “that is faulty analogy, soldiers are consenting adults…”)
Of course rape is wrong. Be it of a man, woman, boy, or girl.The fact that the girl may or may not be mother, daughter, wife is irrelevant. And I think everyone knows that. The statement in no way degrades the victim in question, Stella or any of the others who were raped and orphaned. Sounds to me like people just want to b!tch for sake of bi!ching and they have some unresolved issues that they take every opportunity to talk about.
And of course the media follows the rapists; unlike the victim (who was a human and a female who just so happens, believe it or not, to be a daughter) the rapists’ names are public. it makes a good story and it sells news. Just look at how it’s gotten all of y’all huffing and puffing and no doubt clicking on links to the story and buying newspapers.
I apparently do have to tell you that this “rape” was more like possible molestation, and that apparently the “victim” didn’t have an issue with what happened until she was shamed on social media by the friends who “let” this happen to her and/or set it all up. What they did was ignorant and despicable, but I have the same amount of sympathy for the “victim” as I do for a drunk guy who wanders down a dark alley with his wallet out singing that he just got paid. Why can’t people accept responsibility for their own actions anymore? This isn’t “rape culture.” It’s stupid teenagers who do stupid things to other drunk teenagers, male and female. Stop victim creating.
Rape is rape. A victim is a a victim. Often molestation is rape. When a person is mugged in an ally, we don’t accuse them of falsifying the truth, or say, “Your mugging was more like a lesser offense.” We do not look into their private lives, manner of dress or nullify verdicts because we assume the mugging victim “had it coming.” Your thoughts are dangerous, and people like you are the reason these dialogues are so essential.
@mike cory, are you really equating having your wallet stolen to being raped?
You are essentially saying a woman’s (or man’s) right to bodily integrity/safety is on a par with property rights. No. My body isn’t property, and just because I’m in public does not give anyone a right to it whether I’m drunk or not.
I had my purse stolen once. I felt violated in the moment, but I was easily able to get everything sorted out financially, and I rarely ever even think about it today. Sexual assault leaves an indelible blot on a person’s memory, and that betrayal and violation never goes away. Instead of thinking about, “Aw, crap, someone stole my wallet while I was stumbling drunk,” consider instead how you’d feel if you got drunk and had another man force himself on you or had a woman penetrate you against your will. Now consider that that person is a friend — a long-time trusted friend and confidante. And then consider how long it would take you to get over *that compared the the inconvenience and annoyance of having your wallet stolen.
Reblogged this on gneepy und die welt und kommentierte:
How true!
“I have a husband and a young son, and it scares the shit out of me to think that if either of them were sexually assaulted or raped, they would struggle to get the help they needed.”
-from your article on The Good Men Project (http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/rape-culture-what-it-is-and-how-it-works/)
Yes, I definitely wrote that! But the challenges facing male rape victims are different (though no less important) than those faced by female rape victims. This article was specifically about how we talk about women.
Wives-Mothers-Sisters is just argument-by-pathos to soften stony hearts. It takes an incredible amount of parsimony to see this as a malicious definition of women as male property. How could you be so censorious about what is a genuine and well-intentioned attempt to get people to relate in some way to the victim? If a man were sentenced to death for a drunken brawl that went to far and ended in homicide, would we be compromising his humanity to say “this could have happened to your brother-father-son?” We’d simply be bringing his case home for everyone. There really is some impressive feminist theory out there. Erudite, over-educated women and men mortgage their own health and social lives to produce quality thought on behalf of women, and a wider audience should be reading their serious work instead of this trifling, petty belly-aching.
While I think I understand your argument, I never really read that phrase as a way of humanizing the victim. Rather, I’ve thought it a way of calling on you, the reader, listener, receiver of the message to be humanized.
Who is she? She is my daughter. Yes, that’s a concerning reference as it implies ownership on some level and that her importance is tied to her relationship with me.
How would you feel if it was your daughter?
Totally different. I get that the reference is offensive to many folks but now that point is being raised at or above the level of the underlying tragedy (at least that’s my perspective).
I’m going to continue down my path – staunchly defensive of a woman’s rights but not so over-the-top that I can’t understand the meaning of a reference to one’s kin without thinking it’s automatically anti-womens’ rights.
I couldn’t agree with you more. We have to stop reading meaning into every saying, comment, or turn of phrase. Soon we won’t be able to speak without our words being ripped apart for some meaning that offends some group of individuals somewhere. All that does is promote hatred and misunderstanding.
The best way to stop bad behavior is to promote empathy in any way possible. This is how we learn to treat people the way we’d like to be treated. That and only that will end rape, end wars, end crime and violence in all it’s forms. I’m ok with pretty much any words we use to get there.
When I think of my sister, mother and future wife, I obviously imagine them as persons. I believe that the reason people use this line of rhetoric is not to humanize the victims, but rather to humanize the callous listener who is unable to sympathize with a rape victim. Furthermore, nature of rape invokes a certain amount of privacy for the victim. And it is this necessary privacy, that may portray a rape victim as a person unrelatable to the average male, thus requiring the wife, sister, daughter rhetoric. Overall, I really enjoyed your article. It is certainly at the front lines of this ideological quagmire.
You are right. It is a way to humanize the victim instead of letting someone pretend that it is just someone who they don’t know so they can pretend it is ok. It is a way of saying, “Hey, just because it is not you, doesn’t mean it’s ok.” Also, frankly, most people don’t care about things until it affects them personally. It is not ownership when you’re damn angry that your sister got raped and you have no idea how to help her. It’s not ownership when you take your raped daughter to the mental hospital because she is suicidal. It is not ownership to say, “Hey, these acts destroy a person and when that person is someone you adore, you are not owning a person.” It is a reference to humanize the victim so that maybe they don’t sit silently because it’s not someone they lovewho becomes suicidal from rape or that they don’t sit there in silence because they think it doesn’t affect them.
I have no idea where this author came up with the logic they used!
Just by using the word ‘rape culture’ one is allowing ‘it’ to continue. By giving it a name it becomes normalised it in society. The world ‘culture’ should not be associated with the word ‘rape’ as there is nothing cultured about sex without consent. More appropriate references could be: rape crime, rape violation, rape ignorance, rape misconduct, etc.
In 2013 women are still unrepresented by any government in any country around the world. You will have to be superwoman in the home and in the work place and be content with earning less than a man with no recognition.
If a woman is not loved by a man she is an outcast in society: The phrase “woman is the nigger of the world” was coined by Yoko Ono in an interview with Nova magazine in 1969 and was quoted on the magazine’s cover. The song describes women’s subservience to men and male chauvinism across all cultures.
Even if a man loves a woman he may not be emotionally intelligent towards her needs as a human being. Men still have no moral responsibility towards the emotional and psychological care of a woman even though women look to their man for empowerment.
Woman is also portrayed as a throwaway consumer product by the Media, Television, Movie and Advertising industries. Much of the US TV comedy is based upon sexual innuendo. Hence many men do not make the connection between ‘desirable product’ and their own sisters, mothers, daughters, life partners, etc.
For third world countries who still deny women an education and who are sold as child brides marketing women as a consumer product to have, send the wrong messages to traditional men from countries stuck in old religious doctrines.
Today as was a few hundred years ago a woman is still judged by her marital status, a woman who is not married is considered a ‘spinster’ a derogatory term even though 3000 years ago before the intervention of politics and religion women were the high priestesses of the temple, the gate keepers to spiritual wisdom, and sexuality was a doorway to enlightenment.
A married woman is still expected to change her name and assume his, forsake her own career in order to support his, become an unpaid housekeeper and child carer, or else she is a bad mother.
The Cinderella complex is where a child is subconsciously imprinted at an early age through traditional fairy tales to believe that happily ever after is dependent upon being rescued by ones prince or else one wont be able to ride off into the sunset. As long as women are victims they are not empowered. An educated and empowered woman who can think for herelf is a very real threat to society.
The word Woman, is Wombman, a man with a womb. To be blessed with a womb is a great honnour as it is the portal through which all life must enter, and a direct connection to the divine source of all creation. Wo/man encompasses man, S/he encompasses he, Fe/male encompasses male, male is singular, female is duality and cooperation.
If you were born female it is because you have already been born male.
To subjugate a woman in any way, is massive bad kharma for what one does to a woman one does unto ones own self, for we are all connected, soul brothers and sisters. Love one another as thy self. Men who violate women are demonstrating how little they actually love and respect themselves, by learning how to love and respect themselves more they can learn to love and respect everyone and everything on this planet as equal.
You had me until you said “An educated and empowered woman who can think for herelf is a very real threat to society.”
It shows that you see the entire issue as power for yourself. (IOW, you’re no different than the men you’re calling out). Had you said “An educated and empowered woman who can think for herelf is a very real contributor to society.” then you’d be truly enlightened.
Thank you.
To not use the term “rape culture” does not make it go away. What else would you call our “culture” that sexualizes all females, including little children, devalues woman in terms of their contributions to society, and permits sexual “use” and “abuse” of females at will?
You are assuming a limited definition of “culture”. The author is referring to it in the broader biological/anthropological sense, as in the belief system and shared values, customs, and social conventions of a group. Aspects of culture are manifold. Our culture is essentially the lens through which we view the world and guides are expectations, interpretations, biases, habits, etc. Every social system has cultural norms, and sometimes they are harmful. And when we identify where our own culture is harmful, we can work to change it.
Yes, yes, yes…. although I am very glad I read this blog. I am also very glad to have read your comment. More people need to realize this! Before the patriarchal religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity), it was matriarchal religions that dominated. Of course men became threatened by women because of this and sought to take control. It’s a shame that humanity has turned out this way after so many years, makes you wonder what the world would be like if that instance never occurred.
Beautifully and concisely written,iPoem. You are spot on with your neutral thinking. I bet your one hell of a good woman, iPoem.
The opposite of this is true. By saying a word or phrase like “sexism” or “racism” or “rape culture,” you draw attention to it as a distinct construction instead of just the sole default state of the universe. And it’s rape culture because our culture (yes, even the noble and beautiful and celebrated components of it) supports and perpetuates rape and rapists — you do no one any favors (except rapists) by insisting rape has nothing to do with our culture; it has everything to do with it. Also, while I’m familmiar with the Yoko Ono quote, it’s extremely irresponsible to use a racial slur like that in ANY context. Don’t explain to me what was meant — I understand exactly what was meant; I’m saying that it’s not okay to say that regardless of its context or intent. There are a thousand other ways for you and Yoko to express this same idea; you are admitting stupidity if you can’t find one that does not alienate black feminists or misappropriate the struggles of black people.
Despite all your rage, you are still just a rat in a cage. The truth in its simplest form is we are all possessions of someone else in some form or other. That does not mean we are not equal, be we man, or woman. If you find the term woman offensive because it means man with a womb, then undertake a campaign to call yourself something different. Find some balance in life, and loose the rage, then you can escape the cage.
Loose the rage??? I think it’s already loose And rightly so!!!!
Yoko Ono’s “woman is the n*gger of the world” quote was fundamentally racist and ignorant as hell.
Also, you seem to be misunderstanding the whole idea of “rape culture”. That is WHY it’s called rape culture, because the dehumanization and objectification of women in our society and yes in our culture is normalised and accepted as part of life. Rape misconduct sounds beyond silly and does not properly express the all pervasive aspects of being a woman in a rape culture society. The subjugation and objectification of women is still normalised, even now in 2013 people still make rape jokes, passive comments about negative experiences with certain companies being compared to rape, anonymous faceless female body parts used to sell everything from cars to video games. Rape is horrible, but it is not being perpetrated by some othering force. It is being perpetrated by men (and some instances, women) we trusted, cared about, loved. It is viewed as some kind of consequence for being not careful, too trusting, too friendly. The rapists are viewed as stand up guys who didn’t know what they were doing, or would never do something like that, such an allegation would tarnish them. Rapists are men brought up in this rape culture, that teaches them entitlement to a woman’s body from an impressionable age. Women are not people with desires or thoughts or feelings of their own, they are prizes, trophies to be won. Our culture (particularly in films and TV) shows that persistence is a way to a woman’s heart and her pants. That “no” is not an answer. That is rape culture. Not misconduct or whatever silly term you wish to use.
Amen! Well said!
You missed one key point. When one says that “we should protect our women”, it implies that women aren’t included in “we”. Men are the decision makers and women have to depend on them for security or policy changes.
These are subtle biases, and I often give people benefit of a doubt when they make such appeals, but it’s time to sensitize the masses about it.
Haven’t you ever heard “protect yourself”, or “we should protect ourselves”. I read “our” as our community or our society. We should also teach our boys and men to value their female compatriots as fellow human beings with equal rights. That does not mean men should not be involved in the teaching.
This is phenomenal; great argument, great writing, great examples and evidence- thoroughly enjoyed reading.
Brilliantly stated!
Tom R., you do not understand. The “slippery slope” does not start with frat boys raping unconscious women. I will agree that sometimes sexual consent can be hard to define. CONSCIOUSNESS, however, ought to be a universal requirement of consent.
To reframe the concept, if a man were passed out at a party, would that give anyone who wanted his money the right to take it from his wallet? He’s not saying no, and he took his chances by drinking so much, right? “He must be one of those kinds of guys who just wants to put out his money. I bet lots of people have been in HIS wallet, the …” — well, there’s no word equivalent in this case for what a woman who is raped is called by the rape apologists.
Suggestion: “I bet lots of people have been in HIS wallet, the loser.”
🙂
Excellent analogy – thank you!
I agree with this – and yet I never took the “wives, daughters, sisters” comments as possessive so much as a way to express the human connection we have. Does this mean I’m a little brainwashed? Maybe, but if a man was raped, and people were screaming, “he had an erection, so he wanted it!” I wouldn’t take, “But he’s someone’s son, someone’s father, someone’s brother” as a possessive statement so much as, before – he is human, we’re all connected.
what you’re saying doesn’t matter because nobody would ever need to say that to give humanity to a man because men already have their human value stablished by our society. and that’s the whole point. your example even kinda sounds out of place because people would only need to say that if the world was the other way around.
I read about this diary over on DKos and I just want to say “Thank You”. I’m old enough (55) that I know we’ve made progress. When I was in high school, a good friend of mine was a victim of incest….and had no place to turn. Thankfully, victims of incest are believed more than they were in those days. However, articles like this bring sharply into focus how much farther we have to go before it is acknowledged that women and girls are not giving consent if they are in a position where they can’t say no. I really don’t see those rapists in Ohio as being any different than the father of my high school friend. We have to get past this notion that women and girls are “asking for it” if they are vulnerable. And any relationship to a man as sister, mother, etc. is completely beside the point.
This was the bwst blog on this topic I have ever read. Very well said. Thank you so much! I feel the exact same way but I’ve just been too angry about the whole thing to even be able to put it into words. Thank you gain! -MK
Hey, ho, a feminist blog! Thanks for making this point.
In response to your critique of president Obama’s use of the “wives, mothers, daughters” argument: I think you missed it. Historically, the status of women in a society is a good indicator of how just that society is. The president was right on the money with the use of this argument.
Right, but how come he didn’t just say “women”? Why “our wives, mothers and daughters”?
I agree with bellejar. Women deserve equal treatment because they are people. A woman’s connection with others, particularly male figures is entirely irrelevant to her right to equality in the workforce or anywhere else. It’s as if I said, “Racism is wrong and should stop because you may have a black friend.” Does that make sense? Nope.
Agreed his argument would have been just as valid if he had said women.
Because one element of speech writing is pathos, drawing on emotion. People rarely have an emotional attachment to the word “women” (or to “men” for that matter). They hear “wives, daughters, sisters” etc., they can put a face to those words. It’s good speech writing, not sexism. Obama and other speakers and writers use the terms sons, brothers, and fathers to a similar extent for the exact same reason.
I agree with your argument to the extent that society reinforces the idea that women are only valuable in relation to men. I disagree that every time a woman is described by a relation to a man we are significantly perpetuating that fallacy. I also doubt that asking someone to imagine that they personally knew the rape victim really perpetuates this issue very much, if at all.
Well, no. He was abusing his position as the president who happens to be a male. Imagine if a white president in a civil rights speech appealed to his fellow caucasians to think of “their black friends.”
Out of curiosity, how do you call the interpersonal relationships as held by women? Two female siblings are not sisters I suppose? If a woman has a female child, that child is called what? Two women are in love and get married, they must be…. Husbands?
Troll.
Oh no, I disagree, I MUST be a troll
You will probably also end up calling me a rapist too while you’re at it.
He’s not being a troll. He’s making a good point. You’re being a troll, however, by calling someone what they aren’t.
Out of curiosity, did you read the entire post?
“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.”
But the word “sister” calls to mind a SPECIFIC, loving, intelligent, strong woman (MY sister), just as “father” causes me to think of a specific, intelligent, strong man, my dad. Since when is using a familial title degrading? They just want you to think of someone you love. I feel like people are more likely to act, or at least to consider, if they make the whole thing personal. This is such a silly thing to have qualms with. You guys are taking a good thing and making it seem damnable.
Did you? She’s pissed because she thinks a title of one aspect of a person defines the entirety of that person, and implies possession How am I supposed to identify with my mother? The absolute essence of her? No, she’s my mother. Does that mean I own her? No. Not by any chance at all. By her logic I should be able to force my boss to give me a raise, or my president to bow to my will.
These are just titles, and this is another angry feminist grasping at straws and putting up red smoke screens. This type of academic privilege is what’s hurting us real academics trying to foster productive discourse.
“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.”
Actually, they do, in fact, help to define you and they do, in fact, add value to who you are because relationships do that. They change us, help us to grow up, and help to renew who we are, for better or for worse.
She’s not saying these relationships don’t exist or are not valuable, She is saying that its wrong to define the value/worth of a women BY these relationships.
So sign this petition….. http://www.change.org/petitions/nfl-take-real-action-on-domestic-violence and http://signon.org/sign/shame-on-cnn-apologize.fb25?source=s.fb&r_by=2258482
Beautifully written and a good lesson for everyone.
For some reason I can’t make a new comment… only reply to the existing.
I agree that this is well written. I was just talking to one of my students yesterday about our ‘rape culture’. We assume that we are the only conscious beings on the planet. Well, everything has consciousness. I am aware of what clothes would like to be worn, and which would rather stay in the closet. I chose a rental car the other day, and it clearly did not want to be rented – it had a huge oil leak. The next car felt right, my heart jumped up happy in my chest, which is how I know that I am at a ‘yes’. Anything other than that joyful, heart-pounding ‘yes’ is a no.
Unfortunately, from a very young age, we’ve had our ‘no’ boundary overwhelmed, overrun and programmed out of us until we doubt ourselves coming and going. Women, even ones who appear strong, sometimes find it hard to say a simple, “No, thank you.” It is a program I hope to help those whose lives I touch erase. May we undo the damage that we are doing to our children, when we ignore their subtle cues of ‘no’. When much of our culture is run by people in power deciding what is good for us despite our protests, loud or otherwise, we’re in trouble. Listen for the quiet “no” responses that show up in your life. Respect them as you would want to be respected. Thank you.
I hear the statement, “that could have been your mother, sister, daughter, etc” very differently. I see it as a call to empathy, to human connection, which is the only thing that will stop us from committing crimes — when we understand that the needs and the happiness of others is as important as our own selfish needs. And the only thing that will save our morality as bystanders — when we say, “I feel as connected to this crime victim as I feel to a family member.”And as a woman, I think this statement speaks to me as much as if I were a man. I don’t think it’s saying women are defined through their relationships to men. But all of us are defined through our relationship with others. We are an interdependent planet.
How could one even make claim to know how many injustices have been prevented because of empathy and compassion? NOTHING to do with empathy – really? Law enforcement is a RESPONSE and reaction to crimes already committed – it does not prevent anything directly. Can law be used to set an example and affect our cultural standards for what is considered acceptable? Of COURSE. True prevention only comes about thru an individual’s personal choice NOT to commit an act of violence – a choice I imagine you and many of us make many times in our day to day lives, and do a fine job much of the time, though none of us are infallible. If you believe tapping into our natural inclinations to connect to other human beings as humans has nothing to do with changing a patriarchal society, and have more faith in the power of the “justice” system, well, I’m just sorry that you see it that way, I guess.
Actually, creating empathy among members of a society is a powerful tool to prevent violent crimes. I work with elementary school kids, and a key way to stop bullying is to have the bully feel empathy for the victim. That is a building block for how they will go on to interact with people as they get older. Once we start looking at other people as part of our community instead of outsiders, we tend to treat them much better.
I agree with this interpretation. The rape apologist crowd is there. The think of all women as a woman you know argument might get through the misogynist head to a realization that every woman should be treated with respect. I get the argument of the original blog, and agree that the issue is complicated. But we are not dealing with logical or reasonable people in the rape apologists. This is a rhetorical technique to get them to see the issue more personally.
I don’t see how talking about empathy and how you frame an argument to make it personal to people has anything to do with being a rape apologist.
You shouldn’t need to imagine that someone belongs to you in order to feel empathy for them. This is the point.
See: feministing.com/2013/01/23/gender-and-empathy-men-shouldnt-need-to-imagine-if-it-were-your-wifedaughtermother/
Oh! why didn’t i think of that! You have to actually tell men that the women they’re raping are human.
It is a call to empathy and connection that only goes so far. Any empathy evoked is still for the “other” and not the self. It just comes back to the point the author is making that women are fundamentally objectified and dehumanized. If a man thinks about a rape happening to any woman, even his daughter/mother/sister, he can still distance himself from that because of the way rape culture defines women in our society as weak, toys for men, sexual objects, perhaps deserving, etc.
Trigger warning ahead:
How would a man react if you asked him to think about what it would be like to be drugged, carried around unconscious, stripped naked, have fingers inserted inside his rectum, his private parts molested, to have sperm ejaculated onto his chest, to be taken outside and thrown on the ground and urinated on–and to have a crowd of people watching, laughing, filming, and taking pictures for all his friends to see?
I can imagine a reaction of incredulity and immediate distancing: “That couldn’t happen to me.” To be a man is to be the aggressor, not the victim. Victims are weak, or else they would stop it from happening, right? They are weak and therefore deserve contempt. And yet we know that it does happen to men. 1 of 3 girls, 1 of 6 boys are sexually abused. We don’t know how many adult men are raped because of the stigma of reporting the crime. Many feminists writers have theorized that men’s aggression in rape serves to distance them from their own physical and emotional vulnerability, to define themselves only as aggressors and never victims. They have to prove their masculinity by dehumanizing women.
The bottom line is that until men can own their own vulnerability and see that they are human in the same way that women are, and have real human-to-human empathy for any victim of rape, our culture will remain one of toxic, distorted and depraved masculinity–a rape culture.
You make an excellent point here. I practice criminal and victim advocacy law, and cannot count how many times I’ve heard the “What if this was your daughter” argument from judges, law enforcement and even victims themselves. This analogy propagates a twofold problem: 1) Your point that women are exclusively defined by their relationship to others; and 2) that rape is a woman-specific offense, which it certainly is not.
The dialogue you’ve initiated is certainly important. However, sadly it’s almost too progressive, despite how important it is! The Steubenville victim blaming is only one of countless examples. In her piece “Nice Guys Commit Rape Too” for the Good Men Project, Alyssa Royce exculpated a rapist friend and discussed what she considered “mixed signals” as a factor in rape culture. Keli Goff, of the Huffington thinks that binge drinking by the victim brings on these incidents. Goff, by the way, used your mother/daughter analogy. Victim blaming is problematic, and research shows that if a victim is viewed as promiscuous or anything other than lilly-white, people do not perceive them as deserving of justice, especially jurors, regardless of who’s daughter they may be. The two pieces I referenced above were written by women, which is mind-boggling and devastating. Unfortunately, women and men alike are so stuck on victim blaming, the only way to get them past it is to relate the thinker to the victim and say, “This could be tour daughter, who is a person, and deserves justice.”
Another common problem is trying to understand why people rape in the first place. Some commenters on this post have said it’s about control. Often I see it as a theft crime which may or may not be true.. It doesn’t really matter why. Rapists rape, and they are recidivists. Having sisters, or daughters won’t stop them. Dressing like St. Bernadette won’t stop them. However, if we can tackle victim blaming first, perhaps we won’t socially normalize their behavior. Familial analogies are regressive and need to stop, but if they help a juror or officer understand that this victim is someone they could know and love, they view the victim as human – which is your goal. Accordingly, until men and women alike can look at the crime and the victim regardless of the victim’s outfit or blood alcohol level, most will not be ready to tackle the very important point you’ve made in this piece. Nonetheless, you are spot on and I hope those who are capable, will heed your advice and advise others the same.
Last night at a “Why Good Men Are Silent” presentation by Ted Bunch, co-founder and co-director of A Call To Men, I saw a video of men being interviewed about what they’d do if they saw a man hittitng a woman. They wouldn’t intervene if they saw a man they knew or assumed to be the woman’s husband, boyfriend. The most commons response was, “I would mind my own business.”
But if the man appeared to be a stranger to the women, then maybe they’d intervene, they’d be more likely to intervene.
Ted emphasized that our culture continues to perpetuate the belief that women are less than men and a woman is property, thus the perception by men that if the owner of the property is abusing that is his business, even his right to do so. But if she has no owner then a man might feel more responsible for intervening in a crime.
One assumes that if the victim is, or he can imagine her to be, his actual sister, daugther, mother, then his ownership kicks in.
Clearly men are being held up as the more valuable citizens still, while women’s value is still seen in relationship to men, as opposed to equal citizens.
Part of the reason men do not “interfere” is there are cases when you act to “defend” the woman only to be attacked by that woman for messing with “her man”. And this will also vary depending on the nature of the assault. The more serious the attack the more likely the intervention is to be. A slap would not be viewed the same as a closed fist. A man yelling, but not touching, is unlikely to get any action at all with many men being embarrassed for viewing it.
Why do men rape? We can see it clearly in the Steubenville case: Allegedly, Jane Doe was specifically targeted by the “rape crew” for some offense against one of their number whom she had dated, Cody Saltzman, who later tweeted, “I have no sympathy for whores.” This was a male pack taking back power, asserting dominance, and enacting sexual humiliation and retribution. Any sexual pleasure gained was a byproduct of their getting off on power and control. As I stated in another post, in our current rape culture men define their masculinity by dominating women. How dare a women mistreat one of these macho football players, putting him in the weak, humiliated position? The rape crew could not let that situation go unchallenged. They won their power and manhood back for their friend and themselves. Our culture must make it ok for men to be vulnerable and still be men, or this toxic masculinity and rape culture will continue.
Than you for writing this. I wish, in 2013, that you didn’t have to. Much love and solidarity from Minneapolis!