Chauvinist pigs complain that female athletes aren’t suitably undressed (scroll to see the story) for the Olympics, while President Bush (whom Jon Stewart suggests should be “our mascot”) pats volleyball players on the lower back in a bizarrely sexualized scene, and the media collectively flips out about the John Edwards affair.
Discuss.
Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq. (Source)
I’d like you to ponder that statement for a moment. Current DoD estimates indicate that one in three female servicemembers has experienced a sexual assault. The issue of rape by the military is ancient, but rape in the military is largely a 20th century invention, thanks to the fact that women couldn’t even serve as fully enlisted members until 1948. And it’s largely a silent problem, even in the feminist community. Only in the last few weeks have I noticed a definite uptick in feminist coverage of rapes of female servicemembers, despite ample examples to profile.
I admit, it’s not something I have discussed in-depth here, although I have provided periodic links to particularly notable and disgusting instances of sexual assault in the military. Today, I thought I would take a moment to remedy this sin of omission, because this is an issue that we should be talking about.
It’s not just that sexual assault in the military is, for lack of a better word, rampant, it’s also the way in which the military is dealing with the problem. Less than 10% of cases of sexual assault investigations in the military result in a referral for court-martial. Most of the time, the end result of the trial is a slap on the wrist.
This, my friends, is shameful. Many women who have attempted to report sexual assaults have told horror stories of being mocked, threatened, and shamed by their superiors. Others have indicated that they were too afraid to report it. When women dare to speak out about sexual abuse in the military, they aren’t just mocked by their peers; the mainstream media takes shots at them, too. While rape victims have historically been belittled in media coverage, the willful decision to ignore the serious ramifications of widespread sexual abuse in the military is deeply troubling (to me, at least).
Violence against women should not be tolerated anywhere, ever, but especially not in the military. Female servicemembers should feel secure and confident working alongside their male counterparts. They should be able to focus on more important issues, like working together to solve problems, and keeping everyone in the unit safe. Female servicemembers should not be afraid to walk to the latrines. They should not have to feel like they need to watch their backs, or that they need to defend themselves from their fellow soldiers. They should be treated as equals, not sex objects imported for entertainment: they are soldiers, pilots, navigators.
Even as we see the first female four-star general being nominated, which is spectacular, the military still refuses to deal with the sexist undercurrent which runs through its ranks. Despite the fact that the military claims that sexual assault betrays “the Army’s core values,” I’d say that the sexual assault issue is not being handled at all well. Especially when women are being murdered to ensure silence. DoD officials are refusing to testify in Congressional hearings which are designed to get to the bottom of the issue. As the media slowly picks up on the truth of the matter, this is turning into a massive embarassment for the military. I can only hope that public scrutiny evokes at least a hint of shame and a resolution to address the issue.
As individual citizens, it may seem like there isn’t much we can personally do about sexual assault in the military. But that’s not actually the case. We can put pressure on our Congresspeople and Senators to hold investigative hearings, and to push for the formulation of a new policy in regards to sexual assault. We can tell our elected officials that we want the military to be safe for the women who wish to join it, that we support the role of women in the military, and that we want to see women’s issues taken seriously by the military.
It’s time to bust up the old boy’s club, my friends.
More on this issue at Feministing (with many more links to individual cases), and Bitch, PhD. And it’s not just the military; private contractors are also working hard to silence a rape epidemic of their very own.
Many years ago, I had to apply for a new passport, because my old passport was about to expire, and I am in the habit of keeping these things current. Because I was still a minor at the time, I was forced to trek all the way to Ukiah to file my passport application in person, and I duly filled out the forms, attached atrocious pictures of myself, and slid the paper across the counter to the clerk, who quickly reviewed it to make sure that everything was in order.
“I believe you made a mistake,” the clerk said, looking at me and then looking at the form.
“Oh?”
“Yes,” she said, “you checked the wrong box for ’sex,’ here,” and she stabbed her finger at the form.
I followed the line of her finger to see that the “F” box was checked, and I replied:
“Oh. No, I don’t think I made a mistake.”
She started at me for a moment, and then said “but you checked the box for female!”
“Yes,” I said, “that’s because I am a girl.”
And, in point of fact, I pretty much am, under the gender dichotomy which holds sway in this world we live in. I have female secondary sex characteristics, which is pretty much the defining feature in a casual sense, and I have been raised as a girl. I act (more or less) like a girl, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see that genetic testing revealed a nice, tidy XX.
In point of fact, I don’t identify as a girl: I identify as genderqueer. But we don’t have a box on forms, so when I’m asked to slot myself into the dichotomy, I go with “girl,” because that’s kind of what conventional knowledge defines me as. While frustrating, the way to change that is not to throw a hissy fit in the passport office. And I was actually rather flattered that the clerk mistook me for a boy, honestly.
My little battle in the passport office is being repeated and played out all over the world, every day, with varying levels of importance, but what’s going on at the Olympics this year is especially sinister, so I wanted to take a moment to talk about it. For those of you who missed the story last week, “suspect” female athletes (as in not all of them) are going to be “gender tested” before being allowed to compete in Beijing.
In strict point of fact, gender testing at the Olympics has been going on since the 1960s, mainly in response to fears that the Soviets would dress men up as female competitors. And I understand the rationale behind it, because events are separated by gender for some very sound reasons. However, there are a number of problems with the gender testing, and people are starting to point these problems out, which is excellent.
The first problem is that gender is not a dichotomy, it’s a continuum. Setting aside people like me, there are lots of people in the world who have genetic material from both genders; women with Y chromosomes, XXY men, and so forth. This is called “genetic diversity,” and it’s what makes the human race so varied and interesting. Many of these people are totally unaware of their conditions, and they strongly identify as either “male” or “female.” Others have more serious health problems which lead to an eventual diagnosis of the issue, sometimes leading them to be asked to pick a gender. Or, more commonly, for parents to be asked to pick a gender for an infant or young child.
The fact that they are using genetic testing in Beijing means that some women may be excluded from competition on the basis of their sex when they identify strongly as members of the female gender, and this thought makes me very sad. Especially because many of those athletes may be totally unaware of the fact that they have a secret in their genes. Athletes of all genders work extremely hard to get to the Olympics, to be recognized as the top performers in their sports; to be thrown out because your genes don’t fit in a box would be tragic.
Only testing selected atheletes is also extremely problematic. If you’re going to use arbitrary gender testing as a basis for exclusion, you should be testing all athletes. I love the assumption that women wouldn’t be concealing themselves to compete as men. And the assumption that only women who look strange need to be tested. Singling out athletes for discrimination is, in my opinion, rather offensive.
I think that there are very few examples in Olympic history of men concealing themselves as women to compete. I can think of at least one from 1936, but that was a messed-up sham of a “let’s promote the Aryan race” Olympics, not a real Olympics. I believe that the gender testing policy harms everyone at the Olympics, and it sends a very negative message to the people around the word who defy the gender dichotomy, either through biology or psychology. That message is: you don’t exist, and you don’t count, even if you did exist.
Beijing, I’ve got a newsflash for you: we exist, and we are pissed.
Dear Media:
Please take your coverage of women’s issues and feminist out of the “fashion and styles” section. It’s a pretty simple request, and I’m fairly sure it shouldn’t be that hard for you to honor. It would also make a huge difference, and if you happened to be the first to do it, you might get extra style points. So, you know, please consider it. Better yet, actually do it. And if you think I’m kidding about how widespread this problem is, go check out some of your competitors, and you’ll see what I mean.
Women’s issues should not be relegated to the same section of the paper which handles things like the latest in nail polish, or the scene on the runway in Milan. Coverage of feminist topics should not be sandwiched between articles about luxury homes and flatware. It belongs in news, or politics, or maybe the section of the paper most relevant to the topic under discussion, such as technology for articles about women and technology.
Your coverage of feminist issues is already pretty poor, and maybe that’s why your bury it in the most demeaning section you can possibly think of. But can you see how women might find it irritating and patronizing to be forced to turn to the style pages for coverage about issues which matter to them? It suggests that you find the feminist movement unworthy of serious attention, and indicates that you just like to write about “the wimmins” when you find them amusing.
Women, biological and otherwise, make up around half the population. It is not appropriate to shove news articles about women’s issues into the back alleys of the paper. Similar articles on men’s issues are never in the style section, which illustrates the gender disparity pretty clearly, in my opinion. Even when you do occasionally muster up the ability to write something insightful, meaningful, and interesting, you ruin it by relegating it to the style section.
Take a radical leap, and recognize that women are people, and we like to read about news of interest where it belongs, which means that when you write an article about women in politics, it should go in the politics section. If you do serious investigative journalism on the exploitation of women, it should go in the news section. If you write about radical women artists, it should go in the arts section. If an article discusses a topic in women’s health, it should go in health. When you publish the results of a survey which shows that girls are every bit as talented at math as boys, it should go in the sciences, or perhaps the news section, depending on whether or not you think that the fact that girls and boys are equally good at math is “news.”
I realize that this is a sexist world we live in, but could you please at least try to do your part to make it a little better? All that I ask is a little respect. Take us out of the damn style section so that I don’t have to gag through articles on topics which I am not interested in to find actual journalism. Tell me, please, that you value my patronage every bit as much as a man’s. For the love of Pete, stop publishing women’s news in the style section, so that when I buy your print version (which is rare), I can toss the style section right in the trash where it belongs, along with the sports section and the classifieds.
Thanks,
s.e. smith
…and it was AWESOME. I am grinning so much at the moment that it is almost causing physical pain.
So here’s the context: MTV asked Twilight fans to submit questions for Stephenie Meyer, with the idea that she would pick out a few to answer tonight at the live concert in New York being held before the book release. I couldn’t resist asking this:
Many feminists are raising criticisms about your characterization of Bella, and her relationships with Edward and Jacob, suggesting that maybe Bella isn’t the best role model for young women since she is strongly codependent, and her relationship with Edward borders on the abusive, especially in Eclipse. How do you feel about the reactions of the feminist community to your books?
I submitted it under the name “Ari,” a nickname from college. (long story), because I was a bit, you know, embarrassed. And I thought that if the question got picked, “meloukhia” would get hopelessly mangled on air.
I really didn’t think my question would get picked, but it did, and MY GOD the audience was furious. There was some serious sustained booing, and the moderator actually said “Ari, if you’re here, you might want to leave,” because the crowd was so menacing. Which was totally awesome. Baxt and I were watching the live cast simultaneously, and the following exchange occurred:
(4:34:31 PM) meloukhia: YAY!!!!!!!!!
(4:34:38 PM) meloukhia: I AM SO EXCITED@!
(4:34:40 PM) baxt: omg
(4:34:41 PM) meloukhia: I GOT BOOED!
(4:34:47 PM) baxt: you just won the lottery, dude
(4:34:50 PM) baxt:
So, I was really glad that Stephenie picked my question, but I was also really disappointed with her response. As soon as a transcript is up, I will add her response here, but basically she said something along the lines of “Bella’s not physically strong, but that’s not all there is to a woman, she is mentally strong.” Now, I happen to agree with the idea that physical strength isn’t the sole criterion for being a strong woman, and I’m glad to see Stephenie saying that. That said, we concurred that the response was generally weak:
(4:35:15 PM) meloukhia: Uhm, weak response.
(4:35:19 PM) baxt: yeah
(4:35:32 PM) meloukhia: MENTALLY STRONG?!?!?!?! WTF?!
(4:35:46 PM) baxt: ouch
(4:36:22 PM) meloukhia: Nice way to totally not address the abusive nature of their relationship, Stephenie Meyer!
(4:36:38 PM) baxt: yeah, that was dodgy
(4:37:21 PM) meloukhia: It’s unfortunate because I feel like the several responses to similar questions I’ve read have all been that way. It’s like “oh she’s not physically strong, but she is mentally strong, yay!”
(4:37:33 PM) baxt: which is not….. yeah
(4:37:48 PM) meloukhia: Yeah, I mean. Yeah.
However, the fact that she very pointedly ignored the issue that Bella and Edward’s relationship is rather abusive really troubled me. She seemed to disagree with my characterization of their relationship, which means it’s bullet point time:
You know, I would go on, but I think this is a good starting point. The fact that Edward is portrayed as an ideal boyfriend is deeply disturbing to me. Edward’s obsessive, controlling behaviour is abusive, and that’s the bottom line. Reading these books is like reading the scenarios I studied when I was training to be a sexual assault/domestic violence crisis counselor. And it reminds me of some of the very real conversations I had with actual victims of domestic violence.
And don’t even get me started on Jacob, the “kiss rapist,” as Baxt calls him. Jacob’s a “nice guy,” says Stephenie Meyer, yet he’s extremely manipulative and very possessive of Bella. He forces himself on her physically several times, and constantly manipulates her emotions in a plot to “take her back” from Edward. This is not cute rivalry between boyfriends, this is abuse. Being non-human doesn’t give you a special pass.
So, Stephenie Meyer, I’m giving you an F on question-answering. But hey, thank you for picking my question. And on the off-chance that you, you know, read this, I would love to talk with you, because I freely admit that I am a fan of your books, otherwise I wouldn’t be reading them. (Or obsessing over them.)
UPDATE: My question made it into the New York Times, sort of, here. Unfortunately, the reporter focused on the “codependent” part of the question, rather than the “abusive” part. Sigh.
If you are a vagina-owner, or you care about vaginas (and reproductive freedom), go read this Wall Street Journal article. I am too horrified by it to offer any additional comment right now.
I’ve been digesting Mr. Obama’s comments on late term abortions for some time now, and I finally feel prepared to talk about them. First, I had to get through my initial phase of incandescent rage and fury, and then I had to move through the sadness until I could reach a state of neutrality which would allow me to comment without excessive rancor and bile.
Just so we’re all clear, he’s what he said, in response to a question from an interviewer for a Christian magazine who asked him to clarify his position on late term abortions:
Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.
And, let me say right off the top, props to Obama for calling a late term abortion a late term abortion, rather than using the entirely invented term “partial birth abortion” developed by the Republicans specifically for the purpose of making it controversial.
Just to clarify, he added:
“…it’s not just a matter of feeling blue” when discussing “mental health” for pregnant women.
Yeah, because women who get late term abortions are just feeling blue. Oh, or maybe they’re just tired of feeling pregnant, so they figure, what the heck, let’s just get an abortion and start over again. Or they were lazy, and they didn’t realize they were pregnant until it was too late.
Now, I’ve never been pregnant, so I am treading on thin ground here, but I would venture a guess that many women who have been pregnant would agree with me when I say that Obama’s comments demonstrate shocking ignorance and unbelievable callousness.
Women do not get late term abortions because they are feeling blue, although depression in pregnancy does happen, and it can be debilitating. It might come as a shock to Mr. Obama to learn this, but getting an abortion to treat depression would, uhm, not actually solve the problem. In fact, it would probably make it worse. Women who struggle with depression in pregnancy do indeed need medical attention and care, but for some reason, “abortion” isn’t on the list of treatment options. And to dismiss the very serious mental health problems associated with pregnancy for some women is rather shortsighted.
The vast majority of women who get late term abortions get them because medical testing reveals that the fetus has birth defects which are “incompatible with life,” which is a nice way of saying that the fetus doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of living. And yeah, that information would make pretty much anyone “feel blue,” but that’s not why those women choose to get abortions. Instead, they terminate the pregnancy because they recognize that carrying the pregnancy to term is pointless, and it would be emotionally grueling. And that decision is not taken lightly, and it is not enjoyable.
When a fetus has severe birth defects, they don’t always show up on early scans. And, sometimes, they can cause the fetus to die, potentially creating an infection in the mother which could, yes, threaten her life, qualifying her for the “health exception” holy grail.
Over the last week, I have read a lot of very sad and personal stories by women who have received late term abortions. They weren’t “feeling blue.” They weren’t tired of being pregnant. On the contrary, they were really excited to be pregnant, and looking forward to the births of their children. The decision to abort was not casual, and the experience was not pleasant.
I think that Mr. Obama could benefit from some compassion and education before he runs his mouth off on a topic he is clearly ill-informed about. Hey, you can’t expect people to know everything, and that’s ok. But when you’re running for President, it’s a good idea to learn some statistics*, and to talk with your constituency. If Mr. Obama reads any of these stories, I think he will come away with a very different perspective on the late term abortion issue.
The proposed health exception is dangerous, as are laws which require multiple medical opinions. All of these laws require pregnant women to jump through hoops during a very emotional and fragile time. Yes, by all means, women should see genetic counselors before getting a late term abortion, and they should be encouraged to seek out a second opinion from an experienced ob/gyn, and in fact most do, because their doctors refer them to experts because they aren’t equipped to deal with the situation. But women should not be forced to give birth to children which are going to die within minutes of birth, because that is just messed up. A hard choice should not be made harder to satisfy some obscure mental block in the mind of a politician who will never be forced to make that choice.
At least, I think so.
*According to our good friends at Wikipedia, 1.4% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks, which would qualify them as “late.” Of those, a little over a thousand abortions each year are carried out after 24 weeks, when the fetus could potentially be viable.
Reading Joe. My. God. this morning, I came across an article featuring the “creepiest cell phone ad ever,” and it was indeed creepy, and disgusting, so I felt the need to rant about it for a moment. Have you ever seen/experienced something that just repulsed you? Left you with crawling skin and an urgent need to smack something? That’s kind of how I felt after watching that ad.
For those of you who don’t feel like watching the ad (and my visually impaired readers), it opens with a woman lying in a bed, wearing a negligee and loosely covered in sheets. Then, the shot goes wide, and we see a man in a window across the way, looking into her bedroom. He raises his cell phone, takes a picture, and then starts, uhm, using the touch screen on the cell phone to manipulate the woman. At the close of the ad, her fire sprinklers go off, and she sits up in bed and apparently thinks “fire sprinklers are hot sexytime fun,” as opposed to “oh my God, my house is on fire,” so she writhes around with a sultry expression. Then, the man’s phone rings, and it turns out to be his mother, and the ad fades out with the woman in the bed again, and the tagline “keep a secret.” Did I mention that the guy is licking his lips while manipulating the phone? Because he is.
As I watched the ad, my discomfort level rose to hitherto unknown levels, and I found myself increasingly disgusted and distressed. So much so, in fact, that I found it hard to even begin articulating why the ad bothered me so much.
Oh, let’s start with the idea that women are just playthings for voyeurs, as one of the commenters pointed out, and that it is apparently totally acceptable to peep into the windows of attractive women while they sleep. And yeah, being manipulated remotely via a complete stranger (we assume, from the context of the ad), yeah, that’s also apparently totally cool. And, you know. Hot. It’s a rape fantasy for the electronic age, complete with the idea that every woman secretly wants it, and I hope that every woman (and everyone else) who sees it is very not-secretly horrified by it.
It makes me wonder what market the commercial was aimed at. Is it meant to spark controversy and horror to draw attention to the brand of cellphone being advertised? Was it intended to end up on the sorts of sites where people exchange gross, disgusting, exploitative videos? Was it never meant for general release at all? I’m not sure, but whatever the origins of the ad, I wish it would climb back into them.
Several of the queer commenters on the thread related to the advertisement also pointed out that ads like this are much more acceptable than ads with gay sexual themes. Had the scene depicted a female voyeur, or a man lying in the bed, it probably would have sparked controversy. Apparently, only heterosexual women are allowed to be the subjects of televised rape fantasies and virtual abuse.
I need to go take a shower now.
“FEMINIST HOPES DASHED,” the headline on the newspaper sprawled out across the table in the Coffeehouse screamed. I had stopped in, as I do now and then, and spotted some old friends sitting in the back, reading the paper. I sat with them for awhile, talking about this and that, and somehow the discussion came around to politics, as it so often does, and we expressed dismay over the headline.
If there’s one thing about this election that’s pissed me off, it’s the characterization of feminists and feminism which has sprawled throughout the media, giving all of us a bad name. A very small and vocal minority has created an ideal topic for articles by being completely insane, allowing the media to generalize, creating the idea that all feminists are crazy.
“For years,” I was explaining to my friends, “I was reluctant to call myself a feminist because of the crazed antics of some radical feminists. And then, I realized that it’s really important to identify as a feminist, to show that there is a broad cross-section of ideas and ways of thinking in the feminist movement.”
It causes me to foam at the mouth when I read headlines like the one above, suggesting that because a crappy female candidate failed to hoodwink the country into voting for her, feminists nation-wide are crushed. There’s no hope for women in politics. Feminism is dead.
Now, for sure, there are some feminists who are very bummed out right now, and there are also some things about this election that bummed me out, as a feminist. There was a whole lot of sexism going on, and it was not only broadly accepted, but even a topic of joking and funtime. People showed up at Clinton rallies with shirts that said “make me a sandwich,” and I assure you that if someone had showed up at an Obama speech with a shirt that said “go pick my cotton,” there would have been widespread outrage. I’m not sad because Clinton lost, but I am sad that so much blatant sexism was allowed to pass without comment or discussion.
This election definitely illustrated, for me, the vast work which still lies ahead for the feminist movement. The fact that Clinton’s gender was used against her was awful, and despicable, and it makes me extremely angry to see how many people just totally missed this, or ignored it as not important. It is important that a major female contender for the Presidential nomination was treated as a laughingstock, and that is an issue which should be addressed. It is important that outspoken female supporters for Clinton got called “stupid cunts,” and got messages on their YouTube videos talking about how much the commenters wanted to rape them. This, my homechickens, is not ok.
But, ultimately, she lost the election not because she is a woman, but because she is a Clinton, and this needs to be accepted. There was nastiness which also needs to be addressed, to be certain, but people who are deluded into thinking that the election was solely about gender need to rethink their positions.
And, let me tell you, nothing infuriates me more than the lunatic fringe of women who claim that they will vote for McCain over Obama. This isn’t just a profound insult; it’s a smear on the face of the feminist movement, and ultimately, it’s self-harming. I don’t care how bitter you are, as a woman, a vote for McCain is a vote to go back to the kitchen and cook some pies until you get pregnant. It’s a vote against the huge gains for women’s rights which have been made in the last century. It’s a vote which says that women should not have control of their own bodies and destinies. And it’s a vote which tells people that feminists are so crazy that they would rather shoot themselves in the vagina (or wherever) than vote for Obama, and that’s just bad public relations.
For the love of Pete, women, don’t vote for McCain. Not just because it would be a bad choice for you personally, and it would, and because it would be a horrible choice for America, but because if McCain wins, the disaffected feminist bloc is going to be blamed for it, and that really will dash the hopes of feminists, by setting the feminist movement back 40 years, to the era when feminists were all viewed as deluded bra-less idiots. And even if you don’t care about being viewed as a lunatic fringe, how about respecting the work of thousands of women who are trying to legitimize feminism, who are trying to actively fight for women’s rights, who are trying to make a concrete, actual difference in the world?
According to the Washington Post, in Britain, where people apparently are willing to tolerate millions of CCTV cameras because they are “good for safety,” the rape conviction is shockingly low. I’d say a decline from roughly 30% in the 1970s to just over 5% today is pretty depressing, and also pretty telling. (Compare that with rates in the United States, which hover around 15% of reported cases resulting in conviction.) I would be be really interested to see an estimate on the number of rape cases which are actually reported in Britain, although I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it’s low, just like it is here.
The Washington Post article raised a couple of issues of interest for me, as a reader.
The first was to wonder what in the heck is being done with all of the miles of CCTV footage being collected in Britain. I mean, the presence of CCTV is justified by arguing that it makes it easier to track down criminals, and that it enables the prosecution and successful conviction of crimes in Britain. CCTVs are everywhere, and they are mute, all-seeing witnesses which happen to be much more reliable than people, thanks to the fact that they record information immutably and without judgment.
Now, obviously, every single rape in Britain isn’t caught on CCTV, but it does seem like actually using that footage might have some positive benefit on the conviction rate. This seems to be a common trend with security footage; the cameras are put in place to intimidate people, and so forth, but the footage is never actually used, which makes me wonder what the point is. It also gives me further fuel for opposition to the use of CCTV and other camera security systems.
Also, I was really interested in the cultural issues discussed in the article, like the results of a survey which found that “as many as one in two young men believe there are some circumstances when it’s okay to force a woman to have sex,” which was pretty mindboggling to me. Or an account of a recent case in which a 28 year old man raped a 10 year old girl and got two years in prison for it…because she dressed suggestively. Please, if you could, tell me how a 10 year old girl can dress suggestively, how a 10 year old girl can be “asking for it.”
But I’m not so sure that Britons have different attitudes about rape than we do. The article was obviously meant to be an analysis of British culture, not American culture, so there were no convenient compare and contrast sidebars, but it would be interesting to compare and contrast results of surveys and other methods of data collection in the two countries. I mean, I read this article and think “good lord, how I do not want to be a woman in Britain,” but I wonder how much better things are here.
After all, date rape is probably the biggest issue in both countries. Now, California happens to have pretty specific laws about forced sexuality, including a law which pretty much explicitly states that no means no, whereas the article didn’t delve that deeply into the law, leaving me with kind of an incomplete picture. I think that California’s laws have made it much easier to prosecute date and acquaintance rape, whereas it may well be that while British law enforcement would like to see more convictions, their hands may be tied by the law. As the article informed me, prosecutors can’t even meet with rape victims in Britain before the case comes to trial, which seems like a pretty big obstacle to getting a solid case in place.
Also, sexism and a double standard around sexuality is obviously present in both nations. I know plenty of Americans who think that there are circumstances in which a woman is “asking for it,” so that attitude is hardly restricted to Britain, especially when it comes to drunk young women trying to have a good time at parties or out on the town. In Britain’s case, it seems like sexism may have paralyzed the legal system, but I would argue that our own legal system’s approach to rape isn’t perfect, either. Depending on where you are and who you are, it can be very difficult to get someone to even take a report, let alone bring the case to trial.
I don’t think there’s an easy solution to fixing low conviction rates for rapes, but this article certainly gave me some food for thought, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see that it spurs some reforms in the British legal system’s approach to rape cases. I sure hope so.
Read Along With RSS | Design by: Derek Punsalan | Powered by: Wordpress | Top
