Feed on
Posts
Comments

how to avoid becoming a rapist

Hi everyone,
I got a comment today on my post On Rape. I thought it was important enough to devote a post to the question and my response. Below is the comment, from a commenter who calls himself Future Rapist. Below that is my response. I invite you to read it through, and to join me in talking about this issue, because I think it is one of the most important topics we can ever talk about together.

Hi,
Actually I landed on this e-page while searching information, how to avoid women’s or girls? In my environment there are more women’s and girls with skirts and tops. I attempt many times to change the environment, as if my fate goes wrong where I go in some way or other way I have interact such women’s or girls. Most of time when self conious of herself, my mind never thinks of sex with her. But when women’s and girls are very open, I could hardly control myself. So far I am controlling by leaving the place of short time and join the work after sometime. On the other hand its not possible to leave such environment all the time.

Anyways, I would like question the originator of the article and he/she defended the victim and blames fully on rapist.

My question is how he/she is going to mark a line in between seduction and attempt to rape or rape.

Your answer is highly appreciated for a guy like me who could be a future rapist.

Future Rapist

well, first of all, you’ve got a lot of guts to ask such a question. It sounds like you want to do the right thing, so I’ll answer your question, and hopefully it will help you, and the women you are in contact with.

First of all, you cannot assume that anything a woman does indicates she wants to have sex with you. Not the way she is dressed, not how she talks to you or acts toward you. Society puts a lot of pressure on women to be sexually suggestive, and that comes out in how women dress and act and talk. And even when you might be in an intimate situation with a woman, she might only be willing to do certain things and not be willing to do others. So don’t make assumptions about a woman’s desire by these things, as they are not necessarily indicators of what she wants.

The only way to make sure of what a woman wants is to ask her in a way that is sincere and not coercive. That means make it clear to her that you will not want to do anything that she doesn’t want to do. Let her know that it is important to you to
make sure she feels safe and secure and if she feels uncomfortable at any time that you will stop. Do not try to convince her to do something she has said she does not want to do. This is not seduction; it is coercion. If she says no, that is the end. NO MEANS NO. You must not continue to do anything that a woman has told you to stop doing. And here’s the trick: she might not tell you with words. She might tell you by moving your hands away, or trying to physically move away from you, or by not responding to you either verbally or physically. 70% of communication is physical, so pay close attention to what she is telling you with her body.

So, you have to respond to a woman’s “negative” body language that tells you she doesn’t like what you are doing, but you have to get confirmation from her in regards to “positive” body language that tells you she might want to be intimate with you. If you can’t get this confirmation, for any reason, then assume she does not want to be intimate with you. better safe than rape.

I’m a bit concerned with the way you seem to view women in general. Women are not objects to be used for men’s sexual gratification, or even just to be looked at and enjoyed, like pieces of art. Women are people who have minds and feelings and desires of their own. Women are not there to be used by or to serve men. They are not to be won over or convinced to do anything. Just removing yourself from the environment isn’t enough - you really need to rethink your attitude toward women. I suggest you seek out counselling to help you think about women in a more healthy and respectful way.

Sex is something that should be enjoyable for all parties involved, and something that all parties are comfortable with and want to do, at all times throughout the encounter. The idea that there is a point of no return is false: both men and women can stop at any time. It might suck, but it has to be done if consent is at issue.

Also, bear in mind that rape is not only wrong and immoral, but also ILLEGAL. You’re not just an asshole of you rape a woman - you’re also a criminal. Rape has consequences that are devestating to the survivor, both emotionally and physically. But rape also has consequences for the rapist. So if you’re not won over by appeals to refrain from hurting a woman in such a way, then perhaps you’ll be influenced by the legal consequences of rape.

I hope this is clear, and helpful to you. Please take this advice very carefully. Now you cannot say you didn’t know. Now you have the information you need not to become a rapist.

Thanks to Ruxandra for her help in formulating this response.

If any of my other readers have any suggestions for this commenter, please pitch in. I think this is an important topic - maybe the most important topic we can deal with on this blog. Violence against women is at epidemic levels, and it has to stop. One of the ways we can contribute to ending VAW is through discussions like this, so please, join me.

191 Responses to “how to avoid becoming a rapist”

  1. on December 9, 2006 at 10:12 pm mr k

    “better safe than rape”. Exactly. If you’re not sure, then don’t do it. I think thats a great general principle, although I imagine heat of the moment passion might threaten to overwhelm one’s better judgment, it must be resisted.


  2. on December 9, 2006 at 11:59 pm M

    Thanks TG, and thank you Mr K for getting it. While I agree that passion can sometimes put on the “moral blinds” I do think that this can be overcome not only “in the moment” with a bit of consideration, but can be overcome in a broader way with the adoption of a more caring view of sex acts. If you enter a sexual situation with full and genuine consideration for oneself, and whoever else is involved, then making sure that they want what you think they want, or what you want, becomes part of the passion. I know that this is not present even in all consensual sexual encounters, but I do think that a reapproach to sex as something that is NOT shamefull or dirty, but rather something that two (or more, or one) person can enjoy with each other (or oneself) means that concern and respect for whoever else is involved becomes primary. Even if it is a one night stand, or even a twenty-minute stand, remembering that people are ends themselves, not just means to an end (ahh Kant) restructures the way that one engages in whatever it is that gets them off. In the short term however, a simpler “better safe than rape” rule is necessary.


  3. on December 10, 2006 at 8:21 am Geo

    OK - now I walk into a bar and there is a person who is “throwing money around” buying food and drinks for other people and being generally outgoing.

    What is this person telling me? S/he wants me to take their money obviously - they are “talking to me” by their actions to others.

    Did this person offer to give me - individually - a lot of money? No, but her/his body language told me a lot.

    Scenario Two:

    Now, this person bought me a drink. Well obviously this person found me attractive and this meant …..

    Scenario Three:

    Now I see this person driving this incredibly expensive car and wearing very expensive clothes and having very expensive jewelry on.

    This obviously means that s/he is speaking to me and this means ….

    Well obviously - it is different - When Sex may be involved! That plunging neckline - means that that young woman obviously wants ME (and specifically me) to “take care of her”!

    Now - drinking - and hormones - may certainly affect behavior. One can always talk - ask questions - see where things may go.

    Life isn’t always so simple and obvious, but often we can do better!

    Thanks!

    Am I missing something?


  4. on December 10, 2006 at 11:13 am thinking girl

    thanks everyone, for your participation.

    Mr K
    thanks. exactly. If you’re not sure don’t do it. better safe than rape.

    M - I think your idea of approaching sex with respect is bang-on. I think it might help the situation if we all viewed everyone else with respect. The current social climate feeds into - has created? - rape because it does not encourage men to view women with respect. It’s strange the vascillation between treating women as objects and then asserting that women actively and autonomously choose to be treated like objects - ultimately making it seem like women are being used exactly as they want, and thus validating such treatment. The logic of rape is such that women’s purpose is to be available for sex at any time, and they either want to serve that purpose or they just need to be shown that they want it. So either way, it’s ok to rape women.

    Geo
    these examples and analogies are great, very useful in showing how ridiculous it is to read too much into someone’s actions. It’s crazy how much stock we put in someone’s non-verbal communications - so easily mis-read - and not enough in someone’s very verbal communication of NO. The old saying is so true “Which part of NO did you not understand?”


  5. on December 10, 2006 at 11:54 am Sage

    Human beings have very complicated mating rituals. It’s so much easier to be a cat or dog. If you were to sniff my butt and start pawing me, I’d know exactly how to respond. But those of us with larger brains have to acquire the careful ability to interpret each different signal in a way that brings rewards and pleasure, not punishments. Luckily, we also have the capacity for speech, so it’s really not that difficult after all.

    In other words, if you’re not sure, ask. And if you think your signals might be misinterpreted, then clarify them. I sometime like to look sexy, but it doesn’t mean I want to have sex with every person who looks my way. I think I’ll put that on a t-shirt - a really sexy, low-cut t-shirt!

    Yet, even as a feminist woman, I do understand that overwhelming feeling of compulsion when faced with a stunning body less than an arm-reach away. And I’ve had very open conversations about this situation with some male teachers who have serious problems teaching teenagers in tank tops. They don’t want to look, but struggle to look away. I don’t think we can judge that feeling, because, like all feelings, it just is. And I don’t think it necessarily implies an objectifying attitude (although the man writing you certainly seems to have some larger issues). When I find myself drawn to a person because of the way his/her clothes fit, or a gesture, or the way they walk, etc., I see it as a sign that I’m an animal too. Yet I’m a civilized animal who can think before acting.

    I think we need to understand that feeling and work with it. I tend to just force my gaze away and keep the conversation from drifting into dangerous territory, but I’m lucky that I can keep my sudden arousal hidden until I can divert my line of thinking. The male teachers are not so lucky, but they came up with their own solution: think of dead puppies. Now in the warm weather, with classes full of explosed cleavage, they can confidently stand in front of the class by picturing carcasses strewn amongst the desks.

    Some might find that image and solution disturbing, but I think: whatever works. I appreciate that they’re conscientious enough to find a solution that doesn’t attempt to change the behaviour or dress of the students, but instead works around the choices other people have made. They can’t help they way they feel when they see more skin than they’d like to in a work environment, but they CAN help they way they react to it.

    I’m glad the writer has the sense to leave the room when he finds his feelings overwhelming. Kudos to him for that. And here’s hoping he can maintain his civility permanently.


  6. on December 11, 2006 at 6:04 am ruxandra

    i agree with sage that guys are to be congratulated for knowing it’s their responsibility to deal with their control problems and for the fact that they find ways to do so, if they continue to. even though it’s nothing more than the decent thing to do!

    my advice to any man would be to ask himself, seriously, how they would view a situation in which it was him, or men in general, whose sexual integrity and agency was constantly threatened - if they were made to feel that they are and should be sexually available and vulnerable at all times… if say wearing a t-shirt or jeans (which we know are sexy!) was considered enough motivation for another person, a woman or a man, to force themselves upon them ’cause they couldn’t help themselves and their “natural” urges?

    here’s something from a while ago: [prison] rape - it’s a poignant and thought provoking piece contrasting men’s outrage about rape of men and their lack of similar concern about rape of women (”What does it tell us that men’s most terrified reaction to the idea of prison is the fear that women experience all the time? What does it tell us that the worst punishment is to be made like a woman?”).

    and i don’t know, to me it’s so obvious that there’s a difference between desiring something and feeling entitled to it! as human beings, we find ways to deal with our desires all the time; we have some definite rules and we know it’s not ok to encroach upon somebody else’s property, person, etc. - that if we have some desire it’s our issue, and our responsibility to deal with it. this is true for everything from wanting some object [given that stealing from somebody is wrong] to wanting to hurt someone we’re angry with [given that committing violence against somebody is wrong]… popular wisdom and laws tell us we need to negotiate and obtain consent and not hurt other people in these kinds of situations. yet when it comes to whether they’re simply entitled to sex - just because they happen to want it - men are generally taught something else completely. which is partly what the reminder that “rape is about power, not sex” is getting at, right? (that it’s an act of violence and it’s defined by lack of consent and not by its sexual nature!)

    while it isn’t only men who rape (and/or sexually harrass), or only women who are victims, the thing is that on average, in our culture, women don’t think of other people as automatically sexually available to them. why? because we don’t get this societal sanction (and even encouragement) to view others as objects at our disposal, like men do. and neither do we learn to hold others entirely responsible for our own desires and to blame them for our reactions when they’re inappropriate!

    i just think we need to point out, as much as possible, how ridiculous the whole “women dress provocatively so how are men supposed to help themselves?!” line of argument really is (though it sounds so familiar and most people totally buy it). those social constructions that allow us to expect people to be sexually available to us (or not) are actually pretty independent of this issue of momentary lust and arousal which of course we all feel sometimes ’cause we’re human. yeah, women as well as men can get aroused by certain sights and it’s completely natural, BUT we know that 1. anything can be arousing, after all (a fully clothed body sometimes even more than a naked one, etc.) and 2. at any rate, what we find arousing is heavily influenced by other factors, associations, images and ideas we already have. … we do know that “temptation” of all kinds is out there (see geo’s comment), right? and we deal with it. so why would sexual “temptation” be a special case? if we would never justify murder, for instance, how can one think about justifying rape in any way?

    to quote propagandhi (some awesome canadian guys, btw), “if everything desired’s objectified, then maybe eroticism needs to be redefined.” i quote the lyrics to this song way too much in general, but in this case it’s particularly relevant:

    “Refusing To Be A Man”
    i’m not going to try to tell you that i’m different from all the rest. i’ve been subject to the same de-structure of desire and i’ve felt the same effects; i’m a hetero-sexist tragedy. and potential rapists all are we. but don’t tell me this is natural. this is nurturing. and there’s a difference between sexism and sexuality. i had different desires prior to my role-remodelling. and at six years of age you don’t challenge their claims. you become the same. (or withdraw from the game and hang your head in shame). i think that’s exactly what i did. i tried to sever the connections between me and them. i fought against their further attempts to convince a kid that birthright can bestow the power to yield the subordination of women and do you know what patricentricity means? i found out just a couple of days ago. it means male values uber alles and hey! whaddaya know… sex has been distorted and vilified. i’m scared of my attraction to body types. if everything desired is objectified then eroticism needs to be redefined. and i refuse to be a “man”.


  7. [...] This email is from Thinking Girl, who posted the semi-literate would-be rapist’s psychotic remarks on her blog. These remarks reveal a chappie in a state of stunning oblivion; unable to distinguish between sex and violence, he views “women’s [sic] and girls in skirts and tops” as receptacles he’s just gotta penetrate, seems bummed that Thinking Girl does not advocate blaming the victim even a little bit, and asks “how he/she is going to mark a line in between seduction and attempt to rape or rape.” [...]


  8. on December 11, 2006 at 1:16 pm laverneandshirley

    Sex education in schools needs to be not only about birth control and how to put condoms on. It needs to be about feelings. When I talk to my 14 year old son about sex, I tell him that he needs to make that his partner is having sex for the same reason that he is. If you can’t talk about it, then you shouldn’t be doing it. Sex is more than just physical interaction … it’s about feelings and intimacy. It’s fun, healthy and A BIG DEAL!
    –L


  9. on December 11, 2006 at 5:30 pm thinking girl

    Hi folks,

    Sage - thanks for your perspective, it’s always a pleasure. I think you make a really important point - it’s not about making the feelings themselves into something negative. The feelings of sexual arousal are an important part of being human, I think, and one of the last connections we have to those funny things we call our bodies. It’s all the things that go into informing sexual desire and arousal, and what you do about those feelings, that is where things go awry. It’s stressing that we are repsonsible, and we do have the ability to rationalize. We are not just bundles of hormones and nerve endings. We have developed morality, rationality, and we have to use them.

    Ruxandra - everything you said. Totally. Brilliant. and love the song lyric quote. My best friend can attest to my penchant for song lyric quotation! I pretty much have to refrain from doing it in every post. :)

    But seriously, why should sexual temptation be such a special case? I think it has to do with the privileging of biological models of what humans are like, should be like, cannot help but be like. Sex is seen as a biological function, as essential as kidneys filtering all the crap out of our systems, and our lungs breathing air, and our hearts pumping blood. It’s seen as a biological urge on par with these other bodily functions: something that can’t be helped, it’s just the way bodies are, the way humans are, we have to propagate the species, etc. What a load of CRAP. Consider how much societal influences sexual desire and arousal, and tell me it’s a purely biological function.

    Laverne - thank god you’re talking to your son sensibly about these matters. I think sex ed needs a MAJOR overhaul in general, including discussions about same-sex sexual relations and non-reproductive sex from an early age by caring people whose job it is to educate about sex and sexuality. We need to stop scaring the bejeezus out of our kids and preaching abstinence as the only choice. We need to bring back petting, for crissake! There’s no first-base, second-base, third-base anymore - it’s straight for home these days (and by home I mean male orgasm)! There’s no exploration of sexuality, no way to express sexual feelings outside of sex these days - unless of course it has to do with girls servicing male pleasure orally. That’s just for kicks and laughs these days. Where is the intimacy?!?! I agree: sex is a big deal. Sex is everything and nothing in our society - everything in that everything is about sex, it’s everywhere you look and listen, and nothing in that it’s no big deal. Well, I think that’s not true, and very dangerous. I think sex is a big deal. There. I said it.

    Guys are so separated from what real women are. Thanks, porn industry!

    Twisty -thanks for the linkup!


  10. on December 11, 2006 at 6:26 pm kitkatwp

    The only thing I would have added to your letter is that in addition to feeling moved by the threat of legal consequences if he fails to read any “no”s in a woman’s body language, he should feel moved by the threat of physical consequences if he fails to read any “nos” in a woman’s body language.

    It is extremely dangerous to have this dialogue with well-intentioned men, in front of an audience of women, and keep reinforcing the myths that 1) men have physicial power over women and that 2) women will never (or cannot) deliver painful consequences if their boundaries (that is, their various forms of “no”s) are not respected.

    I just posted some comments on the subject over on my blog, and I’ll add a few persuasive points from the word document I attached to the letter I describe there:

    Self-defense author Ellen Snortland (acclaimed by Gavin de Becker, author of The Gift of Fear) writes in her book Beauty Bites Beast:

    On reducing potentially raping men’s sense of power over women:

    “Perhaps when there is a critical mass of women who know how to fight, there will be fewer men who will even attempt to batter or physically threaten women.”

    On the dangerous effects of our status quo teachings:
    “My lack of courage came from having no point of reference from any source at all that I could take on a possibly violent man who out-sized me. I had no precedent provided by family or society. Plus I didn’t want him to think I was a bitch and to spread it around that I was. How sad. How discouraging. How dangerous. I was afraid of rape, ridicule, and rejection, so I didn’t hand him any consequences for disrespecting my ‘No.’ Just like in the movies.”

    (I wrote:

    I think that propaganda that it’s normal and natural to “deliver consequences to people who disrespect one’s boundaries” is going to prevent more violence against women than propaganda about the “right not to have one’s boundaries disrespected.”

    From Gavin de Becker’s foreword to Beauty Bites Beast:

    On the dangerous effects of our status quo teachings:
    “…every one of them is born with a rather remarkable self-defense system of her own. Each is an animal of nature, armed with dexterity, acute senses, strength, agility, intellect, guile, cleverness, and fantastic intuition. But we…tell them that they alone, in all of nature, are utterly defenseless, particularly against angry men … [they] will walk quietly along a path of eggshells…”

    I think my favorite catchphrase from his foreword is “delivering consequences to deter unwanted behavior.”

     

    That said, we do NOT currently live in a society full of women willing to deliver consequences to deter unwanted behavior.

    Therefore, the bulk of your letter is fine as it is.

    But if you have to do anything similar again, or if any readers here decide to engage in such a discussion, please include my point. The only way we’re going to make it so we DO live in a society full of women willing to deliver consequences to deter unwanted behavior is if we start making the behavior normal by acknowledging that it does happen. One important place to acknowledge it is in “raping-avoidance lessons.” It is in those lessons that we make some of the most harmful implications by omission.


  11. on December 12, 2006 at 12:50 am latzelinc

    Future rapist? That person is going to be a future ‘prison bitch’ …..the only answer is therapy, and/or castration for their kind.


  12. on December 12, 2006 at 12:51 am thinking girl

    Hi KitKat

    thanks for your comment. You’ve got a good point - not all women are helpless victims. Some women are perfectly capable of doing serious damage to a man trying to rape her.

    I see nothing wrong with encouraging women to learn how to protect themselves. The only problem I have with taking this tack is that it places a burden on women to avoid being raped instead of on men to not rape women.. Responsibility for rape does not fall with the victim - it falls with the rapist. I do worry that too much emphasis on self-defense will lead to more victim-blaming in the form of “why didn’t she defend herself? why didn’t she take a self-defense class? why didn’t she do more to avoid being a victim?”

    blaming rape victims for rape is a complete contradiction in terms. I think we must be careful in terms of advocating self-defense for women - it cannot be the only action that we as a society takes against rape, and the onus has to be placed firmly on the shoulders of rapists for rape. Violence against women committed by men can only really be ended by men stopping the violence. We need to find ways to make that happen.


  13. on December 12, 2006 at 12:58 am thinking girl

    Latzelinc
    Thanks for stopping in - it’s nice to have another man on the side of not raping women. I agree, therapy is a good idea. But also important is a shift in how women are viewed in society that has perpetuated the problem of rape. Treating this is an individual problem isn’t the ultimate answer - rape is a social problem. Rape is a hate crime, and the response society, including our laws, our juries, our elected officials, and our friends and neighbours, have to rape is a threat to women’s citizenship.


  14. on December 12, 2006 at 4:19 am Djiril

    I would personally advise someone who feels he has to avoid women altogether to avoid raping them to get help. This may indicate a serious mental disorder which should not go untreated!


  15. on December 12, 2006 at 7:51 am thinking girl

    Djiril
    very nicely put. thank you for your comment!


  16. on December 12, 2006 at 9:54 am Katie

    Responsibility for rape does not fall with the victim - it falls with the rapist. I do worry that too much emphasis on self-defense will lead to more victim-blaming in the form of “why didn’t she defend herself? why didn’t she take a self-defense class? why didn’t she do more to avoid being a victim?”

    blaming rape victims for rape is a complete contradiction in terms. I think we must be careful in terms of advocating self-defense for women - it cannot be the only action that we as a society takes against rape, and the onus has to be placed firmly on the shoulders of rapists for rape.

    In my blog post, in that “point number 7,” I address that partially.

    I’ll address it more fully here:

    You are right, BUT…

    We have been ignoring the important rape-reducing work that we need to be doing because of this fear we have about victim-blaming.

    We need to be teaching men that women are something to be afraid of. We need to be teaching women that they can throw off their conditioning and become something to be afraid of. (Or just teach girls from the very start instead of letting them get conditioned that way.)

    AND…AT THE SAME TIME…

    We need to keep arguing for legal and moral judgment of rape victims who did not defend themselves according to the status quo conditioning of women. If someone tries to argue, “But women are dangerous! Why didn’t she make herself dangerous?” we need to say, “1) You’re still in the minority for understanding that women can be dangerous. Most women do not yet understand this. We are spreading this story trying to make it truer each year, but it is not yet true, and therefore, you cannot judge a woman for not yet knowing that she can be dangerous. She is still living under status quo conditioning and needs the full protection of the law as such a woman. 2) Even if she did know how to be dangerous, that is only one tool in the ‘toolbox’ of self-preservation strategies. [See my point #7 in my blog post.] Submitting and tattling later is another perfectly valid decision, even if the woman happens to be armed with the knowledge of how to make herself dangerous. She possesses fantastic intuition, like every animal, and it should be assumed that she was lucid enough to decide that this, not fighting, was the best option for her self-preservation. Therefore, she should not be considered any less ‘raped’ because she decided that she would submit and tattle later. This testimony right now IS her self-defense / self-preservation act.”

    I know it’s long and complicated, but the best solutions to problems always are.

    We have GOT to start doing this work and explaining how it doesn’t contradict our other work if we want to really reduce violence against women a lot. Avoiding this work because we’re too afraid people won’t buy the explanation and will reject our other work is NOT going to reduce violence against women as much.


  17. on December 12, 2006 at 10:49 am ruxandra

    regarding self defense: i agree with thinking girl, while it can only be a beneficial thing for more women to learn self-defense techniques, to feel strong and to project that (personally, i’ve taken self-defense and protest/rally security workshops that i enjoyed greatly - and i love knowing that i have some skills which i can use to defend myself and others…), the most important thing is for men to stop raping, not for women to learn to protect themselves from rape! and men need to stop raping because it’s wrong, not because they are scared that women might fight back.

    first of all, i don’t think it’s generally true that women don’t fight back or that men don’t think women will fight back… just like it’s not true that the majority of rapes are committed by psychopaths (as many as 80% of aggressors are people whom the survivors know and/or trust), or that all rapes involve physical threats (verbal threats can be just as effective). plus, not all rapes are committed against women, or by men. and something like half of all rape victims are children. so really, given all this, i question the usefulness of the point that “propaganda that it’s normal and natural to ‘deliver consequences to people who disrespect one’s boundaries’ is going to prevent more violence against women than propaganda about the ‘right not to have one’s boundaries disrespected.’” sure, but the most violence will be prevented with propaganda that people have a responsibiltiy not to rape! which is what this post is about… in fact, i think it’s actually more dangerous to suggest that we could address the problem if only women learned how to fight back and made men aware that we could - as thinking girl said, that’s essentially going back to the problem of blaming the victim. after a certain point, it sounds like saying that “more murders could be prevented if people were better able to defend themselves” - which though true doesn’t help, you might as well say “if fewer people were alive there would be fewer murders.” it’s also very dangerous to keep promoting the myth that rapes are only stranger-on-stranger crimes committed by pshychopaths, when the bulk of the problem is actually our rape culture, in which all men are encouraged to view women as available sexually, and in which, for instance, so many (”regular” ;) people - men and women by the way - subscribe to the idea that a woman who dresses or acts “provocatively” was “asking for it” to a certain extent…

    another thing that i wanted to mention was another lyric that propagandhi sometimes adds at the end of that song i quoted: “dead men don’t rape. a gender war in your f@#*ing face. a battle hymn to celebrate the fact that we don’t have to become or remain what we’ve come to hate…” it occurred to me that i hadn’t thought too much about it, but it makes me pretty uncomfortable. i agree with the basic idea, that violence against women and rape culture are a war, pure and simple, and besides i see “we don’t have to become or remain what we hate” - as a real solution for everyone, it’s so well put! but i’m a pacifist and i don’t like the language (”war”, “battle”, the whole “dead men” sentiment which taken as a slogan is just as gratuitously violent as those that propagate vaw, in my opinion), and i just don’t think it’s radical (in the sense of eradicating problems from the roots).

    i read what was written over at i blame the patriarchy, and i have the same criticism: if we want to stop vaw, and all our culture of violence in general, we need something more than simplistic, black-and-white points of view, non-radical “radical” stances and violent slogans! anger is good, but violence is violence.

    btw, i looked up “dead men don’t rape” because i know it’s something associated with andrea dworkin but not too much more about the history and use of the slogan, and i found this: dead med don’t: some trouble with feminist graffiti. i recommend reading the whole thing, it’s really really good and it touches on a lot of stuff that’s been said here and at ibtp!

    (sorry for rambling on, i’m having a hard time articulating all of what i want to say on this topic, and i don’t have time to polish what i write at all.)


  18. on December 12, 2006 at 11:17 am ruxandra

    * and sorry for the errors: there shouldn’t be a link for “f***ing” :D (i guess it’s because i used the “at” symbol in it) and “dead med don’t” should of course be “dead men don’t” for the link to the mind the gap cardiff blog.


  19. on December 12, 2006 at 11:54 am kitkatwp

    the most important thing is for men to stop raping, not for women to learn to protect themselves from rape!

    Ruxandra, I did not mean to imply that I am talking about women learning “to protect themselves from rape.” I’m not. I know that’s what self-defense talk is often associated with, and hey, I think it’s a great fringe benefit of learning self-defense, but it’s not why I advocate self-defense.

    The reason I advocate “physical feminism,” as Martha McCaughey calls it, is because I want feminists to get behind the idea of women acquiring a whole new stereotype in society. Learning self-defense is not about “protecting oneself from bad things,” in my opinion–it’s about “transforming the stereotype of the average woman in the mind of the average man from the status quo of ‘relatively defenseless’ to ‘as defensible as any man I might meet’.”

    This strategy WILL change the men and make them stop raping! YES, we should still try to appeal to men’s consciences–no reason to throw that advocacy project by the wayside–but we should ALSO focus more on our long-ignored project of trying to appeal to conscienceless men’s fear of injury.

    (And, as I said in a comment that I’m waiting to have unmoderated, I do NOT think that our work to make that happen will undermine our our past, present, and future work to get good treatment for women who are victims of the status quo ‘relatively defenseless’ stereotype.)


  20. on December 12, 2006 at 12:03 pm kitkatwp

    in fact, i think it’s actually more dangerous to suggest that we could address the problem if only women learned how to fight back and made men aware that we could - as thinking girl said, that’s essentially going back to the problem of blaming the victim. after a certain point, it sounds like saying that “more murders could be prevented if people were better able to defend themselves” - which though true doesn’t help

    I think you keep thinking that I want these arguments to happen as a replacement to our current arguments. I don’t.

    I am saying that they need to be included in all our discussions. Alone, they would be no more effective than our current efforts to 1) appeal to men’s consciences and 2) get fair and understanding/sympathetic treatment for women because most of our ‘toolboxes’ only include the tools of the ‘relatively defenseless’ have been.

    I am saying that our efforts are incomplete, and that the absence of the incredibly promising third effort–(really a 2-part strategy) a) appealing to conscienceless men’s fear of getting injured and b) helping women have the tools to make this new stereotype of women a well-known reality–is horrifyingly ubiquitous in our “#1″ & “#2″ advocacy efforts.


  21. on December 12, 2006 at 12:19 pm ruxandra

    i see what you’re saying, but i think that it’s an argument that revolves around certain myths about rape, as i explained above. i TOTALLY agree with you that women in general should create a new “stereotype”, that we should make the whole “women are the weaker sex” idea as obsolete as possible. (i also happen to think that that’s a very true stereotype - we’re not actually weak though we’re told we are and men tend to like to think we are.) i guess i just don’t particularly agree with making this point a major one in the context of rape and sexual violence, because of the whole “blaming the victim and holding the victim responsible for the acts of the aggressor” issue… and i guess i personally don’t think that threat of violence should form the basis of any justice work.


  22. on December 12, 2006 at 12:21 pm ruxandra

    * “i also happen to think that that’s a very true stereotype” should read “i also happen to think that that’s not a very true stereotype”


  23. on December 12, 2006 at 12:47 pm kitkatwp

    i guess i just don’t particularly agree with making this point a major one in the context of rape and sexual violence, because of the whole “blaming the victim and holding the victim responsible for the acts of the aggressor” issue…

    But Ruxandra, if not in that context, then in what context? You said that “men tend to like to think we are [weak].” Doesn’t that imply that it’s quite an important strategy in the context of rape and sexual violence reduction, considering that these two types of violence are attempts at feeling a power differential?

    What other context is fighting this stereotype important in?


  24. on December 12, 2006 at 1:33 pm ruxandra

    well, in all contexts… it should be part of us breaking down “gender” as we know it. but i think saying that in order to eliminate rape women need to work to eliminate the power differential that exists crosses very quickly into letting men off the hook, both in the short and long term - it can come dangerously close to saying that taking advantage of a power differential (whatever it may be) is only “natural” as far as sexual violence is concerned, or to having it be interpreted that way, which it already is. and i find that problematic especially considering the actual statistics about rape (that stranger-on-stranger rape is relatively rare, that it’s not just physical force that’s used, that lots of children are victims, that we have the whole system of prison rape, etc.). you know? i think that the real power differential is not the problem - because it’s not an absolute or given thing - but the way men are taught to think about gender relations and/or their prerogatives as men in the patriarchy. more generally speaking, i think there’s a problem with the way we all are encouraged to go about creating all kinds of power differentials and for what ends we feel we are allowed to use them in society (which is a very gendered thing). something like that…


  25. on December 12, 2006 at 2:33 pm kitkatwp

    it can come dangerously close to saying that taking advantage of a power differential (whatever it may be) is only “natural” as far as sexual violence is concerned, or to having it be interpreted that way, which it already is

    Well, hmmmm…would you get behind working to change this power differential for the sake of unconditioning women, Ruxandra? I mean, okay, you could say that goes back to “preventing rapes in the moment,” which we both agree is not a long-term strategy…but…I don’t know…shit…

    Well, here…how about this…

    Using it as a strategy to reduce individual instances of rape (yes, yes, teaching women to “prevent rapes” ;) in the short/medium term while we work on our longer-term goal of changing the way men are taught to think about gender relations. Because these rapes we’re talking about preventing happen to REAL PEOPLE who have to deal with the trauma of real rapes until we feminists figure out how to change the lessons men get. Can’t we take a few more hours a week and put a little more work into reducing their experiences of rape while ALSO keeping up our efforts on changing the way men are taught to think about gender relations?

    Ooh! Ooh! Now I remember my stronger argument.
    IMPACT and other full-force, adrenaline-state self defense classes always gets lots of students talking about how the way they interact with men in general changes afterwards. Less afraid of violent retribution if they anger a man, they can get closer to them and talk to them about more potentially angering things. They find that they can say things that need to be said that they were previously afraid to say because men were the “physically violent if offended” social category, but that now that was irrelevant.

    Okay, most women report increased communication power with respect to how they deal with bosses, beggars, etc.

    But some of them have reported being able to talk to their husbands, friends, coworkers, son’s boy scout leaders, etc. about things they’re doing that are hurtful to them as women or to women in general. They have reported that they are able to take the conversation where it needs to go because though they always knew that a violent reaction to the conversation was a low probability, now they know that this low-probability event is not even something they can’t handle. And so they end up doing important reteaching to men about gender relations because they no longer have that “What if this conversation doesn’t work?” fear keeping them from having the conversation.

    I’ll bet that if lots and lots of women of a feminist bent had this kind of training (and had it because other women of a feminist bent pushed and pushed and pushed for it to become widespread and well-funded), we’d achieve our longer-term goal of reteaching men even faster…say…maybe in the short term.

    i think that the real power differential is not the problem - because it’s not an absolute or given thing

    I don’t quite know what you mean by “the real,” and if its opposite is the same as “not absolute” or “not given,” since you actually contrast “real” with “absolute or given,” but anyway…I think I kind of have enough gist of this sentence…I think you’re just again saying that you don’t think changing men’s perception of a [physical] power differential is going 1) make them rape less or 2) perceive gender relations differently.

    I might agree w/ #2 when it comes to the conscienceless who couldn’t be persuaded by appeals to their consciences in a million years. On the other hand, changing perceptions of power differentials by gender might be a shortcut way to make more conscienced men reconsider gender relations. Might. I’m not sure. You might be right that that just ain’t happeninin’.
    I disagree w/ #1, but I don’t care to try to convince you of it, because I’m happy just moving on and discussing the stuff I put in boldface. Thanks! You’re fun to talk to.


  26. on December 12, 2006 at 5:04 pm pegasus

    just a question… what are your views about kids born out of rape? esp. considering abortion is banned legally or religiously or morally.


  27. on December 12, 2006 at 5:25 pm phonelesscord

    Thinking Girl, kudos for giving a thoughtful answer to a question that you could have easily written off or made fun of.

    It SHOULD go without saying that wearing provocative clothing doesn’t translate into promiscuity, that promiscuity doesn’t translate into forfeiting the right to say no, etc. Unfortunately, these things do actually need to be said.

    At the end of the day, self defense classes are great, and realistically necessary, but the real way to prevent possible “future rapists” from becoming real rapists is to have serious discussions about the way that men think about women and sexuality.

    http://phonelesscord.wordpress.com/2006/11/03/australian-cleric-sheik-taj-aldin-al-hilali-sucks-at-feminism/


  28. on December 12, 2006 at 6:45 pm Matt

    I’ve never associated this admission with my wordpress.com account - nor - I don’t think - have I admitted it to strangers at all before. But I think there is another page to this book that needs to be said.

    I am male. and
    I was raped.
    grandfather.

    I know many theories of personalities, child development etc.. and none has helped me understand his state of mind more than face to face confrontation. No, it was not easy..far from it. But standing in front of him, grown up, 6foot tall and built like a rugby player, I knew his desire for control and power was diminishing in seconds.

    I saw him scared from just looking in my eyes and I knew he would never have the power to do anything to anyone again.

    Rape is an emotionally charged subject, and I do apologise to those posting lengthy replies as I do not have the ability to read through them comfortably. One day, I will return to this post and give your replies their due time and attention. I promise.

    Thanks.


  29. on December 12, 2006 at 7:20 pm kitkatwp

    but the real way

    I’m not arguing about this “getting feminists behind physical feminism” thing because I think it’s “the real way,” but because I think it’s the too-long-understated-or-ignored prong of the multi-prong “real way.”

    Do you really believe that there’s a “the” real way? That “the” real way isn’t actually a multi-pronged approach? :-(


  30. on December 12, 2006 at 8:03 pm thinking girl

    Hi all,

    Sorry, I’ve been at work all day and not able to moderate comments. Thanks for continuing in my absence.

    Go KitKat and Ruxandra, go! You two are having a really great and interesting discussion. For my part, I get what you’re saying KitKat. I don’t think you’re advocating self-defense in place of the hard (er?) work of gender destruction. I understand your argument to be about reconstructing “women” as strong and capable rather than weak and defenseless. But I’m not abandoning my and Ruxandra’s concerns that this is not enough, and that it might slip-slide into victim-blaming.

    What if the response men had to women being strong and able to defend themselves was to get more violent and more physically powerful?

    Pegasus
    thanks for your question. I have the greatest respect for women who *choose* to give birth to and even raise children that are the “product” of rape. I wouldn’t be able to do that. Of course, it is no fault of the child’s that its father was a rapist. However, I absolutely 100% support women’s rights to abortion in any circumstance. I happen to think that denying women who have been raped access to abortion is irresponsible and completely reprehensible, and maybe just as morally wrong as the rape itself. But then, I believe women must have access to abortion no matter the circumstances, and that denying any woman access to abortion for any reason is morally wrong and irresponsible and reprehensible.

    Phonelesscord
    your screen name is a tongue twister for me! I like it!

    thanks for your comments. and for that link - made me laugh, in an ironic way of course. I agree with you all the way.

    Matt
    Thank you very sincerely for sharing your experience. I’m very sorry about what happened. You have my standing ovation (literally, I just finished) for having the courage to confront your rapist-grandfather like that. That took a lot of guts. Good for you. I hope you got - and are getting - the help and support you need to deal with your experience of rape and incest.

    Rape certainly doesn’t just happen to women (overwhelmingly, but not exclusively). People of all genders experience rape, and people of all genders can be rapists. I think stories like Matt’s show that rape is inherently about power.

    I can’t help but think that rapists must really hate themselves. I think we can all relate to the idea of a person with low self-esteem putting others down to make himself/herself feel better. Rape takes that toa whole other level. I especially don’t understand how many rapists dehumanize their victims (my friend MaxJulian at TheFreeSlave just talked about this in terms of white slaveowners raping black slaves) - and then have SEX with them, put their most prized possessions, their penises, inside of these beings they have just stripped of humanity and made into animals in their minds. That’s a whole lot of self-hatred going on.


  31. on December 12, 2006 at 8:13 pm Katie

    But I’m not abandoning my and Ruxandra’s concerns that this is not enough, and that it might slip-slide into victim-blaming.

    Can I convince you to side with my concerns that “gender destruction” is not enough, and that ignoring reconstruction of “women” as strong and capable when we write about “gender destruction” and such might slip-slide into making lives worse…or at least making fewer better than we could?


  32. on December 12, 2006 at 8:14 pm Katie

    (Oh, and I changed my display name from kitkatwp to Katie, in case anyone is confused. Seems WordPress can’t figure it out and has now put me back into the moderation-before-posting list. Woohoo! *snicker*)


  33. on December 12, 2006 at 8:20 pm Katie

    What if the response men had to women being strong and able to defend themselves was to get more violent and more physically powerful?

    Whoops, ThinkingGirl, missed your response here.
    I don’t think that this is what the anecdotes & studies would imply. I suppose I can’t guarantee it, but I just…I don’t know…reading the physical feminist lit just gives me this hunch that that isn’t the way it’d work out.

    Among the anecdotes I’m thinking of are the “Look at the way men act around each other” ones. Another set is the “Look at the animal kingdom” ones. I guess I feel like if we experienced what it’s like to be closer to a natural state for a while, the trend would be to stay that way, not for us to suddenly jerk the other way and start living in a farther-from-natural state in this respect. I mean, do males of other intelligent animals with societies go and powerlift to make sure that they can’t get their legs bitten off by females they attack, or do they just…I don’t know…treat all strong versus weak animals of their species according to non-gender-based tendencies of cruelty, because they’ve just been living with this assumption that strong/dangerous is strong/dangerous, male or female?

    Meh. I’m getting too wordy here and risk detouring the conversation into a subtopic that I don’t even know how to respond to yet (haven’t gotten my thoughts together) and feel is unlikely to be a problem when I’d rather be talking about the subtopic I can speak a little bit more on and feel is likely to be a problem (that is, the question I just asked 2 posts ago).

    Off work now…toodle-oo!


  34. on December 13, 2006 at 2:31 am Lulu Malone

    This thought provoking discussion has moved me to make several comments, the first being this:

    We can judge a society, a culture, a religion, a people, but the way they treat their women.

    That being said, I think, as some have said here, that we are in the middle of a war, of many wars at this point in our history on this planet. The war of VAW is not a gender war, however, but a war between those who condone and commit the violence, and those who are opposed to it.

    It is important to recognize there are many levels and layers involved in implementing social change, and real change cannot be accomplished if we do not realize this and commit to seeing the stages through. We cannot have “peace” at this point if half of the parties involved will not stop committing violence. Therefore, as I see it, at this stage in the change, we set up our idealism of a violence free society as our end goal, and get to fighting the battles necessary to get there now. Embracing idealism at the wrong time leads to naivete, which leads to victimization.

    I see two strategies available to our side–the side against VAW. Our allies are most women, and men who support us. As women, we must fight to protect ourselves, and I myself carry a weapon with me wherever I go. I purchased my gun when I opened a storefront in my town only to find out a rapist ran a shop two stores down. This rapist had managed to get his victims to recant their testimony with intimidation, and local law enforcement officers whom I was acquainted with warned me about the fact that he was very dangerous and encouraged me to get protection. I learned how to use my gun, because one should never own one without knowing how to use it, and being certain that you can use it without hesitation if necessary.

    How many women would not be raped and would be alive today if they had guns? How many rapists would hesitate if they knew that they would die if they tried to hurt women? Men who rape are operating from primitive levels. Men operating at these levels respond to pack mentality, which is well known in the male community.

    Men who rape don’t care that women don’t want them to rape or that women tell them to stop. Men who rape won’t listen, or change because it is “wrong”, or they wouldn’t rape to begin with. Our male allies can exert peer pressure against these men, by making it unacceptable in their male culture to treat women inappropriately. It needs to be a joint movement of men and women if we are going to make a change. Men who rape have to be reconditioned, retrained, and will only listen, if they listen at all, to other men.

    It is vital, if you are really interested in helping to create social change to study the parties involved in the issues you are concerned with. Look at how violent men are controlled in prison populations by other prisoners. Study their psychology, their backgrounds, their lives. We must all be anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, and students of our culture if we are to be at all effective. So often people talk about what needs to be done, but fail to take the next step to make change.

    Thank you to my brothers out there who embrace civility, love, union, and respect. So often you are not recognized for your loyalty, and the protection and support that you so want to give your sisters. I condemn all feminists who stereotype and lump all men into one category. They are as much a part of the problem as those who they seek to suppress them.


  35. on December 13, 2006 at 2:53 am Lulu Malone

    Sorry–an after-thought/comment as to the nature/mind of sex-offenders:

    I used to be a child abuse investigator. I have been trained to understand (at least somewhat) the mind of pedophiles, and bring this up because some comments included sexual violence against children. In the case of pedophiles, there IS NO CURE–there is no conditioning, re-conditioning, educating, or changing their nature.

    Pedophiles exist, and structure their lives, actions, and behaviors to the soul end goal of being child predators. Period.

    I think that they should be in a separate discussion therefore from rapists who target adults because there is a different brain/thought structure more often in these two types of offenders, serial rapists aside.

    This is not to at all imply that the victims of child sex crimes are any less effected or traumatized, and may, from my experience, be more so in many cases.

    Matt–you’re a hero! I love you!

    –Unknown Pundit


  36. on December 13, 2006 at 9:07 am ruxandra

    @matt: thanks for sharing your experience, i am so sorry you had to go through it. and i second what thinking girl said - congratulations for your courage, and i hope you have the support and help you need as a survivor!

    @katie: first of all, i also can attest to the usefulness and “empoweringness” :) of those kinds of workshops, so i know exactly what you’re talking about; but i think that stuff you put in boldface also answers the question you asked me: in what contexts it can be useful for women to feel stronger and more assertive, if not rape? i think we agree that in all aspects of life…

    then, to adress your point that

    Using it as a strategy to reduce individual instances of rape (yes, yes, teaching women to “prevent rapes”) in the short/medium term while we work on our longer-term goal of changing the way men are taught to think about gender relations. Because these rapes we’re talking about preventing happen to REAL PEOPLE who have to deal with the trauma of real rapes until we feminists figure out how to change the lessons men get.

    yes, i absolutely agree with this, but:
    - i don’t know if it’s more feasible (or faster) even in the short term to teach all women self-defense than to teach all people not to rape because it’s wrong, it’s despicable, it’s illegal, and to ensure and make it clear that in our society rapists will suffer consequences (sure, including the possibilty that the vicim will fight back and they will get hurt physically);
    - if we put accent on learning self-defense, and make (some) women feel safer because they have a set of skills that might help them fight back, what about everyone else? what about children - and all those other people who for some reason or another will not have such skills and will be at a physical disadvantage in a violent encounter?
    - again, the great majority of rapes are not “stranger rapes,” and in lots of cases the aggressors use threats and coercion that are not (only) physical in nature;
    - in fact, there’s so many types of rapes, rape is so pervasive and culturally sanctioned, and the common denominator is not how the aggressor behaves or would/does react to the behavior of the victim, but the starting mentality that raping another person and thus asserting your power over them is somehow acceptable;
    - thinking girl’s question is very good: “What if the response men had to women being strong and able to defend themselves was to get more violent and more physically powerful?” - who can know?!?
    - and based on that last point, one personal problem i have with bringing self-defense to the forefront too much is that it seems to me that approach is ultimately about increasing aggression, in general, and not decreasing it. or about resignation to the fact that we’ll always have violence coming from men, and we might as well all learn to be violent. and that’s something i am very very weary of!

    anyway, maybe this clarifies a bit what i meant with my comments regarding the “real”/strictly physical power differential?

    i know that during my rape crisis training i learned that fighting back during an assault can be anywhere from life-saving to deadly, and that basically women need to (and do) use their best judgement as to what course of action on their part will mean they have to suffer the least harm… with that in mind, of course it’s true that many women don’t have the experience and skills to truly hurt someone back who’s attacking them, so we should try to change that as much as possible. this, for instance, supports much of what you’re saying, katie, and i think it’s a very strong argument for promoting self-defense courses! but when one talks about rape in general, one has to take into account the complexity of the issue. here’s a couple of other things i found that do that, but you probably have lots of information, i for one would be very interested in any additional resources:

    “The question of to fight back or not is an age-old one, and there’s no one right answer. Granted, one particular rapist might be sent running bloody-nosed by a swift right hook, but try that on another one and a horrific experience could be transformed into a fatal one. Resistance advice of the type being circulated in the e-mail in question creates the false impression that escaping unscathed from the clutches of a rapist is only a matter of knowing which self-defence tricks to employ. Reality, however, is far different. Not all rapists can be overcome.

    Does this then mean self-defence classes are a waste of time? Hardly. But they’re also not the surefire protection they’re too often touted to be, any more than a can of mace confers upon its wielder guaranteed safe passage through whatever mean streets and dark alleys lie in her path. Also, physical skills are only as good as recent training — someone who hasn’t practiced a move in the three months since she took a course is only a tad better prepared to fend off an attacker than someone who never had any training at all. Worst of all, such training can lead those who have aced their courses to develop a dangerous complacency about their own safety, inducing them into a state of overconfidence wherein awareness of their surroundings becomes a lost art, buried under the certainty that now bad things can’t happen to them.”

    source

    Should you resist rape and if so, how? Some people suggest that you not fight back at all. Others have recommended fighting back, screaming, vomiting, and doing everything you can to resist the rape, because only about half of the women who strongly resist are raped while almost all who don’t resist are raped. The problem is very complex, e.g. if a women forcefully resists physically–hitting, kicking, using martial arts–and if the rapist has a weapon, she is more likely to be seriously injured. If she vigorously resists verbally–screaming and yelling–she is less likely to be raped but she is just as likely to be physically injured in other ways (Ullman & Knight, 1993). Nonforceful resistance–fleeing, pushing, pleading, begging, reasoning–doesn’t seem to reduce the frequency of rape or of other injuries. It appears that many violent rapists continue their attack even if the victim resists vigorously physically and verbally (or doesn’t resist). The latest advice is: with very physically violent rapists, resistance probably won’t help (and increases the danger); yet, with a more verbal and less physical assailant, strong forceful resistance may help. But, we are talking about stranger rape. How can you quickly diagnose what type of rapist this is? Also, this advice may not be very good with acquaintance rape. In short, no one knows the best response with any certainty.

    source

    [this was way too long... but i also liked this conversation even though it's so rambling and disorganized, at least on my part!]


  37. on December 13, 2006 at 11:05 am Katie

    it seems to me that approach is ultimately about increasing aggression, in general, and not decreasing it.

    You wouldn’t feel that way if you sat in on one of the padded assailant / adrenaline state classes.

    They do a lot of inspiring talking about how a huntress isn’t out to occupy her place in this world by taking from others…she just refuses to be taken from.

    And actually, in the men’s self-defense courses that a lot of IMPACT-ish chapters run, apparently they focus on helping people learn to control aggression and relearn what its proper place is. (Actually, that’s something that the traditional martial arts have always focused on, which is another reason they’re a better starting place for men than for women–in general, we already know how to be restrained!)

    Anyway, like any pursuit out there that people teach or do, it’s easy to worry about it until you see how all the existing practitioners are actually doing it. Then you just kind of don’t worry about it anymore. Like any pursuit out there, they thought of that concern long before any potential supporters did. Know what I mean?


  38. on December 13, 2006 at 11:13 am Katie

    Oh, and Shameless Magazine is a bunch of young women who have not studied the crime reports nearly as thoroughly as Ellen Snortland, Matt Thomas, this one other source that I can’t think of off the bat but will hunt down, etc. I love that magazine from the bottom of my heart, but I wouldn’t quote a bunch of twentysomething non-experts when there are experts available.

    Ditto for Snopes, unless it was written by one of the above, but I really doubt it, since all the people I’ve read who’ve studied the tens of thousands of crime reports and studied the thousands of social-scientific survey answers disagree with what Snopes has to say. (That is, on average it does help or at least doesn’t hurt to fight back if your assailant is armed–and ESPECIALLY helps if you have just the little bit of adrenaline-state experience it takes to think through, “He’s not going to use that…it’s a fear prop like the words he’s shouting at me…knock it out of his hands when I get the chance, then kick him a lot.” And though it’s not quite as cut-and-dry, the data would indicate that a bit of adrenaline-state training–all that successful practice at letting cruel, degrading, or persuasive words go in one ear and out the other while focusing on your own work ahead of you–does help with acquaintance assailants, since they also use cruel, degrading, or persuasive words. It seems that it doesn’t necessarily help right away…it might be a while before the woman can decide that she’s going to attack someone she loves…but that when she gets to that point (and it might come faster after 30+ fights where she decided, “I will NOT let this happen to me” ;) she is actually able to use all that in-one-ear-and-out-the-other-before-I-kick-you-to-knockout-and-run-away experience effectively.)


  39. on December 13, 2006 at 1:27 pm ruxandra

    well, my point with those quotes was to give the larger scope of existing views on “fighting back” - and i think they are pretty valid and reasonably informed (they reference studies and statistics). the blog entry from the shameless magazine site is the one that fully spports your own point of view, katie, and it’s based on various research and information from experts, so i’m not entirely sure about your argument regarding “experts”… but i for one think that it’s not only experts whose opinions are worth listening to - experts can provide data, but data are interpretable: lots of scientific studies contradict each other, it’s up to both experts and non-experts to make sense of them, use and apply them.

    anyway, i really don’t disagree with you that learning self-defense is beneficial, that knowing how to defend oneself is good especially in a violent society and especially for women because we are not already raised to aquire such skills; yes, of course! i also agree that self-defense and aggression-control classes can work to limit and reduce violence to a certain extent. but my point about aggression was a larger one that is based a lot on my personal beliefs, like pacifism - that violence and the threat of violence are ultimately just that: violence.

    more specifically, while responding to aggression with aggression is/should be pure common sense for those who are forced to defend themselves, if we want to curb violence we should make it clear to people that choosing to attack someone is not acceptable and will be punished (which in the case of rape remains a major issue). that people should refrain from committing violence because if they do it’s them who will be considered unequivocably quilty and held responsible, not the victim if she (or he) doesn’t manage to avoid or escape it (and/or fight back). that’s what we promote, as a society, as far as murder and other violent crimes - except rape! - are concerned, right? but because of our current culture of rape, that’s probably the strongest message that needs to be sent when it comes to sexual violence as well. and in this particular case, i would have to say that i just don’t see in what way thinking girl should have included something about women fighting back against their aggressors in a post about “how to avoid becoming a rapist” aimed at a guy…

    along the same lines and to mention lulu malone’s comments, too, i guess i can see how owning a gun may be a solution for one person, in certain circumstances, but i would strongly disagree that arming women would be a (good) strategy and any kind of solution to vaw, short-term or long-term.


  40. on December 13, 2006 at 2:47 pm thinking girl

    Katie
    you asked, “Can I convince you to side with my concerns that “gender destruction” is not enough, and that ignoring reconstruction of “women” as strong and capable when we write about “gender destruction” and such might slip-slide into making lives worse…or at least making fewer better than we could?”

    well, actually, I don’t think that gender destruction is enough. I also call for the destruction of race, sexuality, (dis)ability, religion, class, and all other binary systems of identity classification that privilege one and oppress the other. I don’t wish to reconstruct women or any other group as anything. I wish for all people to be able to choose their own self-directed identity discourse. AND, I call for non-violence and pacifism as the only feasible and responsible way to live. I believe society should be founded on these principles.

    That said, I don’t have a problem with self-defense. I do have a problem with aggression, and there would be no need for self-defense if there were no aggression, so I think encouraging women to learn self-defense is worthwhile but ultimately a band-aid solution.

    that’s it!

    Lulu
    thanks for your comments. As you can probably tell by what I said above, I don’t agree with the use of guns. I am a pacifist, and I believe in gun control. I do not have a problem with self-defense, as I said, and to be honest I don’t really blame you for wanting a gun for protection from a perceived real threat. so all I can say is I hope you never have to use that gun of yours.

    I fully agree with you that men need to be involved in stopping rape. I also agree that child rapists are a different kettle of fish. I had a friend who worked at a sex offenders psychiatric clinic, and the way she described pedophilia to me was that it was a sexual preference, like being straight or gay. Pedophiles sexually prefer children. There is no “cure” for sexual preference. In the case of being straight or gay or bisexual or any shade in between, there is no need for a cure, and there is nothing wrong with sexual preferences, fetishes, S&M, whatever - but in the case of pedophiles, it’s a different story, because we’re talking about children who cannot give consent. Pedophiles rape children, just like the cases of men raping drunk and drugged and unconscious women - no consent can be obtained.


  41. on December 13, 2006 at 6:59 pm Sandy D.

    I’d like to feature this in the next Carnival of Feminists (see http://feministcarnival.blogspot.com/ ).


  42. on December 13, 2006 at 8:32 pm thinking girl

    Hi Sandy D.

    thanks very much. I’d be happy to submit it.


  43. on December 14, 2006 at 9:10 am latzelinc

    Yeah, it’s time for me to comment again…. I’m not trying to set a fire with this or anything.. But a few times (upwards in the comments) Some of you are actually giving some sort of credit to the “rapist” in my opinion, by suggesting that a woman or anyone who may fall victim to rape needs to be better prepared via the discussed means above. Please do not think for one minute that it is a shared responsibility. What I mean by that, it is NOT your responsibilty to learn how to fight, carry a gun, or anything if you do not want to. If you want to, or already do that’s great. But why have to change your lifestyle to cater to mentally deranged individuals who decide to commit these acts. (I’m finding it hard to word this to convey how I really feel, without getting trampled in here) I just think those of us who have to change ourselves..how we live..or even what we do..because of a bad apple (hold your tongue and say ‘apple’). I had a friend who was raped, and just beside herself, paranoid, and completely screwed up for the past 6 years now. And I am beginning to understand. I just wish all the responsibilty of this action (rape) would fall upon the person who commited the rape. Have you heard some of the stories of the BS cops and prosecuters have said to people who have been raped? NO I’ts not your fault. No you DO NOT have to take measures out of anything considered ordinary for you and YOUR life! Take condoms for instance: People who practice safe sex by using condoms are sharing the resposibility. One partner is just as equally important in making sure that puppy is used, or intercourse just doesn’t happen. NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Very few people I have ever met stick to that..but that’s my example of a shared responsibility (that may even be controversial to the ’safe sexers’ ;) But rape shouldn’t involve both of you taking action for a certain cause. It just seems so damn wrong to me. I hope you understand what I’m trying to say..I just can’t spit it out right.. And here’s the kicker. Shouldn’t attempted rape be punished the same as rape? Say that you DID take those self defence courses and you did in fact prevent yourself from being raped. You are STILL a VICTIM…and the other person needs to be punished as if they commited the crime, because Mr. Raper didn’t get full punishment..He’s out raping others. I just don’t think you should have to adjust your lifestyle for scum like that. I am looking at the dead bolt on my door…it just keeps honest people honest. That’s it. If someone wanted to harm me they would come prepared to do so - to counter the measures I have taken to prevent them. That’s my take on it.


  44. on December 14, 2006 at 11:19 am ruxandra

    actually, latzelinc, i think that was very eloquent and it’s something i was trying to get at too. i at least say thanks for articulating it so well and giving your point of view! personally, i’ve been trying to think of a way to convey the idea that one consequence of putting too much stress on women learning self defense could be, in fact, that then rapists might be able to argue that “well, the victim didn’t protect herself, and since she could’ve because she knew (or might’ve known) self-defense, then who’s to blame?” - that since she could’ve defended herself doesn’t that mean it wasn’t actually rape?! and it’s not like it’s at all hard to imagine that argument being made, considering the preposterous ways in which survivors have been blamed in the past and are still blamed now.


  45. on December 14, 2006 at 11:22 am Katie

    Say that you DID take those self defence courses and you did in fact prevent yourself from being raped. You are STILL a VICTIM…and the other person needs to be punished as if they commited the crime, because Mr. Raper didn’t get full punishment..He’s out raping others.

    Morally, I agree with you, but in the real world, where cops act as you say they do, I think that by hurting the rapist for attempting to violate you, you’ve actually just made the chances of him getting punished 100%–because it happened–even if the punishment was a lighter one than he would have had a 2% (or whatever the conviction rate is) chance of getting had you not done something that simultaneously punishes him and prevents as much injury as possible to yourself. (And yes, the studies show that even untrained fighting back, as long as you don’t stop until the fight is done, decreases your chances of being hurt worse than either a) not fighting back at all or b) starting to fight back and stopping mid-fight)

    I agree with the whole legal punishment for an attempted rapist on the basis of victimization and whatever thing…hey, let’s get some lawyers to help us put it into legalese and push it through if we really want to put our money where our blog-commenting mouths are! There are people who would help us do it.

    I strongly disagree with you, though, that an attacker who has been injured in a rape attempt is equally likely to attack again as an attacker who was not injured in a rape attempt. I firmly believe that for the raping kind of conscienceless bastard, the memory or threat of physical pain actually is a deterrent. If it weren’t, we would see crime reports of rape against equally sized men. But that’s not the case. What we see are crime reports of people who wanted a “win” without getting hurt (or caught…but “hurt” is even more immediate and harder to talk your way out of than “caught”).

    I agree that adding “caught” to the “hurt” would be even better and stop even more future attacks than are stopped by hurting alone, but I disagree with you that hurting attackers doesn’t stop a significant number of future attacks.


  46. on December 14, 2006 at 11:29 am Katie

    rapists might be able to argue that “well, the victim didn’t protect herself, and since she could’ve because she knew (or might’ve known) self-defense, then who’s to blame?”

    Ruxandra, this is why all the physical feminist literature and all the practicing full-force self-defense teachers in the country keep on saying over and over and over (and frequently!) that hitting is just one of many tools in the toolbox for self-preservation, and that though we could reduce a lot of rapes and change the odds of a “self-harm-avoiding win” in the minds of potential rapists by adding this tool to the toolbox of every woman alive, it still doesn’t mean that in the moment of the attack, anyone but the woman can know what was the best tool to pull out.

    The reason practitioners and people writing the literature say this so much is that they’re trying to set a precedent that if this “equipping every woman alive” idea catches on better, it will have to catch on with the part of it that they’ve been saying so much for so long (because they wouldn’t let it catch on any other way).

    And I think that supporters definitely should take a lesson from the way the practitioners teach and authors write and do the same thing–every time we talk about it and advocate it, we need to make sure that we also mention the whole “no one can know which tool is right in the moment except the woman” idea so that that idea is as universal as the whole self-defense-spreading idea itself…which will help when a defense attorney is researching self-defense and rape. She/He will see that caveat next to every mention of it and say, “Aha! This is what all the self-defense people say, so you can’t use that excuse! It’s a well known principle of self defense that…”

    Supporters of changing gender relations and thus the frequency of violence against women via undermining the myth of women’s defenselessness definitely have a moral obligation to keep that message at the forefront of their speech.


  47. on December 14, 2006 at 12:27 pm ruxandra

    ok, we’re agreed on that - but as i tried to comment before that’s precisely why i don’t think that it’s particularly useful to bring the point of undermining the myth of women’s defenselessness to the forefront of the discussion for this particular post, which is about how a man should “avoid becoming a rapist.”

    other than that, i still think that your arguments work best for some types of situations and people involved, and not so well or not at all for many others - which is of course true with any approach (so in my opinion we should try out all potentially useful tactics and approaches, while always keeping in mind that we do have that obligation to make sure that we leave no door open for any kind of victim-blaming, ever).


  48. on December 14, 2006 at 12:52 pm Katie

    Okay. One more little thing, though.

    i don’t think that it’s particularly useful to bring the point of undermining the myth of women’s defenselessness to the forefront of the discussion for this particular post, which is about how a man should “avoid becoming a rapist.”

    Do you think the bit about warning him to be afraid of legal trouble was useless to bring to the forefront of the discussion about how a man should “avoid becoming a rapist?” Should that part have been excluded?

    (And if you don’t think that it was at the forefront of Thinking Girl’s letter, remember that my original contention was that I’d like to see an afterthought–not a forefront mention, which you imply I wanted–included in the letter warning him to be afraid of physical trouble.)


  49. on December 14, 2006 at 1:21 pm ruxandra

    no, no, i’m honestly not implying anything; when i made the “forefront” comment i was referencing your own comment about keeping “that message at the forefront of their speech” which i agreed with. but basically i was still just talking about the danger of bringing shades of victim-blaming to this… and i’m not saying that you did, but that it could be taken there in this particular context.

    and to explain, no, i don’t think that the part about legal trouble should be excluded (i actually suggested that it be included :) ) because i see warnings about consequences that have to do with the responsibility of the criminal different from warnings about consequences that have to do with the abilities of the victim. and in fact, now that i think about it this way, wouldn’t it be strange, actually, to assume that this guy could be threatened with the prospect of physical trouble from his potential victims? maybe he can’t… for a variety of reasons. i just can’t know for sure.

    …that’s essentially where i’m coming from.


  50. on December 14, 2006 at 1:31 pm Katie

    Whoops! I guess I did say forefront.
    *blush*


  51. on December 14, 2006 at 1:31 pm Katie

    (Okay, not forefront…at the…back-but-present of speech. How’s that?) ;-)


  52. on December 14, 2006 at 3:37 pm ruxandra

    it’s ok, you said it in another context, and i just took it to use for my point. :) but keeping self-defense talk at the “back-but-present” while always specifying that no matter what “no one can know which tool is right in the moment except the survivor” sounds quite good, i think!


  53. on December 14, 2006 at 10:38 pm thinking girl

    you guys make me smile. Thanks so much for participating in this discussion.

    latzelinc - I just wanted to say I also agree. I think you articulated your point very well, and put it in a different sort of frame that really drives the point home. Awesome. Women shouldn’t have to change because of rapists. Women aren’t the ones doing anything wrong. And I agree about the idea of doing things that are outside one’s “normal” comfort zone in order to play into, recognize, validate the threat of rape. Doing this reinforces male dominance simply by reacting to it. (which is a philosophical point that I’ve recently become very attached to in other contexts; I think it applies here as well.)

    Katie - thanks for that link to Sailorman’s. I’m going to check it out, he often has interesting (and challenging) things to say.

    Ruxandra - you’re my hero. thanks buddy!


  54. on December 15, 2006 at 4:00 am Prash

    I totally agree with you.
    there are so many pressure put on women to be sexually suggestive.
    One cannot jump into conclusion that a woman wants to get raped if you see her with a short skirt.

    Two weeks ago, i went out with my colleagues and her spanish friends to a bar and there was a hong kong chinese girl, aged around 35, was dancing to the core (it was just 9pm) and she had her tight short shirt showing her belly and then blue jeans but you can see her G string and when she danced you can even see her crack…the spanish guys found it disgusting and said it is not even provocative…but a french guy said that this might lead to a rape if any desperate fustrated old and drunk guy around there…
    Freud said that, it is a woman’s choice to get raped or not…if she lets the guy to get raped..it is not called rape…I totally disagree with Freud. Do let me know what you think about this.
    prash


  55. on December 15, 2006 at 4:59 am latzelinc

    If I were any ordinary citizen who worked at a factory all day, and decided to dress up like a police officer….make my way to the annual theme party I like to attend…. and someone runs up to me in need of help as I am walking to the party: They are screaming frantically, “My friend was involved in a shooting! They can be found a block or so around the corner!” Now..whoa..I can’t help them. I am at a party, or maybe walking home from the party. Just because I dress a certain way does not mean I am an actual cop. (may be legality issues for dressing like a cop, but that’s not my point) But since I chose to dress this way, people may approach me for various reasons…but that does not warrant any unnecessary action from them, and in no way justifies that I am going to carry out a duty that one may think. Because one may be ignorant to the fact that I just came from a theme party, I may be ridiculed after explaining that I will not and can not help them.
    Now, relate that to a person who wants to go to a bar, club, party, any other social gathering, or is just going for a walk. This person may have attire that makes them blend in, stand out, or just feel good wearing it. That could be their going out ‘uniform’, so to speak. Regardless of someone else’s choice of clothing, they should not be pre-judged. So one may associate someone dressed a certain way, with their possible intentions…This should not be done in my opinion. I may get thrown out by saying this, but thinkinggirl, you know I am not the best at wording things to get a particular point across so I hope you understand. (that goes for anyone else who might find this offensive) Let’s say that an individual is driving up to the particular place you and your colleages attended. On their way, they positively identify, beyond a shadow of a doubt…a prostitute a few miles earlier…wearing a certain code of dress. The same individual attends the event you are speaking of and sees a person dressed the same way as the prostitute amongst the people at this particular gathering. Dancing wildly…letting loose. This person just may work as a victims advocate for your local court system who is just there to have a good time, is confident in themselves, their dress, and their conduct…and plans on going home ALONE..just as they arrived. And wow..we just prejudged that person, because first thing monday morning they are back in the office, helping others, and conducting themselves tottally different. Did that situation warrant any lude conduct? In my opinion no. Just because they were wearing the ‘uniform’ to go out and have fun, doesn’t mean a thing. And it certainly doesn’t give anyone the right to disrespect them.


  56. on December 15, 2006 at 5:03 am latzelinc

    **ducking in fear** “Don’t shoot!”


  57. on December 15, 2006 at 8:45 am thinking girl

    ha ha latzelinc!

    naw, I’m not going to get mad at you for that. You’re saying, you can’t judge a book by its cover - and you can’t judge anyone by how they dress, or assume that they “are” a certain way, or that they “do” certain things, etc. And that’s absolutely right in terms of rape - just because a woman dresses provocatively, doesn’t mean she is ASKING for anything - for men to hit on her, for men to buy her drinks, for men to ask her to go home with them, for men to put drugs in her drink, for men to force them into the alley out back and rape her…. On the other hand, she may very well be willing to have drinks bought for her, and be hit on by men, or even go home with someone she meets. BUT. No matter how a woman dresses, and no matter how she might be acting or what kind of behaviour she might be engaging in, she is NEVER asking to be raped. Nobody asks to be raped. That’s why it’s called “rape” and not “sex”. (Before anyone jumps in about “rape fantasies” - fantasy is not reality, and even acting out rape fantasies with a lover/partner is not really rape unless he refuses to acknowledge your safe word and continues when you’ve asked him to stop.)

    Now, the sad part of all this, Prash (hi cutie, nice to see you!! xo), is that the ideal of not judging a woman by her clothing or how she is dancing or acting is not the reality. Women are so often treated like objects to possess, and are encouraged to ‘dress up’ and practice all sorts of beautifying feminizing rituals to their bodies like styling their hair and wearing makeup and short skirts and tight dresses and high heel shoes and all sorts of restrictive clothing that makes it difficult to get away from an aggressor - just like real life Barbie dolls, objects that someone can go to the store and buy. And hence, we have women being raped and men blaming women’s Barbie-fied appearance, all the while saying it was that individual woman’s CHOICE to dress that way, do her hair that way, wear that makeup, act like that. And we have men like ‘Future Rapist’ who can’t genuinely tell the difference between our Barbie, pornified culture and what a real woman might actually want to do.

    How about this for a clue: this feminine behaviour is so widespread among women, and yet not complete and utter among ALL women (so therefore not “natural” to women), how can the social pressures to mark one’s body in this way (like an object) be ignored?