(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

Maia has a really, really good post about perceptions of rape and rapists at THM.

This idea is dangerous because when people hear that one of their male friends has been accused of raping one of their female friends, then in order to believe their female friend something has to give. Either people abandon their idea that rapists are all 'bad people' or they abandon the idea that their friend is a good person. But often neither of these things happen, and instead this person (who had been rigorously berating the evils of rape) doesn't believe the woman who was raped.
- Here, really recommended.

To expand on this a little in the slightly wider context of our attitudes to criminals: we like to believe that criminals, especially violent criminals, and especially sex offenders are just random violent anomalies - monsters that come out of nowhere that society then has to deal with and "get off the streets" and "punish". This is a seductive myth for two reasons: firstly, as Maia describes, no-one wants to think that our friends and family have the potential to hurt people. Maia also points out why that's dangerous; also, of course, believing that people who commit crimes are random monsters is also going to make you sceptical of things like rehabilitation & human rights in prisons (although there are some fallacies there, but never mind.)

But there's a second reason: we like this idea because it disclaims responsibility. Because if we don't think that criminals are just innately monstrous, we maybe have to think about the fact that there's something at work in our society that is producing crime. We don't want to accept that continuing objectification of women in the media, and the power that men retain over women, means that rape within the confines of marriage is a reality for a lot of women - not one or two. We don't want to accept that our unwillingness to criticise guys who make jokes about drunk girls contributes to those same guys, or their friends, feeling comfortable about going out and date-raping someone because lack of capacity to say "no" is reinterpreted as consent. We don't want to accept that frustration with the poverty trap might lead someone to rob a bank.

And this is dangerous because it really stops us fixing the problem, and let me be clear here: the problem is not criminals, the problem is society. This is why I find tough on crime initiatives to be poorly named: "tough on crime" policies aren't, really, tough on crime, because being tough on crime means reducing poverty, and being tough on crime means changing our attitudes towards the way men drink and behave, and being tough on crime means speaking out about domestic violence in a way that accepts that people who commit domestic violence aren't random monsters - and by the way, this is a reason that I think the White Ribbon campaign is really valuable (and it apparently quadrupled the number of calls to the domestic violence self-help phone line.) This is a campaign "by men for men" about domestic violence: it doesn't call on women to stop being beaten, it addresses men and tells them to stop beating their wives and families. Just by starting to have that conversation, the White Ribbon campaign is demonstrating that there is a conversation to have - that people who commit domestic violence can have a conversation about that, because they're not monsters.

OK, I gotta go, so this isn't quite finished, but my last paragraph was only going to be "and this is why National and their tough on crime initiatives suck", so you can fill in the blank yourself.

Comments

[botrytis.livejournal.com]

I wonder if the problem isn't that elements of the 'tough on crime' crowd start by thinking of the people who are unlikely to engage in the conversation ... and then ignoring those who would engage..?

And yes, I think sadly, that there are those who won't engage. But that shouldn't be used as a reason not to have the conversation with those who will. Small steps are the solution - there's no instant over night way to solve problems like crime, no matter what some people want to believe or want to promise.

[reticent-lass.livejournal.com]

This is really good and thought-provoking. I'd never heard of the White Ribbon campaign before. It's an excellent idea, and one that's never been more welcome. Here's to hoping it really gets off the ground. All the anti-rape PSA's I've ever seen are targeted at the woman. "Don't go out alone after dark. Don't forget your cell phone. Don't dress provocatively in bad areas. Don't go drinking without your friends." Like rapists are wild bears and women are the hikers who keep granola bars in their tents at night. The attitude is 'it happens, just do your best to avoid it.'

The idea of rape-as-force-of-nature shows up in other ways too. I don't remember where I saw it--some artist's blog, I think. She was describing an art class where they had to introduce their (male) superheroes. More than half of them started with a woman walking down a dark alley alone, only to be beset by random thugs. Of course the hero swings to the rescue and the lady is saved. What's really worrying is that the scenario is just--stock footage. The natural progression of things. Woman goes alone, guys rape woman. There are faceless evil monsters out there who need subduing and then everything will be roses.

We can't fall into that trap. This is why I refuse to accept a ride home from male friends after they tried to force me to go to the mall with them in their car. This is why the White Ribbon campaign is so necessary, and why I want to see it out and alive in the world so badly.

(Think I got a little TL;DR there... sorry. Your points are good ones.)

I liked that post, too

[roadtomanderlay.livejournal.com]

So many people think rapists are strange boogeymen who only come out at night to attack either defenseless virgins or sluts who are drunk.

When my mother told me off for walking home alone I pointed out that I'm far more likely to be raped by someone I know than a stranger. (One day I'll find the actual stats out) She told me that she "didn't want to think about that."

Which I think proves yours and Maia's points: it's easier to pretend that rapists are some malevolent minority of sadists. Some are, but it's more likely that they are someone's-or possibly either mine or yours-friends, brothers, fathers, cousins, whatever.

Oh, and just FYI: Never talk to my flatmate Cory about this. I'm sure the ensuring arguement will destroy worlds and not the least the peace of my flat. HAH. Now there's an ironic statement, and I'm fully aware of the implications.

Re: I liked that post, too

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

I don't know if you read the post Maia linked to, but I participated in the comments thread a bit and the level of denial was just unbelieveable - people spouting off about being offended because the OP had said that statistically they probably knew a rapist and THEIR friends were all good people, how DARE anyone say they'd hang around with a rapist, if someone they knew was a rapist they'd have them thrown in jail right smart!

It was pretty headdesky.

[dragonwire.livejournal.com]

Thanks so much for posting that--I found it quite excellent as well! I'd also like to add that I feel another way in which the 'othering' of rapists is dangerous is that it opens the door for people to make jokes and sexist/offensive comments, then shrug it off as "it's okay for me to say it--I'm not a rapist or anything." I think it not only disclaims responsibility but also enables ongoing cultures of sexism.
I will definitely keep an eye on that blog in the future--seems insightful.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I was going to say something about "I don't want to see belligerent/argumentative", but what the hell.

You've talked about the need to avoid othering rapists and other criminals. Given that the vast majority of rapists and perpetrators of domestic violence are, as you've pointed out, men, don't you think that a certain ammount of othering is valid? The same statistics that tell us that most of us know rapists and rape victims tell us that, if we're a woman, the chance of us personally doing the sort of thing we're condemning is very, very low to the point of insignificance. So a woman can, I'd say, afford to indulge in quite a lot of othering, since there is not very much she can do to stop rape or domestic violence.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

True, but *as a society* we can discourage othering of rapists, and, furthermore, women can encourage men to not other them (which I do agree is probably the most important thing.) Whether we can afford to indulge in othering is not the same thing as whether we *should*.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think you're probably right on all points.

[tearoha.livejournal.com]

Agree. *Society* does tend to do a kind of mentally-acrobatic split when it comes to criminals, don't we? (wow, screwed up that sentence) 'That nice man couldn't possibly have done a thing like that'... etc. 'Othering', as it's put, is such a handy way of removing yourself and your world from any association with such things/people.

ALSO, (which has absolutely nothing to do with your post) but I AM GOBSMACKED. You have Anne Fairleigh listed as one of your interests.
...Did you read HP fic, specifically the Anne Fairleigh/Theo Nott stories on the Sugar Quill? Cause that would be the craziest internet coincidence if you did. If I am barking up the wrong tree, then... um, oops!

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

I believe it was less an internet coincidence than "was author's best friend, had no choice in matter". ;)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

'Othering', as it's put, is such a handy way of removing yourself and your world from any association with such things/people.
Yup, very true. There are some pretty elaborate theories of othering out there, usually about the othering of women and people of colour, which circle around the idea that men/white people/in this case people generally need to use othering to define themselves - defining oneself by saying [that group] is NOT like us. It's an easy trap to fall into.

Haha, I totally read that series. And I actually didn't even have to be forced by sixth_light, who admittedly is my bff. :P so yes, I was in on the ground level for them! I used to read absolutely massive quantities of HP fic, on the Quill and elsewhere.

[tearoha.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting thought about defining self by defining others. Hmmm, I haven't run across that one before, it's very true. The things we do to keep our peace of mind intact!

LOL, I stand by 'crazy internet coincidence'. I was just following the link for the person who made those cool Whale Rider and Once Were Warriors icons, *waves hi at fellow kiwis* and all of a sudden I'm back in SQ-land. I used to lurk around the Quill a lot and read sixth_light's stuff as it went up :D

[tearoha.livejournal.com]

Ah, coercion. I see ;) Still, what are the chances? Quillers are sprouting up everywhere I go on the interweb!
And yes, I loved the Theo/Anne stories. Thanks for writing them!

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Well true, but on the other hand, given how important it is for women to accept that rape is not their fault and it's not their responsibility to change their behaviour to avoid it, I think in some respects the problem is not enough othering.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I was thinking about my reply to this comment this morning and now I forget what I was going to say, but it was basically going to be themes on "No." Othering someone is not the same thing as requiring them to accept responsibility for their actions, or accepting that you are *not* responsible for *their* actions. Othering is a destructive process which acts to marginalise groups in society. I believe that the othering of criminals produces a system in which criminals get worse and worse, attention is focused on blaming them rather than identifying causes of criminality, and consequently levels of crime *increase*. By participating in this process, therefore, women would be producing more nett rapes! That's not productive! No!

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Catching up on comments - this was a very thoughtful comment and I basically completely agree with you. I wish I had more to say but, basically, yes, yes, yes.

Re: I liked that post, too

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

When my mother told me off for walking home alone I pointed out that I'm far more likely to be raped by someone I know than a stranger. (One day I'll find the actual stats out) She told me that she "didn't want to think about that."

Argh, I swear I have some stats in my del.icio.us somewhere, but check the ministry of women's affairs and/or rape crisis websites, I'm pretty sure they would have something. But yes, it is a significant majority.

Re: I liked that post, too

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I went to read them when I went the comments and - ugh, yeah, MORONS.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

then shrug it off as "it's okay for me to say it--I'm not a rapist or anything." I think it not only disclaims responsibility but also enables ongoing cultures of sexism.

Yes, completely - 'oh, I'M not part of the problem, I would NEVER rape someone! LOL, I'd tap that!' You're completely right.

And hey, yes, I love THM, it's my favourite blog!

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

OK, I think I see what you're saying, but let me get this straight.

At the moment, people, including but not limited to women, are othering rapists.

Othering rapists causes more rape.

Therefore, women's actions are producing rape.

Despite the fact that their actions produce rape, women aren't responsible for rape.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Individual women aren't responsible for their own rapes. Society generally is responsible for the social distribution that contributes to crime of all kinds, including domestic violence and rape, but also theft, murder, assault, etc. Women are part of society.

There is a further aspect that women are not the power-holding group in this sitch, they are the powerless group - women are not responsible for what is known as rape culture, and so to the extent that it's valuable to say "X group is responsible for rape", then fine, "men are more responsible for rape than women." But, look: I am a wealthy white woman. I have power in society - less than my brothers, more than a lot of people. If I use that power to contribute to a society that supports the cycle of poverty and crime, shit yes I am responsible for that!

Obviously, women who commit rape are responsible for that as well.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

So it's the difference between individual women and women as a group (and as part of a larger group, eg society)

Well, that clears it up for me.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Oh and as an addendum - the reason I pursued this, despite knowing it would probably come off as annoyingly finickity hair-splitting, is that I have seen some feminist writing which wrote off the idea of rape as being caused by socio-economic stresses as another way men try to deflect responsibility away from ending rape onto themselves. Which I found somewhat startling, although on reflection I could see where they were coming from.