Using fire to fight fire

This week I was intrigued by Marcus’ article Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words and the idea of self-defense. I like the idea of “regarding rape not as a fact to be accepted or opposed, tried or avenged, but as a process to be analyzed and undermined” and of the agency and influence women are granted in this process (p. 388). However, similarly to some of my classmates, I find many problematic aspects to Marcus’ approach. While Marcus affirms that “the ethical burden to prevent rape does not lie with us but with rapists and a society which upholds them”, I feel like the reliance on self-defense to intervene in and ultimately prevent rape can foster unintended victim-blaming and reiterate the idea of a “good victim” (p. 400).  I share Natalia’s anxiety that responsibility may be shifted onto the survivor for not fighting back and disrupting the rape script. And as we discussed in our group last class, some women, such as women with disabilities, may be unable to fight back and are therefore excluded from this theory. Marcus dismisses men’s role in eliminating rape since “we will be waiting a very long time if we wait for men to decide not to rape” and shifts the accountability onto women (p. 400). I find it problematic to remove men’s responsibility in this issue and wonder how they can be incorporated into the dismantling of rape culture.

Another aspect of Marcus’ argument that I take issue with is the reliance on violence. In her proposed revised discourse on rape, Marcus argues for the rejection of a passive female persona and the endorsement of “women’s will, agency and capacity for violence” (p. 395). A problem for Marcus is that “rapists do not beat women at the game of violence, but aim to exclude us from playing it all together” (p. 397). By utilizing the use of violence to disrupt the rape script, Marcus argues that women transform themselves from gendered, sexualized objects into subjects with the ability to force their will in the situation. Again, I support the idea of women in a position of agency and power but am troubled by violence as the method of choice. Does this not endorse the very problem we wish to eradicate? It may be naïve of me, but using violence to stop violence seems hypocritical and quite frankly, depressing.