I have been wondering how to write this post.
A lot of my recent posts have been about rape specifically and sexual violence in general. I have even renamed my series “Judges on Rape” to “Justice and Rape” because the scope of the series galloped out of control beyond a narrow focus on the conduct and prejudice of judges.
But how to sum it all up? How to convey, in one post, what I think it all means? There is too much to deal with. Too much material, too much pain, too many different aspects to this deep and seemingly irreconcilable problem. And then there are questions about the importance of sexual violence as a feminist issue: Is it absolutely THE crucial problem for women to resolve? Or is it only one of the worse symptoms of some other problem? How, in any event, do we deal with it? Whose responsibility is it to deal with it in the first place? Or should we all just stop going on about it because, egad, we might be perpetuating a victim mentality? Isn’t it better to focus on something positive instead?
So I don’t have a coherent post here. The topic defies it. I just have what Inga Muscio called a WOMANIFESTO:
I believe that if a man attacks a woman, he is her attacker and she is his victim. She can have whatever mentality she likes. She is his victim and he is her attacker. Since when did being a “victim” become inherently blameworthy?
I believe that since men are (in the overwhelming majority of cases) the ones who rape, and commit other sexual crimes, since men are the ones in power, they are the ones who can stop rape. They can stop it by understanding women as human, and by demanding that their friends and brothers and sons and entertainers understand women as human.
I believe that since rapists are the ones who rape, they are the ones who can stop rape. They can stop it by not raping. They can stop it by not assuming that a woman consents. They can stop it by not coercing women into sex. They can stop it by understanding women as human. They can stop it by NOT RAPING.
I believe that women can rise up and demand that rapists stop raping and that men stop rapists from raping and from thinking that rape is OK. We can only do this together, en masse. But, even then, it is doubtful whether this will make any difference if the men don’t listen, and hear, and accept, and act. If this makes us seem relatively powerless then it is because, under patriarchy, when it comes to rape – we are relatively powerless. It stinks. But we are.
And I am inspired:
- “you cannot separate the so-called abuses of women from the so-called normal uses of women. The history of women in the world as sexual chattel, makes it impossible to do that.”
- “as sex is currently socialized and existing in our society, men can’t have sex with women who are their equals. They’re incapable of it. Right? That’s what objectification is about.”
(Andrea Dworkin. Swiped from Luckynkl’s.)
And, because Dworkin is right, I believe that sexual violence against women will never stop until women acquire fully human status.
Within “sexual violence” I include not just rape but all violence that is perpetrated against women because they are women, which is a hate crime against women as a group. I include – rape; incest; indecent assaults; sex with young girls; the hate speech that is pornography; the buying, trafficking, selling of women’s bodies; domestic violence; wife murder; female genital mutilation; the stoning of an adulteress; sati and its glorification.
In fact, I go further. Because Dworkin is pretty much right, because on the whole men CANNOT have sex with women who are their equals, most “normal” sex is about violence, and is a form of sexual violence. It is about domination and subordination; it is about power and coercion; it is about who controls whom, who submits to whom, who does what to whom, and why. It is conquest, it is victory, it is a score. It is misunderstanding.
When it runs so deep, how can it end?
I believe that it can end only with a revolution. With a liberation.
When women are free, when we can do WHAT we want with our bodies, WHEN we want to and in any manner we choose, sexual violence might stop. As long as we exist even partly as the object of male pleasure rather than the subject of our own, sexual violence will go on. And on and on. And on.
When we are equal in spirit and granted full agency and full dignity and full respect, sexual violence might stop. As long as we exist within the narrow confines of femininity, we will be subordinate, and sexual violence will go on. And on.
And I believe that I will be dead long before the revolution starts.
And I believe that this is no reason to stop my resistance.
And I fantasise.
What would happen if we were all to go on strike? I mean all of us. I mean you, and me, and all our friends. I mean Cherie Blair, and Jordan, and Sheryl Crow, and Hillary Clinton, and Catherine Zeta Jones, and the Queen, and Mrs President of Here-or-There. I mean Anna, and Mandy, Alix and Jade, Chantal and Henrikka, Marlene and Suki and Hortense and Rupinder and Talya, and just – you know – everyone.
We can say no. Not just – “no” to one man, one act, one occasion. We can say NO! To it all. We can withdraw our consent, en masse. We can make sure that we are clear about our lack of consent. We can teach our daughters to be clear about their lack of consent.
What then? Would men’s genitals shrivel off and drop to the ground? Would their balls explode? Would there be a population crisis? What would they do if they were “denied sex (through no fault of their own)” in this way?
Would they suddenly get that they are NOT entitled to sex? That sex is not a human right? That it is not a thing without which they cannot survive?
Would they suddenly get that women CAN say no, and mean it? And stick to it? And not be “persuaded” otherwise? Would they get that we are HUMAN and we have RIGHTS and when we say no it actually means something?
Would we, at last, be freed?
Would sex, at last, be freed?
Would men reach a point where, new rules established, strike called off, they stop assuming that we consent and start asking?
26 April 2007 at 9:53 am
I think we might all start having sex with each other
26 April 2007 at 8:17 pm
Good plan!
[evil grin]
27 April 2007 at 5:34 am
Well, I think that the training for female subordination starts earlier than the training for sexual subordination, and is complicite with it. Really, training to be a woman is training for smallness. You care culturally conditioned to accept that your needs are disregardable, that your opinions are not all that important, and that your voice is difficult to hear. From this point on, you try to get attention through indirect means, fearing that your own voice expressing its own desires and wants will not be heard or understood. You therefore try to get attention by pleasing a male — a boss, a professor, a boyfriend, males in general. This is the point at which you lose your self and become susceptible to sexual domination. (Not that you cannot be a victim of all sorts of domination without the cultural conditioning preceding it, or even in a situation where you completely refuse it and fight back.)
27 April 2007 at 5:35 am
Sorry — you “are” culturally conditioned…
27 April 2007 at 6:53 pm
“the point at which you lose your self…”
I was thinking something very like this earlier today… v true that being subordinate, being taught to value our selves so little, makes us more readily susceptible to domination, in particular more likely to agree to and/or even want to and/or feel we deserve to be dominated. (Sexually or otherwise.)
You get to the point where you feel – without being able to articulate or realise this explicitly until you undergo a feminist epiphany some years later – that you need someone else to “love you”, just to validate your self as worthy of existence. Since your whole existence is in question, and your self-esteem isn’t even off the ground, why would you care about the little detail that the person who “loves” you actually doesn’t respect you very much? It is enough for your existence to be validated.
(Not very well expressed. Still trying to work some stuff out. Feminist epiphany does not cancel out years of baggage.)
28 April 2007 at 2:40 pm
Since when has it ever been culturally established that men should force themselves on women? Last time I looked you spend a hell of alot of time spent behind bars for that!
Find some gentle nice guy and ask him about his love life: what you’ll find is its pretty much non existant.
Go out and find some cool dominant alpha male and you’ll see girls throwing themselves at him constantly.
We’ve evolved over millions of years for most of that time we’ve lived in tribes, where women ensured their survival by aligning with the leaders of the tribes.
Hence women will always be more attracted to the alpha males.
I hate to say it but your communist/socialist/feminist utopia will never be fulfilled. It goes against our biology.
Real healthy women submit to good leaders, unhealthy low self esteem women will seek out corrupt leaders(like hitler).
Read a romance novel, which millions of women read every year, and you’ll soon see most women’s fantasies are to submit to some strong alpha male, who can guide her and protect her, and lead her.
What does that prove, just that biology is a stronger factor in people’s behaviour than any of this cultural stuff.
Hence the alpha males will be always be more popular among women than any nice guy wimpy feminists that act on what women say they want and not what they respond to.
28 April 2007 at 8:49 pm
Matt – you obviously don’t “hate to say it” at all.
And if the best you can come up with is “but women are BIOLOGICALLY DESTINED to want alpha males” then I say pshaw. Mary Wollstonecraft explained over 200 years ago why that particular piece of male supremacist claptrap is completely ridiculous.
If you are in good faith, here, I direct you to Feminism 101.
If not, well, I don’t think I need to say that misogyny will not be tolerated here.
29 April 2007 at 11:04 am
So why are Romance novels(about very masculine men) best sellers and Women don’t read sexy novels about feminist men standing up for equal rights?
I know it must be the patriarchy, blame that! They’ve been brainwashed, they’re obviously so weak they can’t think for themselves(whose insulting women now?).
I like the way how you bring out the old classic because I disagree with you it must be because I’m a misogynist.
29 April 2007 at 7:26 pm
Matt –
I repeat:
“If you are in good faith, here, I direct you to Feminism 101.
If not, well, I don’t think I need to say that misogyny will not be tolerated here.”
This handily both (1) reminds you of my previous suggestion that if you are in good faith you should consider checking out the Feminism 101 blog and (2) killing two birds with one stone, demonstrates that I did not in fact accuse you of misogyny. I just said that if you weren’t here in good faith, you should be aware that I do not tolerate misogyny.
Now, in case twice wasn’t enough:
If you are in good faith, here, I direct you to Feminism 101.
If not, well, I don’t think I need to say that misogyny will not be tolerated here.
I’m done with this topic of conversation.
30 April 2007 at 1:13 am
oh, but, but , but — reading romance novels as a sign of good health?! I just had to say.