The Politics of Location: Take Back the Night

I’ve thought a lot about what I might write this week.  I was glad to see so many of you out at Take Back the Night.  Some of you also wrote about how the march, and especially its location, raised questions and caused some discomfort.

The issue of where to hold the march is always a dilemma.  As one speaker afterwards recalled, Take Back the Night used to happen at the UofA.  As you might imagine, the participants were  mostly young and white.  For many years, Edmonton did not have a Take Back the Night, and when it was resuscitated 7 or 8 years ago, the march began at City Hall and weaved through many empty downtown streets.  The demographics of the participants were much the same as when it was held at UofA.

I know that the decision to move to The Avenue was made after a lot of debate about the politics of location.  Behind this decision was be the best of intentions -- to make the march less white and less middle class.  The first year it was at this location, the route was a big rectangle stretching down 118 Ave and then moving into residential streets behind.  I felt uncomfortable walking those residential streets yelling “Whose streets? My streets,” when these streets were not mine. I also felt sad that a march that arose to protest the ways in which rape restricts our mobility was so rule abiding, confined to sidewalks and back streets, because this was what the police would allow.  The politics of race and class, of space and access to justice were all deeply implicated in these choices.

Edmonton is a city strictly divided by race and class. Colonization marks the social geography of Western Canadian cities, creating boundaries between white middle-class spaces, ruled by norms of universal justice, and the racialized spaces of the inner city, which, as Sherene Razack has argued, are constructed as zones of naturally occurring violence. Edmonton is an epicenter in the national tragedy of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and yet, the routine violence that is enacted on the bodies of Aboriginal women nearly escapes register.

When Take Back the Night is held at 118 Ave, we all forced to grapple with how we are all implicated in this social geography, to engage in a process of "unmapping." This is always uncomfortable; but discomfort can be politically and analytically productive. The politics of having Take Back the Night on 118 Ave will never be unproblematic.  And perhaps the organizers should reconsider the location.  As I was walking, I suggested to a friend that having the march Jasper Ave would make a much more public statement about sexual violence in this city.  At the same time, the kinds of community building that happened at this event this year would be lost.  

Will people ever realize that rape myths really are just myths?

Reading "Rape: On Coercion and Consent" I was struck by the question of whether beliefs about consent and the issues of believing whether sex was consensual based on the amount of force used have really changed all that much. 

I realize that many people work very hard to counter the negative effects of myths surrounding sexual assault, many of the work focusing on just how many people are assaulted by people they know and that some times rape is not violent or extremely forceful. However, I really wonder how much of it is actually getting through to the public. 

This thought was triggered when I read the passage about men saying it isn't as traumatic for women who are raped by somebody they are close to (177). I know many people who have actually said that they wish their assault had been more violent because then at least they wouldn't get to look at the doubt in a police officers face or hear their mother ask how it was assault if they were dating this person and had consented to other sexual acts. 

When people think of rape or sexual assault, it is most often the "acceptable" form of assault - when one is pulled into a dark alley by a stranger, their life is in danger and they are brutally injured and require immediate hospitalization. (Jaclyn Friedman describes this much better in her article What We Talk About When We Talk About Rape) People don't think of the girl whose boyfriend went too far or the woman whose husband didn't take no for an answer - people rarely acknowledge the people who were assaulted and were not injured. Often the people who are not seriously injured by their attacker are looked upon with doubt, as acknowledged in 'Rape: On Coercion and Consent', when discussing marital rape cases:

"In marital rape cases, courts look for even greater attrocities than usual to undermine their assumption that if sex happened, she wanted it"(176)

So, essentially, violent force is necessary for rape to have occurred - this is not only the case in marital rape, often people assume violence is necessary for rape to have occurred in any situation. 

It just bothers me that people who are not in classes like ours and people who are not affected by sexual assault often view it in such a skewed way, even though there are campaigns out there that challenge the myths surrounding sexual assault, the public refers to the 'acceptable' form of assault as one of violence and force rather than of coercion or just plain old not taking no for an answer. 

Is it because rape was defined (with the help of Brownmiller) as a violent crime about power and defacing the property of men? How do we change the knee-jerk reaction to immediately think of sexual assault as a violent act (the 'ideal' version Friedman speaks about) and realize that it comes in many shapes and sizes?

The law may have changed to acknowledge the many faces of assault, but why are survivors still confronted with doubt and scrutiny if they survived uninjured by the same people who are supposed to enforce and maintain these same laws?

"Force is present because consent is absent"

In Mackinnon's, "Rape: On Coercion and Consent", she describes rape as "an extension of sexism, and  an extension of dealing with women as an object". There is this idea that women who have had sex have nothing else to lose through rape because they already lost "it". The illusive "it" is yet to be defined and I find troubling the idea that a women's sexuality prior to the rape is considered to be part of her identity which is then taken away in some form, as if each part of her is a separate object. Lise mentions a Law Reform from 1983 that restricts cross examination using past history of the "victim" due to the idea that women who have had sex were more likely to consent. These notions of what a woman (hetero-normative sense) is likely to do because of past sexual history is irrelevant to what is happening right now, what is happening "to her" through the legal system as well as social constructs at that specific moment in time.

This idea that "force is present because consent is absent" is mentioned by Mackinnon, where rape is defined through male sexual terms, there needs to be a distinction between rape and sex  that is clear and not strictly defined  or assessed through a women's will. Mackinnon see's rape and normal sex as the same thing, this eliminates the idea of free choice. What is the line that we draw, when sex with force, in which the extent of force used can not be gauged is normalized. What then is the range at which we say to much force becomes rape if consent is not mentioned?

Our criminal standard focuses on what the act of rape means to the assailant rather than to the "victim". The Strategy of Law Reform is based on the gender inclusive redefinition of rape as it is not considered just a "women's issue". We also have to consider as Lise mentioned who sets the standard for gender neutral treatment? The question of consent is sexualized, consent reflects an image of a masculine agency. When rape is constructed as a crime this determines its meaning, this is problematic for me in a way that focuses on the "crime of rape" versus the "act of rape" seen as a crime? The distinction being the act of rape is the crime itself, the inherent "choice of the act" should be considered the crime. I guess my frustration is not in the absence of a definition of a crime but a definition of rape that is separated from a  common crime.

My CSL placement is at Kindred House and I have yet to figure out how to make this weeks readings relevant to what i see there or hear there. Yes the law is useful and necessary and has improved considerably but what actually has been considered because the way in which these women have been treated through the eyes of the law is not unbiased or regulated. So then how do I look at them and not feel as if the purpose of the law has failed them in some way?

Secondary Victimization in the Legal System

From Catharine MacKinnon’s “Rape: On Consent and Coercion,” to Rebecca Campbell’s chapter “From Thinking to Feeling,” the idea of “secondary victimization” (Campbell 53) is a regularly discussed concept to describe sexual assault survivors’ experience within the criminal justice system. Secondary victimization may occur to women who press charges on their rapists, stating “they were raped twice, the second time in court.” (MacKinnon 179) This secondary victimization can also occur “if victims do not receive the services they want and are treated in an insensitive matter…[which] can magnify feelings of powerlessness, shame, and guilt.” (Campbell 53) In my CSL partnership with the Elizabeth Fry Society, where I have been assisting with its Court Program at the Provincial Criminal Docket Court in Edmonton, I have witnessed this secondary victimization firsthand.

Wednesday morning was my first CSL hour in court with the Elizabeth Fry Society, and I was immediately confronted with how inaccessible the criminal justice system is for most people, and even more shocked by how people coming before the court were treated by the legal system. The Provincial Docket Court is incredibly difficult to navigate—physically and its legal procedures—for those who have never encountered the system before. To begin, a person must wait in a relatively long line at the Case Management Office to discover where her case is to take place, and eventually traverse the maze that is the Edmonton Law Courts to find it. Then, she must wait at the given courtroom until her case is called, so even though a person’s court time is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. it is possible to be waiting for hours for a case to come up. As well, most people are unaware that they need a lawyer to discuss their matters in court; luckily, the Elizabeth Fry Society is there to help them, and direct them to duty counsel, a lawyer who will provide preliminary basic services until another lawyer is found or one is provided by legal aid.

The above process would already be cause to feel powerless, confused, and humiliated if you talk to the wrong people, as it is difficult for many lawyers to keep the disdain out of their voices if you ask the wrong questions. And unfortunately, these feelings don’t go away, they are multiplied tenfold once you enter into court, where an atmosphere of intimidation immediately surrounds you, and there is no promise that the judge or even your legal counsel will treat you with respect. I was told that even something as small as whether or not the judge got his or her morning coffee would entirely shape defendants and survivors experiences when coming before the court. One lawyer directly referred to a female client, who hadn’t even left the room yet, as “completely psychotic,” hystericizing this woman’s claim and reinforcing the “humiliation, and indignity of being a public sexual spectacle” (MacKinnon 180).

This entire process is incredibly intimidating for people, especially when legal terms and procedures are not clearly defined for them, and this secondary victimization reinforces a humiliating and powerless feeling similar to what was experienced when a survivor had been sexually assaulted. The Elizabeth Fry Society does a good job in helping people navigate the Court when necessary, but the criminal justice system is overwhelmed with people accessing it, making it next to impossible to talk to every person. Unfortunately, as noted in “The Perils of Institutionalization in Neoliberal Times”, it was found that budgetary pressures often result in fewer staff being completely overworked, making it difficult to provide the same quality of services, which perpetuates the negative revictimization survivors may feel in court. Less project-specific funding for Sexual Assault Centres may help in providing survivors in court with support services (Beres et al. 153), however, it is not solely the lack of services for survivors that is the main cause of secondary victimization, it is the inherent subjectivity and condescension within the legal system that contributes to the secondary victimization of survivors.

We are led to believe that the legal system is an objective method of justice, that it has no bias, it is rational, and it is not affected by the outside world. However, my experience in court has shown me that the legal system is quite subjective, opinionated, and is greatly affected by the dominant neoliberal paradigms of the day. Due to the rise of neoliberalism, “social and political problems [are]…redefined as individual problems, best managed through responsibility and self-regulation” which greatly contributes to the condescension within the legal system, where victims are blamed for not being “responsible risk managers.” (Gotell 217) This neoliberalist paradigm of “risk management” is a subjective opinion that is pervasive throughout the legal system, contributing to the rape myth that somehow being sexually assaulted is the survivor’s fault for not being a “responsible risk manager.” Therefore, secondary victimization cannot be eradicated solely by putting more money into centres that help sexual assault survivors access and navigate the court system, this neoliberalist “risk management” paradigm within the court system that calls people “completely psychotic”, must also change in order to reduce secondary victimization.

Works Cited

Beres, Melanie, Crow, Barbara, and Lise Gotell. "The Perils of Institutionalization in Neoliberal Times: Results of a National Survey of Canadian Sexual Assault and Rape Crisis Centres," Canadian Journal of Sociology 34.1 (2009), 135-163.

Campbell, Rebecca. “From Thinking to Feeling.” Emotionally Involved: The Impact of Researching Rape (2001): ch.2, 37-64.

Lise Gotell, "Canadian Sexual Assault Law: Neoliberalism and the Erosion of Feminist inspired Law Reform." Rethinking Rape Law (2010): 209-223.

MacKinnon, Catharine. “On Coercion and Consent.” Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. (1991).

Take Back the Night, White-Girl Angst, and Reclaiming Space

Tonight is take back the night. It will be the first one I’ve ever attended, and I feel anxious about it.

That being said, I’m also excited about it. The past two weeks have been weird ones, and it is the weird-ness that has enabled me to realize the comfort and power implicit within my community of strong humans (some of who might identify as being part of my grrrl gang). Because of this community revival I acknowledge and am excited about gathering as a large group for a unified cause. I am excited about solidarity.

***

According to Mackinnon, gender oppression is inescapable, except through consciousness raising. To some extent, take back the night is both a gathering of those who have raised consciousness, and an act of consciousness raising in itself. Yet, (in sync with the classic critique of the 2nd wave) an intersectional analysis is absent: this is the source of my anxiety. I’m a white woman who lives near and frequents the university campus--my experience of sexism is far different from the sexism and gender oppression that is experienced by the people who work and live in the Boyle-McCauley area. I know that intersectionality isn’t about oppression olympics; it’s not a matter of asking who is more or less oppressed and why. However, I believe that, especially as a white woman, intersectionality needs to involve checking one’s privilege. While take back the night is meant to foster solidarity amongst woman-identified people, I am anxious about my presence in a space that is not mine--perhaps its more voyeuristic than productive. Also, it seems as though the idea that privileged women, in a “shady” neighbourhood, reclaiming the night only confirms the rape myths we’ve been discussing. Is this my space to reclaim? How can I be an ally while also claiming my own space?

I might be over thinking all of this (and I’m sure I’ll have fun and feel empowered once I’m out there), but I think that these might be productive worries.  

Law Reform vs Practice

      After reading the article and class discussion on Thursday the most poignant point that resonated with me was the discrepancy between our (Canadian) great feminist model of consent and the way in which it becomes interpreted in society and court. This left me wondering how this contradiction between law reform and practice have come to be. Although I do not agree with Brownmiller’s belief that law reform should hold all the answers to the problem of sexual assault and gender I still hold onto my belief that law should offer us some answers, and that these answers should permeate in society. In doing these past readings, and my own personal knowledge I realize that the supposedly “great” Canadian sexual assault laws have indeed failed not only “bad victims,” but “good” as well.

    In reading this piece I noticed the word “complicated” arise in relation to law and sexual assault repeatedly. While I understand that is obviously the case, I find myself seeking a more grounded and factual explanation for the disparity between law and practice. One thing that really stood out to me was the concept that police are “trained to approach sexual assault investigations with the suspicion complaints are lying” (220).  A factor that made me feel the fear of previous readings: that victims of sexual abuse trust in the system is often misplaced. I can also understand the neoliberal context in which law and practice is played out within. The focus on individualized cases leaves the political aspects in the dark, which in turn could lead to the abuse of legal sanctions that disallow the use of private records in trial, as the case is seen as a completely separate and contained event. The concept of “high-risk lifestyles,” a concept often pushed onto Aboriginal women has always intrigued me, a device that perfectly plays into neoliberalism and the abuse of victim representation in court as well as media. I found the comparison in the article between the way in which Aboriginal women are perceived after reporting sexual abuse and the lawn mower account (218), pinpointing how ridiculous these notions are and how the courts will seek, using any measure, to discredit their Aboriginal complainants. One thing throughout this class I am curious to learn more about is how the law functions for some and disavows others, especially in regard to Aboriginal populations.

Thoughts?

Rape Culture 101

My CSL placement with SACE (Sexual Assault Center of Edmonton) is aligned to the education on consent we discussed in class this Thursday. I am creating a presentation identifying and critically analyzing rape culture to be presented to a high school Career and Life Management (CALM) class.

SACE's public education allows teens the space to ask questions and clarify definitions of consent and sexual assault; it forces people to be accountable to themselves and their peers. I have been developing my ideas based on what I would’ve liked to learn when I was in high school. I didn’t know what sexual assault actually was until my second year of university. It seems counter-intuitive to educate people about consent after many of the age cohort are already sexually active; it would make sense to define consent before the average age people start having sex to prevent sexual assaults from happening in the first place.

The mistaken belief clause is an issue I believe is integral to combating rape culture. People are constantly justifying and excusing sexual abuse because of a 'miscommunication'. There have been many recent examples of this: Rehtaeh Parsons in Halifax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons) and the Stubenville case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case ). Common to both these cases is the media's portrayal of the offender(s), emphasizing their personal lives and various contributions, insisting subtly or overtly that the accused is not responsible for the assault or that it was a mistake (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/18/1732701/media-steubenville/ ). When people feign ignorance as rationalization, it decriminalizes their actions but also inadvertently delegitimizes the complainants experience.

This belief implies the innocence of the offender based on lack of knowledge; however, this standpoint is in-congruent with societal expectations in other realms of life, even for teens. In learning how to drive, the new driver is expected to engage in specific training regimes both in theory and in practice to ensure the safe operation of the motor vehicle. Moreover, once a driver’s license is obtained, drivers are expected to be informed on the limitations and rules that apply that to them, such as zero alcohol tolerance with a GDL license. In the same way, before engaging in a sexual encounter, both participants should be well aware of their rights and responsibilities.

I am centering my project on the media’s portrayal of rape in advertising, social media, movies, music and everyday language. I believe that these venues are more than mere entertainment, their ideas permeate our ideologies. Media content is often justified as a reflection of society's mores and it is the acceptance of rape culture that facilitates sexual assault to occur; it is only through questioning our norms and critiquing the media that rape culture can be combated. We aren’t as progressive or advanced as we like to think, we are a product of our time and place, shaped by our cultural context which is driven largely by the media.

Legally Ahead, Socially Behind

The statistics compiled by Holly Johnson displayed on the PowerPoint presentation in class struck me.  Despite the incredible advancements made to the Criminal Code in Canada to enact an affirmative consent standard, there has not been an increase in women reporting sexual assault and the legislation is not utilized to the fullest extent by the criminal justice system.  For example, we discussed in class how defense attorneys attempt to discredit the victim through the use of personal records (e.g. therapy, medical documents) despite the clear restriction on the use of these files, also ignoring that consent applies to what the individual felt at that specific point in time – any other personal information external to the particular instance in question is irrelevant.  The continued focus on the victim’s role in sexual assault can be explained by the construction of ‘neoliberal sexual agents’.  Individuals are held accountable for sexual assault because of the societal value placed upon responsibilization and self-regulation – continuing to utilize victim-blaming tactics to reinforce the idea that those who have experienced sexual assault are at blame for not taking the necessary precautions to prevent or control the situation.  Law then cannot be relied upon to create effective change as Gotell states, “while valuable in focusing attention on the demonstration of positive consent, sexual violence is atomized; its manifestations and consequences are never collected, never considered in a context where sexual assault is a mechanism for sustaining gendered power relations” (216). 

I think this is a really important realization and helped me to understand what I like about MacKinnon’s argument.  She recognizes sexual assault as a systemic problem: a direct result of the power relations that consume our society as a result of patriarchy.  She argues that there is a ‘moral magic’ of consent, defined as the “free exercise of sexual choice under conditions of equality of power without exposing the underlying structure of constraint and disparity”, that serves to erase power relations that exist between men (powerful) and women (powerless) (MacKinnon 175).  It is deeply troubling to me that such a positive improvement to the understanding of consent in the Criminal Code, spearheaded by feminists, can be used by a neoliberal agenda to de-politicize the issue of sexual assault, but also inspiring to have an affirmative consent standard that is ‘ahead of its time’ suggesting that perhaps society has a chance to catch up so as to realize the systemic nature of sexual assault. 

Thoughts?

What Does it Mean to be Safe?

As part of my CSL placement, I am involved with the Gender Based Violence Prevention Project (GBVPP) – and a part of my role is to promote their gender inclusive washroom proposal. The objective of this proposal is to create universal accessible gender inclusive washrooms that address the needs of multiple users (such as gender variant individuals, people who may have a personal care attendant, people requiring added privacy, and so on). Although there are several handicapped washrooms on campus, these are often not as convenient or as accessible due to their locations. Personally, my issue with the handicapped washrooms are that its signage doesn’t fully represent those who do not choose to use the gender-segregated washrooms.

Part of my motivation to get involved with this project is due to much of my own personal experience. For instance, some days I do like to dress more “feminine,” and then there are days when I like to dress more “masculine” (the reason for the “” is because I feel that these are socially constructed, and I don’t personally feel like I have to identify as either one). With that being said, on those days that I do dress more “feminine,” it’s hard for me to make a decision of which washroom is the “safest” for me to use (a decision that may seem simple for other people), and during these times there are feelings of stress and anxiety that come up for me. And I mean, it does help to know that I’m not the only one, as there are other individuals who are “frequently subjected to overt and covert emotional abuse and physical harassment when they enter or exit gender-segregated washrooms.” This is part of the notion that “the personal is political,” and instead of just individualizing these experiences, making these experiences into a political discourse can be a site for potential social change. In other words, I feel as though this proposal is an opportunity to move beyond an individualized problem to create social change.     

However, as we discussed in class, theses services operate under many difficult challenges and constraints. Especially with the cuts to the budget of The Status of Women Canada, these constraints are very much real and limit the potential of what we can do. Specifically for GBVPP, they cannot use the money from The Status of Women Canada to make structural changes and thus have to look for alternative funding to implement these much needed gender inclusive washrooms. Currently, the project is working on implementing one gender inclusive washroom in SUB, which has proven to be very complicated to say the least. And of course, I am only highlighting some of the main struggles – but my main point is that... yes it is hard work, but it is work that is meaningful, and it is work that matters (something that I truly believe in). Ultimately, “using a washroom safely and with dignity is a basic right of ALL people.”


Thank You!

A Personal Experience in Relation to Radical Feminist Ideas

"Women's sexuality is, socially, a thing to be stolen, sold, bought, bartered, or exchanged by others. But women never own or possess it, and men never treat it, in law or in life, with the solicitude with which they treat property. To be property would be an improvement." MacKinnon (2).

This is one of the many quotes within MacKinnon's article, "Rape: On Coercion and Consent," which really struck me. While the latter part of this quote may be an overly-polemic statement--an umbrella category under which much of the rest of MacKinnon's argument(s) may be categorized--it reminded me of a viral video I was shown in the summer which I had sincerely tried to block from memory. As a disclaimer, I seriously do not recommend that anyone should watch this video, and I also hesitate to even immortalize the existence of such disturbing garbage by writing about it.

The video is called "The Harlem Struggle," and paired with the annoyingly catchy novelty song, "Harlem Shake," are amateur video clips of women choking (or more accurately being choked) on dicks. In light of the recent articles we've read, it's hard to believe that any "gag porn" is really footage of a consensual act--I never doubted the improbability of it being a mutually enjoyed act--however this particular video makes it unabashedly clear that these are NOT consensual acts. In each video clip, a woman proceeds to fellate a man, and once she has "deep-throated," the man squeezes his legs together so that the woman is effectively pinned in that position, and the game is to see how long he can keep her there, and this video is aptly titled because these women undoubtedly struggle. Many faint, some attempt to tap out (as if this is going to be adjudicated like UFC or something), and in the last video clip, the camera-man artistically catches a close up of the woman as she screams and weeps in horror. The recurring theme in each of these videos is that none of the women are prepared for what I truly believe is an attack and another vicious, callous example of sexual assault.

I was shown this video by two male former friends who laughed through its entirety. Once it was finished, one guy said, "Silly bitches. That's what you get for going into porn!"

I'm sure any and every one of you will be just as horrified reading this as I was in that moment, and I'm sorry to say that in the ensuing argument I don't think I made any headway in educating either of them. In that argument it was painfully clear that retrograde ideas about "good victims" and "bad victims," the relevance of women's sexual history in relation to instances of sexual assault, the fallacy of implied consent, etc. are still rampant in today's society. In regards to the aforementioned quote, I have no doubt in my mind that that camera-man values his equipment far more than the assaulted woman, and I also believe with a heavy heart that few of these women reported what happened to them to the police, and I believe none received any justice.

In her article, MacKinnon quotes a reporter, Carolyn Craven, who reflected upon the characteristics of a convicted rapist: "...he felt like an extension, he felt so common, he felt so ordinary, he felt so familiar, and it was maybe that what frightened me the most was that how similar to other men he seemed."

I think in the end that was what upset me the most as well: just how banal and commonplace and frank these two former friends and their revolting opinions were. It's no wonder sexual assault is so diffuse in our society.

Dear MRA: I am not going to change what I do because of a pathetic f**k like you

I am so impressed with these first blog entries.  They pick up on so many of the core themes of the course: the complexities of community work; the disciplinary implications of fear; the critical questions of victimization and agency; how we should conceptualize resistance; and fundamentally, our affective reactions to all of this – vulnerability, fear, anger and our deep desires for change.

When Brownmiller argued that rape is a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a constant state of fear, she wrote out of a deep desire for change.  For her, and for other second wave feminists struggling against rape culture in the 1970s, the first step was to bring rape into the public and identify it as a political problem.  Dissecting the implications of rape culture, the manner in which fear of rape operates as a mechanism of social control over women, identifying the ways in which all men, even tangentially benefit, from this, these were a strategies for inspiring collective anger. And even though it may seem that Brownmiller's analysis could be understood as counseling despair, she and other second wave feminists firmly believed in the possibilities of change. “Gender,” the social construction of “sex,” could be reconceived and rape culture undone. While we may all be critical of her strategic focus on law reform or by her failures to acknowledge the sexual in power, her message was not that we need to submit to the gendered imperatives of rape culture. She envisioned a future in which men and women (she operated from a firmly dichotomous view of gender) could live together differently – a post-patriarchy.

Unfortunately, we’re still waiting for that post-patriarchy. Fear still accompanies us, sometimes causing us to be uneasy on dark streets, in bars and in online spaces hostile to feminists. And while I think we need to be cautious, I am very aware of how the imperatives of rape culture continue to constrain our behaviours. I have been thinking lately that my own conscious efforts to resist, to refuse to play the part of a safety-conscious victim-in-waiting, has made me almost immune to fear. This week I’ve gotten messages of support from friends and colleagues around the world, and many seasoned feminist activists have told me to be careful. These hateful MRAs are unpredictable and truly unbalanced in their demonization of feminism and of feminists like me. 

My favorite Garneau Sisterhood Poster reads, “Dear rapist, I am not going to change my life for a pathetic fuck like you.”  I want to rephrase this message. “Dear MRA, I am not going to change anything I do because of a pathetic fuck like you.” And while there is much to criticize in second wave analyses of rape, the message that we must move from fear to anger and collective resistance is one that is still very valuable.

Rape Culture - Is it undefinable? Where do I start?

After I met with my Supervisor at SACE and starting my research on rape culture, I realized that there are a multitude of angles that I could take with developing a presentation on understanding and identifying rape culture. This immediately got me hesitant in my ability to achieve a successful presentation at the end of my placement. There are so many ways to define rape culture that it is overwhelmingly difficult to narrow it down to specifics. I wrote a list of all of the possible ways in which rape culture can be defined by reading one a blogging article my SACE supervisor provided to me by Melissa McEwan from www.shakesville.com.

Here is just the tip of the ice berg that got me thinking about what direction to actually take for my future presentation. Rape culture can be defined as: a weapon, aggression, sexuality, control, male dominance, product of war, threat of sexual assault, victim-blaming, judgment, ‘safety tips’; blind trust (including authority figures such as teachers, police, etc). Rape culture is also immune to sex workers, wives, and the ignorance of rapists. And finally, Rape culture is just plain bad luck! I guess you imagine the extensive development and process that I need to take when I finally Identify what Rape culture is to my target audience of high school students and youth. 

I guess it makes a bit more sense to me when I agree with Brownmiller’s argument that rape is a political force that de-individualized the victims experience. I could however change my mind during the course of the semester as I research and learn more in the area of rape culture. This is merely a learning experience for me. 

Go Brownmiller!

A critical analysis of Susan Brownmiller’s views in the “Feminist Theories of Rape” reading. 

               First I will mention some things that I agree with and that have been influential to feminism as we know it. Brownmiller’s theory that rape is inspired by political motivations to dominate and power is a huge step forward in the way women thought about sexual assault. Before this even I though men raped because of an innate biological structure or uncontrollable sex drive which Brownmiller also agrees with. However this view is juvenile, and oversimplifies this issue. Just because you have the tool to commit the crime does not mean the crime will happen without some outside forces. I like to compare this to a quote by Joe Rogan which in my interpretation is, “just because you have a fork does not mean you will jab it into your eye”, you can abuse anything. To further this you can use any object to cause harm, but that action does not occur without an ulterior motive.

                Another idea that I strongly agree with is that rape is used to promote fear in women, and also that women are political pawns. Right now the biggest global issue is the rape phenomenon in India, which could be argued, is used to keep women in a state a fear, maybe to keep them quiet and submissive. It is not only creating a conflict with the government but interest from around the world to intervene. It is being used to control India’s women and keep them oppressed. 

                Something that I do and do not agree with is the separation of power (violence) from their means (sexuality). I agree with this because in the court system especially women are judged by sexual aspects of the crime. If we think of rape in terms of power instead of sexuality we understand that it is irrelevant what actions of the women might have triggered a sexual reaction in the perpetrator. It is a good thing to separate those two, because if rape were purely sexual, every man would not be able to control his need to rape women.

                 At the same time I agree that there is a biological component to the crime of rape, it is a sexual crime making it different from physical abuse however I think it is different in the vocabulary only. Many crimes can be thought of in terms of the intrinsic need they fulfill; in my opinion it is mainly to feel a sense of power in a world that might feel very out of control. The main contradiction in Brownmiller’s perspectives is the idea that we need to change the political and social structures in order to eradicate rape, but also men will rape anyways because they have the tool to rape. However the idea that men rape no matter what may have come from a pissed off feminist tired of hearing the excuses society makes for these “men”.