There was a link that was shared on my Anthropology of Gender class forum last night and I when I opened up to do my blog post today I though this is something that would be good to talk about because it seems to fit right into our class discussions lately, then I noticed that the same link was posted by PU$$Y riot and I thought well I guess it’s meant to be. The link that I find problematic and not so amusing as some might think is : http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/05/2889411/anti-rape-underwear-sexual-assault/
The idea of a “rape preventing” item of clothing just baffles me, the company says that they want women to “reclaim control over what happens to their bodies” and their way around it is by offering a brand of underwear that is hard to take off. Mackinnon mentions an idea about “constrained agency” that the expression of agency through choices made is in-existent. The implications of a product like this make rape seem like “solely a women’s issue”. Then the statement: “A woman or girl who is wearing one of our garments will be sending a clear message to her would-be assailant that she is NOT consenting. We believe that this undeniable message can help to prevent a significant number of rapes". This "bold" statement could imply that those who chose not to wear the "preventive" underwear could actually be consenting, what do we say to the assailants who tries to argue that in court?
Let’s not forget the complete lack of acknowledgement towards date rape or intimate partner violence or even gang rape. The types of bodies they address who are considered more prone to being raped are limited in scope, what about disabled bodies or women who are in the sex industry, are they "asking for it" because "sex" might be part of their job? Sherene Razack mentions the displacement of certain bodies and associations made about Aboriginal bodies that are built from a colonial framework. How does this product not play into the idea of limiting and minimizing certain types of bodies.
When they mentioned preventive methods, it reestablishes safety “tips” given to women in order to avoid being targets of an assault. Carine Mardorossian mentions the responsibilization that is attached to individuals and how self blame systematically occurs. Regardless of the underwear helping or not what accountability is there for a product that is said to prevent rape rather than target the larger social problems that associates rape prevention to a piece of clothing. I think the product sells a false sense of security that further problematizes and reinforces existent rape myths.
Thoughts?
Hi Loraine! I think this a very interesting "rape strategy" idea that you've posted here. I definitely agree with you that this is incredibly problematic and I think you've brought up a ton of great reasons why that is. What I was also thinking about while reading through the webpage for this "rape preventing underwear project", I was thinking about how these underwear are not only limiting towards different bodies, but also limiting towards what exactly constitutes what sexual assault is. It's contributing to an extremely problematic idea of rape having to be penetrative or even having to take place below the waist. As well, it also implies that someone can't be assaulted with underwear on. I think that is completely untrue.
ReplyDeleteThis "rape underwear" controversy kind of reminds me of our discussions about self-defense in class. While I definitely would not be supporting a project like this, and think that all the criticisms of it are entirely valid and very important, I do want to point out some reasons why this could potentially be beneficial. Some individuals might feel powerful by this type of thing, even if it doesn't really prevent any type of sexual violence and perpetuates myths of victim-blaming and a problematic rape script. I think that certain people might find this to have personal worth and that reason alone is enough to warrant a certain level of value.