*Who* Exactly Is "Asking For It"
[Note: I'm on vacation in what may be very limited internet service so this is a pre-recorded and (I very much hope!) a self-publishing post. I may not have much opportunity to reply to comments but you're comments are still very welcome. I'll reply as soon as I can. You're some of the best commenters in the blogsphere so you're always welcome to respond spiritedly but respectfully to each other's comments while I'm away. --fl]
I spend most of my time talking about the *descriptive* elements of the dominant "no-sex" class paradigm: men's irrational but persistent conviction that women are "fair game" for leverage for sex because they have no authentic sexual agency and thus no interest in sex independent of those who seek to "get" sex from them. But there's another side, a *prescriptive* side where various personal, social, and legal punishments are designated for women who *fail* to meet the class expectations created for them.
Case in point? Laura Woodhouse of The F-Word Blog
Yup, once again the onus is being placed on women to prevent rape, with men entirely absent from the equation, this time in the Malaysian city of Kota Bharu:
Authorities in Kota Bharu have distributed pamphlets recommending that Muslim women do not wear heavy makeup and loud shoes when they go out to work in restaurants or other public places. [...] The goal of the modesty drive was to prevent rape and safeguard the women's dignity, said a spokesman.
Policing women's appearance and pre-emptively blaming them for rape in one fell swoop? Ten patriarchy points for you, sir.
I think looking at these declarations as warnings *against* rape is missing the point. I think instead they serve the functional purpose of *authorizing* rape as a tool of punishment for transgressors.
So I'm afraid that while Feministe is possessed perhaps of more generous expectations when she says of the same municipal circular
If the Kota Bura Municipal Council is actually interested in preventing rape, perhaps they should focus on the rapists.
I'm afraid the Council *really isn't interested* in preventing rape, they're interested in *using* and *encouraging* it as a form of social control of women.
And I think, by the way, that this is a *very* big deal. When wretched jerks say of an assault victim "well, she was asking for it" I suspect what they mean is "*we* were asking for it." Time to start calling them on it.
%#)!*&$
When Golda Meir was Prime Minister of Israel, she was asked to place a curfew on women to end a series of rapes. However, she refused, saying:
"But it is the men who are attacking the women. If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay at home."
Actually, when it comes to things like this, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt in regards to intent. While it may be so that some of them propose things like this primarily to control women, I suspect most of them really do want to protect women from rape. The real problem is failure of imagination.
Usually they see rape as something that is "done to" women rather than "done by" men. They also notice that women who behave in certain ways are less likely to be affected. So therefore the call for women to "change their ways". But this doesn't really work. It doesn't have a significant effect on the number of rapes. It only changes the criteria that the rapists use to choose their victims.
Nightfall, I can see where you're coming from, but I think that one consequence, intended or not, of telling women to protect themselves, is that it then makes any woman who doesn't do so... kind of analogous to someone who doesn't wear a bike helmet ("Organ donor!" drivers shout as they zoom past). If she can't be bothered to do such a little thing when every other woman does, if she ignored the clear danger, she has made her choice and deserves what she gets. I'd never thought of it like that before, but now that it's been presented, I can see it.
The difference is that wearing a bike helmet is protection from natural risks (also, the "organ donor" thing is toolish anyway), whereas assault is perpetrated by other human beings. You can't ask gravity not to go downwards or gravel not to be sharp, but asking a person not to rape is... it's not an unreasonable expectation, is it?
As long as someone's being ordered to modify their behavior, "Hey, men, don't rape people, we're going to increase our policing and penalties!" seems like a much more appropriate edict than "Hey, women, here's how you should dress so you don't look like the kind of brazen hair-exposing hussy who has it coming!"
D'oh. Ignore me, I'm a doofus who cannot read sarcasm. Ergh. Sorry. I wish there was an "edit post" button.
:(
Not a problem-- I was unclear to begin with. Not sarcastic, just speaking from the point of view I disagree with.
Perhaps we're both being a bit unclear, because I don't see how we're disagreeing.
I only said that personally, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in regards to intentions. I didn't say that things like that weren't social consequences, intended or otherwise. If for some reason people tend to *plan* for negative social consequences to happen just so people like them can feel superior, then that just makes humanity seem very sad and pathetic. "If you didn't want to be punched in the face, you shouldn't have been born!" Okay, over-exaggerated, but you know what I mean.
Have you ever seen a man tell another man that the way to stop sexual violence is to stop committing it? I never have. I've heard women get fed up about the burden of preventing rape being on our shoulders and no one else's, but this is the first time I've heard it from a man.
While I agree that people should be given the benefit of the doubt, the sheer weight of women, protect yourselves builds up. And the social consequence to this... is not unforeseeable. There is a likelihood that at least one person not reading this blog has realized that this is bad advice.
In my town, a college town, there was a recent bunch of sexual assaults. No rapes, but a lot of jumping-on and groping with no arrest that I know of. Every article included advice to women-- be aware, walk in groups, don't go out at night. I never once* read, "If you hear someone call for help, call 911 immediately." All the burden of protecting women fell on the women individually.
*to be fair, I do not read the paper exhaustively and may have missed it
No, I haven't, but then again I hardly know any men and don't listen to the public conversations of strangers, so I wouldn't have any idea.
Anyway, that just sounds silly. "The best way to stop theft is not to steal anything!" "OMG, you're right! I'd better not be a thief!" In my experience, simply telling people not do bad things doesn't work - if anything, it just makes things worse. The best way to influence someone's behavior (as far as I know, anyway) is to do it subtly, without directly referencing the behavior you wish to influence. And let them realize that 2+2=4 on their own.
No, I don't think subtle hints are the solution to sexual assault. You're correct that simply telling men isn't going to do much (although honestly? a lot of places could at least try), but how about increasing the penalties? How about making it easier to report a rape and appear as an accuser in a rape trial? How about providing police patrols and security escorts in high-risk areas and events? There's a lot of steps you can take that are more productive and less anti-freedom than telling victims that they're the ones who need to change.
I think that the bike helmet analogy works pretty well. You want fewer car vs bike crashes to kill cyclists, so you put in helmet laws. This works... some. All the burden is on the person riding the bike. A better way to reduce deaths is to have the cyclists wear helmets and tell the people driving the cars that yes, bikes get an entire lane all the time-- with penalties.