(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

I found this on my wanders and thought it was important enough to re-post, even with my relatively limited time. Not sure where it originated.

A lot has been said about how to prevent rape.

Women should learn self-defence. Women should lock themselves in their houses after dark. Women shouldn't have long hair and women shouldn't wear short skirts. Women shouldn't leave drinks unattended. Fuck, they shouldn't dare to get drunk at all.



instead of that bullshit, how about:

if a woman is drunk, don't rape her.
if a woman is walking alone at night, don't rape her.
if a women is drugged and unconscious, don't rape her.
if a woman is wearing a short skirt, don't rape her.
if a woman is jogging in a park at 5 am, don't rape her.
if a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you're still hung up on, don't rape her.
if a woman is asleep in her bed, don't rape her.
if a woman is asleep in your bed, don't rape her.
if a woman is doing her laundry, don't rape her.
if a woman is in a coma, don't rape her.
if a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don't rape her.
if a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don't rape her.

if a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don't rape her.
if your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don't rape her.
if your step-daughter is watching tv, don't rape her.
if you break into a house and find a woman there, don't rape her.
if your friend thinks it's okay to rape someone, tell him it's not, and that he's not your friend.

if your "friend" tells you he raped someone, report him to the police.
if your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there's an unconscious woman upstairs and it's your turn, don't rape her, call the police and tell the guy he's a rapist.

tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, sons of friends it's not okay to rape someone.

don't tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape.
don't imply that she could have avoided it if she'd only done/not done x.
don't imply that it's in any way her fault.
don't let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he "got some" with the drunk girl.
don't perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can, too, help yourself.

discussion welcome, as per usual. Repost if you wish.

Comments

[bad-mushroom.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I think I know some people who I shall be pointing to this entry henceforth: They'd be interested in spreading the word (as am I).

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

:) Good to know!

[shoeless-girl.livejournal.com]

I'm in two minds about this. I HATE living in a culture which women have to be "safe", yet at the same time I would tell my daughters to avoid walking home through dark areas at night and I would show them how to hurt someone if they were grabbed.

Saying this, I cried while reading this, and I will repost it because I have a right to walk home drunk and not get attacked. As does every other person.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I would tell my daughters to avoid walking home through dark areas at night and I would show them how to hurt someone if they were grabbed. I probably would, as well. But I think the difference- and this is going to sound so silly- is actually a difference in phrasing: instead of telling them that they should do this and this and this to keep safe, I would tell them that they can do this and this and this to keep safe, that these are steps they can take. Not steps they should take, as a moral obligation: because it is nobody's moral obligation to precenth their own rape.

I admit it's a really narrow distinction, and one that may be unique to me. But I also think it's a distinction between one mindset and the other.

:-/ I have never felt that I wouldn't be safe walking home... and yet...

[shoeless-girl.livejournal.com]

I totally understand your distinction and agree whole heartedly. It's about being aware I think - there are people out there who suck - it's not your fault. Here's what to do if a suckful person attacks you. Don't let fear of them run your life though, sort of thing...

*is not coherent today*

[kitsunerei88]

I definitely agree with this. More people need to read it.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Mmm *agrees*

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Agree, except for this: don't tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape.

At first it seemed like the message was men, take resposnsibility for your actions instead of hanging on to the idea that forcing sex on someone is okay. But at that point it started sounding to me like a hysterical "everyone always says rape is entirely the woman's fault and that makes men evil!1!!1!1!eleventyone!" rant. It's also ignoring the fact that men get raped too, by other men and sometimes even by women. EVERYONE needs to take responsibility for their own safety, and that doesn't mean that women should be paranoid about going out, but it also doesn't mean you should "don't tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape" because that's irresponsible. Just goes to show so many people still just don't know the difference between supporting X, and demonising everything the other side says or does, in the name of supporting X.

(Reminds me of a coulmn I read in the paper by a man who was involved in the gay rights movement in the 80s, but who disowned it after his fellow activists turned into hysterical-heterosexual-haters who wanted to do things like remove royal wedding photos from public stuff, because it promoted heterosexuality. And I agree with him that it's all too common that people go from saying something is not wrong, to saying it's better than the mainstream alternative and trying to discriminate against the people they were trying to stop being discriminated against by. Hateful and hurtful behaviour that just makes people hate the activists back)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Well, I would agree that it is a little one-eyed, but I think it is deliberately so. You regularly- it seems to me- make the mistake of thinking that if something is totally onesided in its presentation, it is therefore either useless, or unaware of reality, or both. This one, I think, yes, it is one-sided. But I think it is trying to make a point- with the one you suggested- that every time a man- or a woman- tells a woman she shouldn't walk home after dark, he or she is, probably unintentionally, propagating the notion that it is a woman's responsibility to prevent her own rape. This isn't saying that women shouldn't try to be safe; it's saying that women shouldn't have to try to be safe, and that today's society is totally geared towards propagating that idea- misguidedly thinking that it is the right thing to do to prevent rape.

EVERYONE needs to take responsibility for their own safety

BZZZT, false answer. If I don't want to be responsible I damn well won't be- and it still isn't my fault if I get raped or mugged. NO-ONE should have to be responsible for their own safety, because no-one is responsible when they come to harm. I think knowing that it is more common to get raped after dark, etc, that's fine so that if you chose to take steps to keep safe (as I do) you can. But no-one should say that I should do this. Because should means "moral obligation to." And I should have no moral obligation (as opposed to practicality) to keep myself safe: it is the moral obligation of others not to harm me.

[persephone-kore.livejournal.com]

Wait a second, though.

First, I will note that I'm not so sure "should" automatically means "should because you are morally obligated." There are other types of "should." I think people who post fanfic should attempt to use correct spelling, grammar, and paragraph breaks, but this does not mean I think they are under any moral obligation to do so.

But leaving that aside, in the vein of the troubling implications of language, the line in question doesn't actually say "should" in the first place; it says "how to" -- as in, giving someone information she might be able to use, whether she does or not. The "don't," on the other hand, is on its face a plain old imperative... except that in context, it's part of a long list of other don'ts that are moral obligations. So in context it actually appears to be saying that even though you've just acknowledged that "should be" isn't "is" -- thus having to call the police on people -- it's morally wrong to provide information that might reduce the bad guys' opportunities.

So basically, if the point the line's supposed to make is that saying people "should" protect themselves from attack is a subtly dangerous use of language, I think it might work better if it were itself more carefully phrased.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

But leaving that aside, in the vein of the troubling implications of language, the line in question doesn't actually say "should" in the first place; it says "how to" -- as in, giving someone information she might be able to use, whether she does or not.

*g* you caught me. You're right. And that's a very neat breakdown, may I also add.

So basically, if the point the line's supposed to make is that saying people "should" protect themselves from attack is a subtly dangerous use of language, I think it might work better if it were itself more carefully phrased.

I don't know if that was the OP's point, but it's mine, anyway. Thanks for pulling me up. :)

[persephone-kore.livejournal.com]

(Yes, I know that's a nitpick. But to me, and I admit that I'm speaking as someone who regularly uses "should" to express "good idea" or even "expectation/prediction" rather than exclusively for "moral obligation," it seems that if you are trying to make a point regarding the careful use of language, it may be helpful to be really careful with your use of language.)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*snerk* you're absolutely correct, and I feel justifiably whipped into shape. I think my point stands, mind you, but you're right about the phrasing.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Hey you did say discuss, not agree ;)


And I know I have an amazing ability to get offended by ANYTHING that shows any bias whatsoever. Makes up for my inability to be offended by the usual stuff that gets people up in arms, like celebrities on drugs or people swearing on tv ;)


As far as I'm concerned the victim isn't to blame for any violence (and rape is simply a sort of violence, albeit the most invasive and emotionally damaging one) unless they knowingly provoke it, but I think everyone is still obliged for their own safety to know how to protect themselves or get away, if they find themself in any dangerous situation. It seems like common sense to me. You don't need to be paranoid or turn any kind of danger into a political issue, but since we don't live in a perfect society where everyone respects each other's rights and the law, we should at least remmeber that bad things happen and know what to do about it when they do.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and that was me discussing. :P Feel free to continue; I mean, if I minded I'd have banned you from my journal, like, years ago. ;)

I know you do and sometimes it frustrates me. Er, scratch that, all the time it frustrates me, and I will just continue to discuss that until you, like, cave. Or forever, whichever comes first. :P

and rape is simply a sort of violence, albeit the most invasive and emotionally damaging one

Half of me agrees, and half of me doesn't. I mean, yes, it is a sort of violence. But it is a violence that is loosely defined, half-condoned and in almost every case committed by men, and for the vast majority of cases against women. (If you have statistics on the numbers of rapes committed against men by men, and against men by women, I'd be interested, I really would.) And I generally believe that the point of this meme/address/whatever you'd like to call it is addressing something that is, IMO, a significant prejudice or attitude or problem in society that men are violent and will committ violence against women, and it is the women's responsiblity to protect themselves, not the men's responsiblity to say "enough is enough, men are not going to be like this anymore." rape does not just mean attacking someone in an alley, it means date rape, it means having sex with your drunk female friend or aquaintance, it means taking advantage of a very significant biological difference between men and women. So in that way, no, rape isn't just any other form of violence, it is a form of violence that society views very very oddly in that, unlike the committers of almost any other type of violence, violent rapists are immediately demonised and separated from the male population- thus absolving them; I believe if there was one sort of violence women committed almost exclusively, people would not get offended when this was pointed out as maybe a problem for men to deal with. And non-violent rapists- date-rapers, etc etc etc, are sometimes not even condemned at all.

Okay, that was a very confused paragraph, but there are a couple of things in there that I think are important, so let me just try again.

*rape is a type of violence committed almost exclusively by men.

*yet most, if not all, of our efforts towards preventing rape focus around telling women what to do, where to go, and how to behave.

*by demonising violent rapists and excluding them from the male population, society implicitly absolves the wider male community- this man X would not do this, it's only these men Y. this is not unique to rape, it happens with other types of violence as well and it's just as bad then but I think it is most dramatic in violent rape and paedophilia. The demonising needs to be against the kind of society that does not talk to men about preventing rape by men, but talks to women about preventing rape by men.

*non-violent rape- god that's a bad pair of words, there's no such thing, but I mean date rape, taking advantage and pushing too hard and stuff- is not condemned and is occasionally applauded, yay guy X, you got some, hahaha the drunk slut haha. *shrug* And I think that is very much a male community thing.

Um. Yeah. Dunno how that goes, and I think to some extent I'm preaching to the choir- you did say you agreed with most of the OP- I'm just trying to sort some ideas out, OK? :P

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

I see where you're coming from now, and I realise now what I said sounded a bit confused. I do get that that's the position the OP was trying to take, too, but it doesn't stop me taking issue with how simplistic and knee-jerk it came off as to me. Yes, we need to change the culture around what people think of rape, but would it hurt some people not to act like banshees all the time? lol

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I hate the attitude that dimisses anyone who really believes in what they're talking about. I think the whole point of this was to be radical and sometimes that's what you have to be, when you're challenging something that is a totally unquestioned part of society. Its point is in its shock value and while therefore it's not 100% "correct" or whatever, that's not the

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i?point.</i>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

I hate the attitude that dimisses anyone who really believes in what they're talking about. I think the whole <i>point</i> of this was to be radical and sometimes that's what you have to be, when you're challenging something that is a totally unquestioned part of society. Its point is in its shock value and while therefore it's not 100% "correct" or whatever, that's not the <i?point.</i>

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

I've grown up in a house of pedants. My dad got offended at the Simpsons because Grandpa made a mangle of history in one of his deluded stories!! For fucks sake.


And I'm not dismissing any people, just the fact that any time someone expresses an opinion in our society, it seems like it's 99%rage and only 1% substance.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

(even when I do it because I know I do. I never said I wasn't a hypocrite!)

[ezri-sun.livejournal.com]

Hurray for common sense!

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Why thank you :P

[mandor700.livejournal.com]

What about man-rape? It dosent get much air time these days.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

That's one of my pet causes actually. Things that get done to men that nobody hears about because culture is so much about "protect the women and children!"/the idea that men have to be tough guys and not show that they've been hurt etc (about half of all domestic violence is thought to be committed against men, but most of it doesn't get reported because they're too scared to)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

That's one way in which the OP is a tad exclusive. But even rape against men is, IIRC, mostly committed by men.

[decado.livejournal.com]

My god, you've found the answer! Now let's have one for,
if someone is alive, don't murder them
if you see something don't steal it
and it's the end to crime!

I don't mean to trivialise the issue, but how does this help?
Whilst obviously there are extremes, everyone has to take some care in looking after themselves.
In any society, there will always be scum. It doesn't matter what you say or do, one day you may run into that scum.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

In any society, there will always be scum. It doesn't matter what you say or do, one day you may run into that scum.

This is the mindset that I find most frustrating. People who have done bad things get compartmentalized into this other box and then it doesn't matter what they do. They've been differentiated.

Those Scum are people. They were children. They had parents. At some point in their life its hard to imagine they didn't experience love of some sort.

I'm not saying that decado is mean or anything. but I hate that people seperate criminals out like that.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

This is the mindset that I find most frustrating. People who have done bad things get compartmentalized into this other box and then it doesn't matter what they do. They've been differentiated.

Particularly with rape and other sexual crime- and, lately, terrorism. And I think it's really a way that society tries to absolve itself- these people are unusual/throwbacks/genetically meant to be rapists/terrorists, we have done nothing to cause it. Which while it handily exonerates the victim- which is what we're talking about with rape here- I agree that it's totally insufficient as it relates to the offender.

I'm not saying that decado is mean or anything.

I would. ;)

Kidding.

[decado.livejournal.com]

Righto,
next time I'm walking through manners mall at 4am and some thug tries to steal my shoes, I'll just hug him, poor devil, he's had a tough life.

Please. I hate people that try to defend the action of someone such as a rapist. Ever had to comfort a friend who's just been raped? Then try saying "oh, but they're people too".

I recently saw a news piece on a guy who had just escaped from the cells in wellington. Burgler, P-user, violent, armed etc etc. Then the say the name. I went to primary school with this guy, he grew up in a upper-class wellington suburb, had ordinary, good parents and went to a good school. He was an evil little shit back then, and nothing has changed. Scum. Plain and simple.

Seeing as they are people, then you have to concede that they have the same free will as the rest of us and knowingly make a choice.

If mean is disliking a rapist then I am mean.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

I didn't say they don't deserve punishment. I didn't say what they do is right.

My point is that they are human too.

Humanity goes from Jesus, Ghandi and more right through to Hitler and those idiots who flew planes into the Twin Towers.

But its is crazy to treat some of them like they aren't human. As if they are not as good as One. Because who knows what'll happen next.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I hate people that try to defend the action of someone such as a rapist.

Since we're all hating things, I hate it when attempting to defend the person is read as a defence of the act. There is nothing that can ever excuse or make up for rape- or murder- or crime generally (well, depending on the crime.) But sometimes there is a defence of the person, who can't be separated from their crime but- the more we seek to demonise the rapist, to say that some people are just bad, the further away we go from actually eliminating violent crime. Because the only way to do that- or reduce it- is to understand it, just like any other phenomenon.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

if someone is alive, don't murder them
if you see something don't steal it
and it's the end to crime!


But the thing is? Society says that every day (with some exemptions for some specific forms of crime like tax dodging or whatever. And I do think that's a problem, too.) Society constantly stands up and says that the people who murder other people are responsible, that the people who steal something are responsible for it, and not the people who are stolen from- no-one tells the billionaire who's just had her $1mill necklace stolen that she shouldn't have had that necklace, or- before the crime- that she shouldn't have expensive things because they might get stolen; no-one tells the mother whose son was murdered that she should have had a more expensive alarm, or that he shouldn't have been home alone with the door unlocked- because it is accepted that it is not our responsiblity to prevent our own death by violence, although it is sensible to do so.

So I think you're slightly missing the point in that this isn't meant to be a guidance manual as to how to prevent rape; this is meant to bring attention to the ways we deal with rape. It's a crime almost exclusively committed by men, against (mostly)women and (sometimes)men; and yet our efforts to combat it start and practically end with focusing on what the woman should do to be safe.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

I think people's attitudes have mostly gone beyond "she was asking for it" but this has got me thinking about when we talked about the whole idea of having to protect ourselves from rapists in Philosophy. Most of the group decided they didn't think it was fair that women's lives should be put out by having to make sure we didn't get raped...and you're right. The blame once it's happened isn't on the woman, but rapists are demonised so that potential victims are supposed to protect themselves, probably because we DO treat rapists as so inhuman that they can't control what they do. Or something.

[decado.livejournal.com]

Yeah OK, fair enough. Perhaps being a guy I don't see it as much.

I'm surprised to see you of all people advocating personal freedom though! :P

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Perhaps that's it.

Oh har har har, I am very much for liberty! And freedom! And stuff!

[repton-infinity.livejournal.com]

One night, a thief stole the Hodja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasreddin)'s donkey. When he told his friends of his loss the next morning, they were very critical.

"Why did you not put a lock on the stable door?" they said. "Why did you not wake up when the thief came in?"

"Do you not thin the thief is a little to blame too?" said the Hodja.

[nzlemming.livejournal.com]

Word!

Love the Hodja! Thanks for reminding me, and for the link

[blueyeti.livejournal.com]

I just got back from Schoolies (30 000 school leavers in a kitch beach-side town), and that was the first time I was really *exposed* to a few of these 'if a woman is...' situations. My friend Julia was telling me about her friend Lizzy (a ditzy girl of shifty morals with a single braincell on timeshare). Lizzy is an idiot, a slut, a sex-object to the guys around her, and in a severely fucked relationship(s) with a number of males.

She was sharing a schoolies appartment with Jackson, Chris and Pete. Jackson, her most constant male whateverthefuck, forced her into anal sex which she didn't want, and then SHE DIDN'T LEAVE THE ROOM. She went back to the room. She cried to Julia, who told me, but she WENT BACK. This started a week of Lizzy gathering followers (including Pete, thankfully); Chris (Jackson's like-minded, thankfully incompentent, cousin) and Jackson defending themselves and incriminating Lizzy.

This was a huge eyeopener to me, because I live a sheltered existence and this was the first instance of anything like this I'd actually encountered. I was all for kicking him in the balls and blackmailing him with 14 years imprisonment, but Julia promised me she'd tell Lizzy's mother, and I knew that at that restricted point in time (as in, we were all in a removed situation without parentals for the next four days) I'd probably do more harm than good. Jules then told me that Lizzy had been physically abused by her father, and so this shed a bit of light on her psychosis/*why* she went back. But, God, the barrier between slut and nieve is such a very very slim one.

Certainly Jackson is a bastard who needs to *learn*. He talks about girls as 'challenging' and uses charm as lubricant. Julia, who knows him and hadn't kissed anyone a week ago, got sucked in when she had a few drinks. Bec, who was in a delicate courting, was Jackson's aim for a night or two. *Someone* needs to kick him in the balls, take him to the cops, wrap him up yellow humiliation, *anything* to force respect or the seemage of it from him.

But Lizzy... Her headtrip is abuse. She understands it, lives in it, is controlled by it. She'll *choose* a relationship like this over another because she has her form of control. She knows what to expect, as she's had it all before, and at least in this situation she can feel wanted. It's comforting, it's known, she's scared that this existence/past will come to haunt her if she tries to break away from it (which she wants to do). Where is the barrier between her knowledge of sex, her wanting this/anything/something; and the neivity which brings her back to Jackson's room? Certainly he's in the wrong, but she's not helping and I don't know if enforcement by stronger friends would bring her out of her headtrip or force her deeper into it.

Hopefully her mother will help - she divorced the abusive father, and is generally a caring, intelligent person, fostering kids and such. But what do I do? I'm not her friend, and Julia is a weak, insecure person herself, who *didn't* get a shock at this situation. I want to report him to the police and kick him in the balls, and with a few words of Jackson's general personality (no situations, I promised Julia; she knows what I'd do far too well) strangers agree with me. But where are the options, really?

I don't know what I can do, except post this further on and annoy Julia until words are spoken and people change.

[blueyeti.livejournal.com]

In a far more positive note, both Aloys (the school Jackson came from) and my own school had the same rape presenter come to us. He told us the 'preventative' tricks, but mostly everything else; but to the boys he tells them *what* is rape, when they are responsible, when situations should be left alone and when they should go to the police. I was rather impressed - by both the incredible *logic* of that solution, and by the ignorance which leads to boys in a gangrape situation thinking that forced oral sex isn't illegal.