This week, in class, we began exploring instances of male sexual victimization. Through this exploration we learned that masculinity is not inherently tied to violence, nor is it completely uncommon for men to be victims of sexual violence. Specifically, in Karen Weiss’s article, “Male Sexual Victimization: Examining Men’s Experiences of Rape and Sexual Assualt,” we were shown gendered differences between men and women’s experiences of sexual assault and how this effects their the narratives and scripts that frame their experiences. Through analyses of men’s descriptions and responses to their sexual victimization we can see how idealized constructions of gender work to silence men as understudied and legitimate victims of rape culture. We importantly learned that the instances of male victimization, chronicled in Weiss’s article, reveal both the similarities and gendered differences between women and men who have experienced sexual violence. My focus for this reflection piece is on difference and how recognition of difference aids in our understanding of the gendered complexities of rape. I will explore the importance of understanding the gendered complexities of rape by linking Weiss’s emphasis on difference with my experiences (and questions that have emerged) from working on my collective CSL/ activist project.
Our project is partnered with the GBVPP and entails utilizing light sources (such as projectors) in such a way that interrupts dark spaces on campus with messages that engage with the discourse surrounding gender based sexual violence on campus. One of the questions that has emerged, for me, while working on this project, is whether or not the messages we have have chosen to ‘project’ are eradicating gender difference through gender-neutral messaging? As we have learned in class, gender neutral frameworks fail to take gender into account, so I am wondering if messages such as ‘If they aren’t sober, they can’t consent’ fail to account for the complexities of gendered experience in rape culture? Although our aims for this project are to be inclusive of all genders, are there ways that we can also engage with gendered rhetoric that recognize and emphasize gendered difference? For the scope of our project, I think that recognition of gender difference needs to be taken into account, but this crucial recognition leaves me wondering how our messages would change? What would these changes look like? How might these changes be problematic? How can we project messages that are attentive to dominant constructions of gender and power relations? In other words, do we need to explicitly use gendered messages to prevent gender based violence or can the messages we have chosen implicitly do this through a gender neutral framework?
I have a similar problem in my CSL work too. The SAC manual that I'm helping to edit takes a really gender-neutral stance and uses "they" and "the survivor" all the time. As far as I can see, there's no gendered language at all.
ReplyDeleteNow the manual does make sure to address Patriarchy (there's actually a section that just begins "We live in a patriarchy") and I like that. But I do share your worries about the de-gendering of sexual assault.
Sexual assault is a very gendered crime. Even the way it's enacted on men is based on gender. At the same time, part of that problem is based on the construction of women as victims and men as aggressors.
The truth resists simplicity so trying and make sexual assault a single-issue problem is never going to work. I think that in the end both are horrible, but it’s undeniable that women are victimized at a much higher rate than men and that much of sexual assault is gendered.
Despite this, I think for both of our projects keeping the language genderless is the best idea. Since you never know who you’re talking to when you’re creating something for all survivors and theoretical victims we’d want to avoid alienating any potential survivors.
I feel like your project especially would benefit from gender-neutral language. Marcus’ discussion about removing women from the role of object seems fitting here. By keeping the language in your project neutral it can help disrupt the script of men as aggressors.
For my project, the neutral language works too, though there is a need to keep the high rate of female victimization in mind.
In practice like ours neutrality is probably best, since we could be talking to anyone. In other practices (like the SAVE campaign or the intro-to-rape-culture campaign) it might be different.