As I’ve written here many times before, efforts to encourage men to give up the macho posturing that is such a huge part of rape culture are too often seen as attempts to take something away from men. And as I see it, the lie that our culture tells men about fitting into the masculine “box”—the fairy tale about how it will make you successful and loved—is one of the most effective ways of controlling men’s behavior. The punishment doled out to men who dare transgress is only part of the equation, when it comes to manipulating insecure guys into playing the patriarchal masculine role.

Anti-feminist crusaders like Cathy Young have built whole careers on sucking up to guys who want to hear the fairy tale, and playing the role of the token woman willing to take a stand on behalf of rape culture.

But the truth is, the violence of rape culture doesn’t stop with women. Eventually, that way of relating to the world seeps out beyond women. It affects children first, and then anyone vulnerable. And finally, it includes men too, because as soon as dominant, violent, patriarchal masculinity is idealized, the very best way to hurt a man becomes to rape him—there is no better way to indicate that he no longer holds the status afforded a dominant patriarch, but instead is relegated to the lesser status of a woman.

This is the result of rape culture.

Because there has been so little research into the rape of men during war, it’s not possible to say with any certainty why it happens or even how common it is – although a rare 2010 survey, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that 22% of men and 30% of women in Eastern Congo reported conflict-related sexual violence.

The article (which is well worth reading in its entirety, though I must give a major trigger warning for graphic descriptions of sexual violence against men) continues to say that other studies have indicated that globally, as many as 80% of the men who find themselves political prisoners or prisoners of war will be sexually tortured. And ironically enough, the very image of masculinity that pretends to offer men all the advantages in life only makes life harder for them when they are victimized.

“In Africa no man is allowed to be vulnerable,” says [the Refugee Law Project's] gender officer Salome Atim. “You have to be masculine, strong. You should never break down or cry. A man must be a leader and provide for the whole family. When he fails to reach that set standard, society perceives that there is something wrong.”

Often, she says, wives who discover their husbands have been raped decide to leave them. “They ask me: ‘So now how am I going to live with him? As what? Is this still a husband? Is it a wife?’ They ask, ‘If he can be raped, who is protecting me?’

And, I might add, who is protecting the men? Because masculinity sure isn’t doing it.

(Trigger warning for rape apology, body policing, and racism)

As many readers are already aware, a fraternity brother from USC’s Kappa Sigma chapter recently sent an email to his fraternity brothers.  They found it so “funny” that it went viral.

The whole thing is just awful. But I think it can be useful too, because it lays out in exquisite detail pretty much every element of our society’s rape apology/encouragement for all to see. It’s basically the Ulysses of rape culture.

For anyone who has ever argued that rape prevention education is unnecessary because the good gentlemen at their fine institution would never commit or condone rape, I submit this email, which comes from a prestigious University and is written by a man with all the privilege in the world.

Here is the text (all emphasis mine):
Continue reading →

[TW for rape apology]

So the Massachusetts Daily Collegian published a gem of a victim-blaming article last week.  In it, author Yevgeniya Lomakina masterfully manages to weave her condemnation of rape victims who deserved it into a convoluted diatribe against birth control and the existence of Planned Parenthood.  The editors have rightfully apologized, although they haven’t really explained why an apology is necessary.  They’ve called the article “offensive and inaccurate.”  Which, yes.  But ideally, factual errors are corrected, not simply mentioned in a vague sort of way.  And “offensiveness” is not actually a problem, as far as I’m concerned.  Lots of things are offensive, to lots of people.  Margaret Cho is offensive, and I love her.  The trouble with the article is not that it is offensive.  It is that it causes genuine harm.  When Margaret Cho talks about sticking ice cream cones up people’s butts, or swears like a sailor, it is “offensive,” to some people.  Particularly when she says something like this:

It is “offensive,” to some people.  But those people are boring, and I hope Margaret Cho lives a long, healthy life so she can keep offending them.

When someone writes, as the author of the original article did:

If a young woman wears a promiscuous outfit to a party, then proceeds to drink and flirt excessively, she should not blame men for her downfall. She made a decision to dress a certain way, to consume alcohol and should be prepared to deal with the consequences. Far from being a victim of rape, she is a victim of her own choices. (emphasis mine)

certainly, there is reason to be offended.  But that’s not the problem.  The problem with this statement is not that someone will read it and feel offended.  It is that a survivor will read it and be convinced not to take action against their rapist, or not to seek counseling.  It is that a rapist will read it and feel vindicated in their actions.  The problem is that this article will cause harm.

The article is also inaccurate.  For the record, there is no evidence linking flirting or dressing in “promiscuous outfits” (whatever that means) with likelihood of being sexually victimized.  There is evidence linking drinking to being victimized, primarily because alcohol is intentionally used as a weapon by rapists. As always, the primary risk factor for rape is being in the presence of a rapist, and rapists still stubbornly refuse to wear signs proclaiming their violent tendencies.  The rapist will find a victim, regardless of what women wear or drink.  Rapists and the people around them (like Lomakina) who  condone their violence can be held responsible for rape.  Victims cannot.

Lomakina continues with several inaccuracies:

[Planned Parenthood] is not, however, a charitable organization, as it is portrayed by its many supporters. Their services are not free, although they may be cheaper than regular hospitals.

Planned Parenthood is a 501 (c)(3)  organization.  This is the definition of a “charitable organization,” according to U.S. law.  Most hospitals are also charitable organizations.  All nonprofit organizations have a business plan.  This does not make them a for-profit venture.  It simply makes them responsible and sustainable.  Like when your greedy, money-obsessed church charges for the pancake breakfast.

[T]he organization’s website misleads in reporting that abortions constitute only 3 percent of its services.

Abortions constitute only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services.  This is a fact.  One which can be confirmed by looking at Planned Parenthood’s annual report.  Unless the author has proof that this is an inaccurate claim (she doesn’t), her claim is libel.

Abortion is also viewed in a different way. For many, it is no longer a last resort for victims of rape or in other emergencies. It is simply regarded as “Plan B.” In a Planned Parenthood YouTube advertisement for the “morning after” pill, a woman states the scenarios in which the product may be useful.

“Plan B” is emergency contraception.  Emergency contraception is not an abortion.  An abortion is a procedure that ends a pregnancy.  Plan B is a form of birth control that can be taken within a few days of unprotected intercourse, and which makes it unlikely that an egg will be released or that a fertilized egg will become implanted (implantation of a fertilized egg is the beginning of the state medically referred to as “pregnancy,” since most women will naturally flush out about half of all fertilized eggs with their menstrual cycle.)

It is exceptionally important that emergency contraception be understood properly, particularly by rape victims.  The rate of unwanted pregnancy in rape victims is considerably lower than it once was due to the availability of emergency contraception.  In this screwed-up world, rape is a real possibility for everyone.  Women of child-bearing age should always have a supply of emergency contraception on hand, and know how to use it.  Again, I am not particularly offended by Lomakina’s conflation of abortion and contraception, but I do think that this inaccurate conflation has the potential to cause a great deal of harm.

More contraception does not translate to fewer abortions.

Yes, it does.  According to this extensive study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, “Abortion levels are high in countries where the desire for small families is strong but contraceptive use is low or ineffective.”

Ahem.

Offensiveness, inaccuracy, and even overt harmfulness aside, I have other concerns with this train wreck of an article.  Lomakina states:

The notion that sex be regarded only within the institution of marriage has nearly disappeared in modern American culture. It has been replaced by an abundance of sexual activity. This was promoted by feminist movements as “female liberation” – women having the freedom to have sex with anyone, anywhere. Ignited by the media and supported by many young females willing to become “liberated,” the trend took off… What is worse is that many women seem proud of their exploits. Sexual columnists such as Natalie Krinsky, who wrote “Chloe does Yale” before contributing a sex column to Yale Daily News, have flaunted into the spotlight. This is not exclusive to college campuses. Jessica Cutler, a staffer on Capitol Hill, posted her sexual adventures online and, after being fired, cashed in by posing for “Playboy.”

First, the idea that it is feminists who have promoted the increasing sexual objectification and commodification of women is nonsense.  Feminists have been criticizing that aspect of our culture for freakin’ ever.  Christ on a cracker.  In the 1920′s, former suffragists were criticizing the excessive sexual objectification of women in mainstream culture.  Feminists are not now, nor have they ever been, in charge of MTV, American Apparel ads, the Girls Gone Wild franchise, or Cosmopolitan Magazine.  They do not publish Playboy, and they didn’t write Sex and The City.

Feminists usually say that women should be able to freely choose how to live out their sexual lives.  Yes, that means that feminists generally aren’t into judging women’s sexual behavior, or expecting them to adhere to Puritanical sexual mores.  But feminism also recognizes that constant pressure to present yourself as a sexual object—to fulfill men’s desires without having any of your own—is not freedom.  It is coercion.  Feminists have been saying so for a long, long time.

Finally, the idea that the “problem with women today” is that we simply have too many choices available to us is thinly disguised fascism.

What would removing all these scary, dangerous choices mean for women?  Should women be legally prohibited from drinking alcohol?  From dressing “promiscuously?”  Exactly what would this entail?  Are tank tops acceptable?  Short-sleeved shirts?  Skirts that fall above the knee?  Skirts that fall above the ankle? What should the penalty be for dressing in ways deemed unacceptable?

What should the penalty be for flirting?

Apparently, in Lomakina’s ideal world, the legal penalty for such infractions should be rape.

The only trouble, according to her, is that women are not punished often enough for making choices she doesn’t like.

It should not escape most observers that the reasoning that holds that women should not be allowed to make choices regarding their style of dress, alcohol consumption, sexuality, and reproduction is the same reasoning that holds that women should not be able to choose if and when to have sex.  It is the very core of rape culture.  It is no coincidence then that Lomakina justifies rape as she condemns women for being sexual in ways she disapproves of.  She believes that women having choices—any choices—is dangerous.

And yeah, I find that offensive.

Time-Machine has a fantastic, very simple explanation of why it’s wrong to let a rape joke go unchallenged.  Check it out.

I’ve often found myself trying to explain to people that rape culture and patriarchy aren’t just bad for women. If you draw attention to a form of violence that is primarily aimed at women by men, and a form of social oppression that is intended to provide men with dominance over women, a lot of people will think you must be hostile to men, or want to take something away from men. Nothing could be further from the truth. Patriarchy and rape culture are clearly more harmful to women, but they also cause men great harm, and I engage in anti-violence work to help men as much as I do to help women or anyone else. Here’s why:
Continue reading →

(Second in a series of conversations with Privilege Denying Dude)

I’ll put it this way, Privilege Denying Dude: if a man were falsely accused of rape, would you say that he was to blame for allowing himself to be alone with a woman, thus opening himself to such accusations?

I don’t think you would.

A related story: I recently had an interesting conversation with two friends who are generally nice guys, but not people with a whole lot of experience in the anti-rape field. The conversation came around to violence prevention, and I said offhandedly that rape prevention programs should be focused on men because rape wasn’t really much of a problem for women. Both guys did a double take and stared at me, confused. I clarified, and said that of course what I meant was that women are highly unlikely to commit rape. They both looked stunned for a moment, and then they both laughed with sudden recognition. “Because generally we place the blame for violence on the perpetrator!” said one.

For some reason (hint: the reason is sexism) we tend to blame victims of sexual violence, particularly female victims of sexual violence, for their own assaults. Beyond being so obviously damaging to survivors, it prevents us from ever addressing the causes of sexual violence by looking into who commits sexual violence and why they do so. It is not all men who commit sexual violence. It is a very specific, very small population of men who hold very specific ideas about masculinity, sexuality, and women. Effective prevention programs are aimed at changing those rape-promoting views in perpetrators, and teaching the rest of us how to challenge these views until they are no longer part of our culture. Any response to rape that moves blame away from perpetrators and on to victims can only slow this process and cause more rape.

So, PDD, stop doing that.

So, in case you are one of the 3 people who has yet to encounter privilege denying dude, you can find him (resurrected after attacks from real privilege denying dudes everywhere) here.

Privilege Denying Dude is great. He says all the things you have heard a million times. Things that have already been proven wrong so many times, in so many forums. And PDD allows you to let it go—to laugh instead of engaging his argument. It’s a relief, because sometimes, man, you just want to eat your peanut butter sandwich.

But some people worry that maybe we should engage with the statements of the many privilege denying dudes we encounter, and have a meaningful discussion to debunk their ramblings, every single time. They say making fun of these dudes without explaining why they are wrong will not further our goals as social justice activists.

I disagree. Sometimes, it is necessary for the preservation of your mental health to laugh when someone says,

We need a space to laugh. Laughing is important. Yay laughter!

And the great thing is, we can do both! Through the wonders of science, we can laugh at Privilege Denying Dude, AND have nuanced discussions about complex issues. We can have radical grassroots movements AND large nonprofit organizations that lean more to the mainstream. We can develop the best pedagogy for people just beginning to learn how to recognize oppression AND do challenging scholarship for those who have invested their lives in ending it. We can engage in direct action to change the root causes of suffering, AND make the best possible personal choices about the things we buy. Yay complexity!

So, as a fan of complexity, I will be adding a regular feature to this blog. Privilege Denying Dude and I will be having some conversations. I will respond to his statements with well-reasoned arguments to the very best of my (admittedly limited) ability. And reader, whenever a real live privilege denying dude repeats the statement in question, you can just send them my response! I’ll even promise to keep the thread open and engage any privilege denying dudes who would like to discuss these posts, as long as they are respectful to me and don’t use threats or slurs. You don’t have to spend any of your time in an inevitably irritating discussion. YOU CAN EAT YOUR PEANUT BUTTER SANDWICH!

I will be starting with this one:

The first installment will appear tomorrow!

We fought for basic human decency for over a week. We fought, tirelessly, at great risk and expense, to make a mountain move. The mountain moved, like, three inches to the left. If you weren’t looking closely, you wouldn’t notice that it had moved at all. You definitely wouldn’t think to thank or acknowledge the incredibly hard work of the people who moved it. But we moved a mountain. We did the impossible. We went from just a random bunch of frustrated feminists, a random bunch of people on Twitter, to a force capable of changing the rape apologism in the narrative of one of the world’s biggest news stories.

That is what Sady Doyle has to say about Michael Moore’s appearance on Rachel Maddow, and his apology and even thanks to the anti-rape activists who have been pressuring him to apologize for his comments on the rape allegations facing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Read her whole post here.

To review, Michael Moore started out by laughing while calling the rape allegations against Assange a “so-called crime.” He told us to “never, ever believe” the story of the alleged victims.

That was a week ago.

And then, a week later, he said this:

Every woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted or raped has to be, must be, taken seriously. Those charges have to be investigated to the fullest extent possible. For too long, and too many women have been abused in our society, because they were not listened to, and they just got shoved aside… The older people here remember how it used to be. It’s not that much better now, it got a little better, because of the women’s movement made that happen.

He followed up by apologizing. And thanking the activists who challenged him.

He said thank you.

Thank you is better than sorry. Thank you is just about the best thing that could possibly have happened in this situation.

Thank you is real unity among progressives. It’s what we say when we’re all in this together, and we support each other’s activism, even if we focus on different issues sometimes.

I don’t know if Michael Moore donated to an anti-rape nonprofit. My hope is that he made a secret donation to some struggling rape crisis center in Idaho. But he did apologize. I think he really meant it, too. In the grand tradition of pretty much all social justice activism everywhere, we asked for two things and got one of them. 50% is about as good as it gets. In grassroots activism, if you get everything you were asking for, you didn’t ask for enough.

It was the important 50%. People on a major mainstream television network are talking about how important it is to take survivors of sexual assault seriously. In case you haven’t noticed, this is not what usually happens on the teevee machine.

So anti-rape activists just changed the national dialogue surrounding sexual violence.

And now, in response to the Assange case, the Talk About It/Prata Om Det project exists.

And as an outgrowth of Prata Om Det, there is We’re Telling, a new blog devoted to breaking the silence surrounding sexual assault (trigger warning–link goes directly to descriptions of sexual violence).

Three inches to the left, indeed.

————

See the Moore interview here.

(TW)

Dear Mr. Moore:

Roger and Me changed my life. You probably hear that a lot, but it’s worth saying. Even now, whenever I hear Wouldn’t It Be Nice by the Beach Boys, I wonder where that man you interviewed is, and I feel the kind of sadness that makes me want to make the world better. When I first saw Roger and Me, I was 17 and still figuring out who I was. That movie planted some of the first seeds that eventually turned me into a social justice activist.

When I got to college and learned that Columbia University was responding to reports of sexual assault between students by ignoring and bullying victims, I knew that the powerless could force the powerful to engage an issue by using the media. I knew that the best way to get Columbia’s administration to deal with the epidemic of sexual violence on campus was by embarrassing the school until it was willing to talk to its students about the problem. I learned that, in part, from you.

Along with a lot of other people, I started a grassroots student group called Students Active For Ending Rape (SAFER), and by refusing to go away and refusing to be quiet, we won a sexual assault prevention program that continues at Columbia today.

Shortly after that, SAFER became a national nonprofit organization devoted to creating better campus sexual assault prevention and response policies nationwide. I was disappointed when you declined to give us seed funding, but I figured you had a lot of requests from a lot of important causes. I knew that you supported us in spirit. You were, after all, a progressive. You believed in justice and compassion. Of course you would fall on the side of the anti-sexual violence movement.

I’m sad to say I was wrong.

Last week, you donated $20,000 in bail money for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange, who has been charged with rape. When you posted that bail, you said this on your blog:

For those of you who think it’s wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he’s being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please — never, ever believe the “official story.” And regardless of Assange’s guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself.

I don’t know whether Assange is innocent or guilty, and I don’t think we can know, without hearing all the evidence. I simply think he should be given a fair trial, without assumptions. Of course it is unusual that he is being prosecuted. Rape charges are virtually never pursued. When I accompanied one rape survivor to the police station to report her assault, I remember very vividly how the detective leaned back in his chair, legs sprawled wide, while he listened to her describe how she vomited during the attack. As tears ran down her face, he put both hands behind his head and casually told her that she could pursue charges if she “really wanted to,” but that without physical evidence she didn’t have a case. As you might imagine, she “chose” not to press charges. In my experience, this is how rape cases usually end.

As you yourself note, it is very rare that rape charges are taken seriously and pursued by authorities. It’s almost certain that the charges against Assange would have been ignored in most cases. But rape charges should be taken seriously. They should be pursued. Political motivation has resulted in a rare case being taken as seriously as is appropriate, and the response from those of us who believe in social justice should not be to try to malign the alleged victims. The problem is not that the charges against Assange are being taken too seriously. The problem is that rape charges against nearly everyone else are not taken seriously enough.

In your statement, you reinforce our cultural unwillingness to take survivors of sexual violence seriously, and to hold perpetrators accountable.

First, you tell us that we shouldn’t believe the “official story” regarding these accusations. What you mean is that we shouldn’t believe the statement of the alleged victims. Without having access to the evidence, you encourage us to adopt the belief that these women are lying.

Second, you tell us that the facts of this case are “strange,” implying that there is something unbelievable about a rape case when a victim willingly consented to some sexual activity, or was reluctant to prosecute.

Psychologist David Lisak has been profiling rapists for years, and his work very clearly shows that the accusations in the Assange case are not “strange.” They’re in line with the way sexual violence usually happens. That is, it is usually committed by someone the victim knows, and it is usually committed by someone the victim did have some sexual interest in. These perpetrators play on the victims trust and perception that they are “good guys,” which in concert with a common tendency for self-blame, an expectation of official apathy, and a fear of community retaliation, often makes victims unwilling to pursue criminal charges.

Victims are not wrong to expect such things. In fact, here are the names of some other high-profile men who have been accused of violence against women:

William Kennedy Smith
Kobe Bryant
Ben Roethlisberger
Roman Polanski
R. Kelly
Isaac Brock
Mike Tyson
Charlie Sheen
Mel Gibson
Chris Brown

In every case, I have heard apologetics and denial. In every case, the majority of people I’ve spoken to have believed that the alleged victim was lying. In every case, the alleged victims were harassed and threatened. In every case, the alleged rapist/batterer continued in a successful public career. That’s because people have a hard time believing that someone who seems nice, or who does work they like, could be capable of violence. And because people have a perception that women are less trustworthy than men.

I believe in openness and transparency in government. I believe that many, many rapes have occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan that we could have prevented if we had more of the transparency that WikiLeaks promotes. Widespread rape is what happens when you have a war. As an anti-violence activist and a believer in democracy, I like WikiLeaks.

But, as someone who has spent a lot of hours listening to survivors talk about their experiences of sexual violence, I also know that “good guys” who do good work can do horrific things to other people. We can support WikiLeaks as a project without supporting the culture of disbelief and victim-blaming that currently exists when it comes to sexual violence.

And it is a culture of disbelief. This is not an isolated incident. In every community I have been a part of, I have seen the ostracism and harassment of women reporting sexual violence. The kind of vicious anger that is currently aimed at Assange’s accusers rears its head all the time. As a culture, we reflexively respond to people who report sexual violence with distrust and anger.

I could go on. I could give you a lot of statistics. I could tell you how low the false report rate is for sexual offenses. I could describe common psychological responses to sexual assault, and how they line up with the “strange” details of the Assange case. I could tell you some heartbreaking stories. But it is with sadness that I say I now question your ability to listen to a woman on this subject. Given the fact that you have almost certainly had a chance to read Jessica Valenti’s piece in the Washington Post, and Sady’s post at TigerBeatdown, and still have not responded (or provided the apology and $20,000 to an anti-rape organization being requested), I question whether you take us as seriously as you do men. I question whether you believe we can be trusted. So I will direct you to Men Can Stop Rape and Jackson Katz. Both offer education regarding sexual violence and its dynamics. I believe that you will be able to hear them in a way that you can’t hear us yet.

Yet.

The reason so many people are continuing to press this issue is because we believe in you. We know that every social justice activist screws up and shows their privilege sometimes, but that sometimes they learn and grow from those experiences. They become better activists, and better people. We believe that you have a good heart. We believe that while it might take some time, you will listen to us.

For now, I will save all those statistics. You’re not ready to hear them. But what I will say is this: believing in social justice means believing in social justice for everyone. Oppressions are interdependent. We won’t win universal healthcare until opposition to women’s reproductive freedom can’t be used as a tool to stop it. We won’t win social services until the racism that is used to defeat so many of these programs is addressed and done away with. We won’t pull the reins of power from corporations until those corporations are no longer able to gain government control by manipulating the public’s homophobia. Even now, when it comes to this issue, your failure to recognize the importance of responding to sexual violence is distracting people from the WikiLeaks cause. It is sucking up the energy of people who would otherwise be your allies. It is fragmenting progressives. That fragmentation will continue within our movement until all of us in the movement fully commit ourselves to working against each and every form of oppression. Until we stop minimizing and denying other people’s suffering because our pet cause is “more important.”

Everything you say you believe in depends on an end to all oppressions, including both imperialist war and rape culture. Those of us in the progressive movement challenge ourselves to understand and oppose all forms of oppression. We take the time to educate ourselves about liberation movements we aren’t directly involved in, and to understand how oppressions intersect. We do the hard work of unlearning our biases and challenging our unearned privilege, every single day. This is what the progressive movement stands for. We hope you will join us.

In love and struggle,
Ashley

See also: Sady Posts two, three, four, five, six, seven and counting (she’s not giving up, yo), Jill, brownfemipower (twice), Kate, Melissa, Harriet, Miranda, BluePlatypus, Dani, and Thomas. (Leave links to others in comments if you’ve got ‘em)