I am away for the weekend, and will hopefully have more to add to the dialogue soon, but in case you haven’t heard about the House GOP’s new anti-abortion proposal and what it says about rape, I urge you to read up.
If you’re as mad as I think you’re going to be, and have a twitter account, you can start telling @johnboehner what you think and join the conversation at #DearJohn.
(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.
In 2008, there were a number of posts on this blog about a rape at the University of Iowa that was terribly mishandled by the school. In the aftermath of publicity about the school’s “poor judgment,” a number of changes were made. The university president publicly apologized, two administrators involved in the case were fired, and the sexual assault policy was revised. A new article (in a Texas newspaper, the Victoria Advocate, oddly enough) following-up on the case also shows that in 2009 the school hired a sexual misconduct response coordinator who was trained to assist victims and make sure they “get treated with care.” So, despite the inexcusably abysmal immediate response for the survivor, the school seems to have taken a number of admirable actions to make sure that such a disaster never happens again. (As an aside, the outcome for the two perpetrators was that one plead guilty to misdemeanor assault and the other was found guilty of misdemeanor assault).
That said, OH MY GOD THIS NEW ARTICLE MADE ME SO ANGRY. It’s difficult to tell if the story of this horrible rape got turned into a cautionary tale about the dangers of drinking by the reporter’s spin or if this is actually the main concern of the U of Iowa president, but here’s a sampling of what had me cursing out loud last night. They get down to it right away with:
The incidents that led to the sexual assault trial of a former University of Iowa football player could have been avoided, and the school has since educated students more about the dangers of binge drinking and offered victims better support, its president said.
So, to avoid sexual assault we…talk about binge drinking? Does anyone else see a gap there? Wouldn’t it make more sense to talk about…oh, I don’t know….SEXUAL ASSAULT? Next paragraph:
UI President Sally Mason said this month’s trial where prosecutors contended Cedric Everson and former teammate Abe Satterfield sexually assaulted a freshman athlete who had been drinking heavily in 2007 showed how mistakes by young people can have tragic effects. She said the university has “redoubled its efforts” to limit the impact of such behaviors and improve campus safety.
For real, I keep reading this over and am convinced that I’m reading it wrong, but I’m not. This actually turns the focus from the fact that two men raped a woman while she was too intoxicated to function/unconscious, to the “mistake” the victim made by drinking. The rape is just one of drinking’s many “tragic effects” and the school is going to try super duper hard to make sure they get drinking under control! So it can’t get more explicitly messed up than that, right? Wrong!
“Here’s an example of how serious they can get, and the kinds of life-changing things that can happen to the people who are involved in them,” Mason told The Associated Press. “This is exactly what you hope college is not about: the experiences there that could have been avoided, that should have been avoided . I hope this can be a lesson to our students of the dangers associated with excessive alcohol and the kinds of things that follow when you are not in control of your behaviors.”
Yup. Says the pres: When you’re not “in control of your behaviors,” someone might rape you. And that sucks and all, but really isn’t there a more important lesson there about how you shouldn’t have been drinking a lot in the first place? WHAT?
Look, there is no denying that drinking yourself to the point of unconsciousness isn’t safe, for many reasons. And that alcohol has been a factor is many, many sexual assaults. But for the millionth time: alcohol doesn’t rape people, people rape people, so why are we focusing on the alcohol and not the people? Rape should not be a normalized consequence of drinking. We shouldn’t be telling students, “don’t get too drunk, someone might rape you.” We should be telling students, “don’t try and have sex with someone who seems too drunk because they may not be able to consent, and by the way, if they are unconscious? That is rape.” And “isn’t it weird that ya’ll don’t have a problem having sex with someone who is so out of it? What’s going on there?” But really, at this point I would be content with any mention of the fact that sexual violence is a problem in and of itself and it will not be tolerated on campus. Sadly, I’m outta luck:
More broadly, she said the university now requires undergraduate students to take a two-part online course aimed at preventing alcohol-related problems and the university lobbied heavily for an ordinance upheld by voters in November to only let 21-year-olds into campus bars. She said those steps should reduce the harmful effects of binge drinking, and the number of intoxicated students in the residence halls getting taken to hospitals for emergency treatment is declining already.
So glad that less kids are going to the hospital for drinking (genuinely), but have the numbers of reported incidents of sexual assault decreased? Great, students are getting a course about alcohol. Are they getting a primary prevention course about sexual violence?
The problem with framing sexual assault as an “alcohol-related problem” is that a) even if you don’t mean it to, it IS victim-blaming. When you say that binge-drinking is a “mistake” students make that have tragic effects, you are saying that the student could have “avoided” the assault by not drinking, rather than putting the responsibility on the rapists who actually committed the violation. And b) guess what folks? Ending binge-drinking won’t end sexual assault. Pretending that the two things exist in a vacuum, and aren’t embedded in a larger culture with norms and dynamics that also influence why violence happens (and why binge-drinking happens too, for that matter) is short-sighted and irresponsible. If there is a “lesson” to be learned from what happened and is happening in Iowa, it’s not that “drinking is bad,” it’s that we STILL aren’t capable of talking honestly about sexual violence and putting the responsibility on those who perpetrate it.
Pandora’s Project is an really special organization that, among other things, offers free peer support for survivors of sexual violence. They have worked incredibly hard over the past decade to cultivate a safe online space for survivors of different kinds of sexual violence to connect with each other and share their stories, as well as learn about potential resources for healing. And they do it all with a staff of unpaid volunteers (a structure very close to our heart at SAFER, obviously).
Currently Pandora’s Project is one of the front-runners for a $25,000 Pepsi Refresh Award. If they win, Pandora plans to:
Pandora’s project will plan and host free or low cost events for survivors of sexual violence to learn and heal. We will organize and host one or more retreats for to help survivors of sexual violence heal, registering participants regardless of their ability to pay. In addition, we will plan and host online chats with notable experts on recovery from trauma and sexual violence.
Connecting with other survivors of violence can be so powerful, and many people are not able to access that kind of support. Please vote now and vote often to help Pandora’s Project win.
We have been on a roll over here at the SAFER office. Since December 1, 2010 with the relaunch of the Campus Accountability Project we have heard from 47 schools from 24 states (and one province!). And we did it because of you, sweet supporters, who have blogged us, tweeted us, reposted us, rsvp’d to the facebook event and “liked” us on facebook.
We’re asking for one more push so we can hit our goal of 70 new schools in order to reach a total of 200 schools in the Policies Database by January 31, 2011. We have 10 more days to recruit 23 more activists who are ready to hold their school accountable for preventing, reducing and responding to sexual violence on campus.
Help us make the Winter Break Challenge goal by doing any or all of the following:
1) SUBMIT YOUR SCHOOL! If your school is mising, now is the time to start your submission to the Campus Accountability Project! You can save and return to as needed! You are directly contributing to a national tool for policy improvement and kick-starting a campaign at your school to improve how things are done. If you are a current student, you can get started right now here: https://safercampus.org/node/add/school
If you are not a current student, if you’ve already submitted your school or your school is already in the database you can:
2) Post the event! (http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=180145645336158) or this link (https://safercampus.org/campus-accountability-project) on your Facebook wall and encourage your friends to take action!
3) Tweet, Blog, Tumbl and E-mail about the Last 10 Days of the Challenge! The Campus Accountability Project is ongoing. Send the people in your life who are enrolled or affiliated with a college the link to our site or to our Why Policy video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCtKwn4A5cw)
Quite honestly, thank you so much for your support of what we do. In case it’s not clear, SAFER is a volunteer-run organization with the exception of me (and I’m temporary and part-time!). This means that we do this work because we’re passionate about it and that we know that a sexual assault policy is absolutely key in shaping a campus culture free of sexual violence. Join us in the struggle to support student-led movements for policy reform – and spread the word!
I’m totally digging the editorial board at Penn State University’s Daily Collegian right now for their editorial taking a stand against the t-shirts being sold for this year’s “State Patty’s Day.”
For some context I had to look into what the hell “State Patty’s Day” is, and apparently it’s an annual pre-spring break student holiday that’s been going on since 2007. It’s basically—surprise!—early St. Patrick’s day, with local merchants pulling out all the usual St. Patty’s stops like green beer and (although this is new for me) green-crusted pizza? Unsurprisingly, State Patty’s Day leads to a lot of alcohol related conduct violations, and last year the event’s founder actually publicly denounced it. In 2009, “police saw students vomiting or urinating on sidewalks in broad daylight. Drunken driving arrests were up, and more than 20 people needed emergency medical services.” The event’s founder called it “despicable…a real black eye for our community.” Despite some local bars agreeing not to participate, in 2010 the event went on as planned and local police got 365 calls, EMS got 53 calls (the majority of both were related to alcohol), and 160 were arrested.
AND it’s going to happen again this year. Which is where the t-shirts come in. Two students started a facebook event to sell t-shirts for State Patty’s Day 2011 that say, “Kiss Me, I’m Wasted.” (Get it! Like “Kiss Me, I’m Irish,” only making light of the serious issue of alcohol and consent! HAHAHA LOL.)
The Daily Collegian editorial touches on the issue of sexual assault (nice job, ya’ll!!), but focuses more on the impact the event has on the school’s reputation, as well as the fact that the t-shirts were not designed by a student:
This seems like another way for students and visitors from outside of Penn State to take advantage of our hospitality, our sense of community and our party-school reputation.
Last year, 150 of the 241 citations issued by police during State Patty’s Day came from non-students.
Now it’s outsiders who are contributing to our infamous party-school standing.
And worse, they are beginning to make money off of it.
I like the “community” framework a lot. We talk about “campus community” all the time at SAFER, the idea being that not only should school administrations be accountable to their students, but students should be accountable to each other and want to create a community that is safe and doesn’t tolerate violence. Speaking up about stuff like this is one way to hold your fellow students accountable.
If you’ve been following along with us on the De Anza case, now four years old, you might be interested to know that it has ended up in civil court. After the refusal of Santa Clara County prosecutors to press charges (largely based on their claim that they couldn’t prove lack of consent due to the alcohol involved), the refusal to allow three witnesses to testify in front of a grant jury, and the refusal to even test the physical evidence in the case, this is the last legal route the case has at the moment.
This is going to be a nasty battle, and it’s going to focus on—surprise—the young woman’s behavior. Despite the fact that when the three witnesses who took it upon themselves to stop going on found the 17 year-old complainant unconscious with vomit on her face, the defense is going to argue that it doesn’t matter how drunk she was, she was acting “provocatively” earlier and had consented to some sexual contact with at least one of the men at the party. (A reminder that this is an alleged “gang-rape” case with at least 8 men involved).
I wonder if anyone is going to mention that it would have been pretty clear, at some point, that this girl was beyond just being drunk, and way off into the world of too intoxicated to function? With a blood alcohol level of .27 (though some reports say .32), she would have been somewhere between:
BAL .25 %: All mental, physical, and sensory functions are severely impaired. You’re emotionally numb. There’s an increased risk of asphyxiation from choking on vomit and of seriously injuring yourself by falling or other accidents.
BAL .30 %: You’re in a stupor. You have little comprehension of where you are. You may suddenly pass out at this point and be difficult to awaken. (But don’t kid yourself: Passing out can also occur at lower BAL’s. But, at lower blood alcohol levels, you may decide You’ve had enough to drink and go “pass out.” With an alarming BAL like .30%, your body will be deciding to pass out for you.) In February 1996, an 18-year-old student died of alcohol – poisoning with a BAL of .31% after attending two parties the night before.
It sort of boggles my mind that anyone confronted by someone in this state, if asked “did it ever occur to you that this person may not be able to consent,” could say “no.”
Launching on Jan 22, (the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision) a bunch of amazing organizations have joined together for Trust Women month in support of reproductive rights and justice.
They’re asking folks wear a silver ribbon to show solidarity for the month, and spread the word on facebook and twitter. All month there will be action items on up on the website so people can get involved with reproductive health and justice orgs, projects, and campaigns across the country. Check out the site and see below for some ways to get started.
You may have noticed it’s been a bit quiet around here as of late. My apologies! A couple of writers took some time off, I have been writing a lot less while on my winter break from school, and SAFER is in the middle of some organizational shifts. But hopefully next week, as the second semester gears up, the blog will go back to being a little more active! Thanks for continuing to stop by…
(First in a series of conversations with Privilege Denying Dude)
Well, Privilege Denying Dude, that is an interesting claim. And while you may think it is unique, I’ve actually heard it before.
Katie Roiphe, for example, made the claim back in 1991, and it was promptly debunked by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
Other proponents of this hypothesis include right-wing activists like Heather MacDonald. It’s actually quite the favorite old tune.
Outside of the public realm, a lot of other people have said the very same thing to me, in a lot of different contexts. I was an anti-rape educator for a while, and one of the exciting benefits of that position is that people will tell you all of their opinions about rape. They’ll do this while you’re doing your job, of course—that’s part of the job. But they’ll also do it on airplanes, in bars, and even at neighborhood potluck dinners.
This happens so much, in fact, that my former co-worker sometimes used to lie and tell people she was a florist, just so she didn’t have to have a conversation about rape every time she took a long train ride.
So, I’ve heard your claim before. I’ve considered it thoroughly. I’ve thought it through.
First, I have a question for you about your claim.
What evidence can you provide? Is there any study you can point to that indicates that such a problem exists?
Because that’s quite a claim you’re making. The consequences of making that claim—of spreading the public perception that those who allege rape should be met with disbelief—could be very, very dire if you are incorrect. Are you sure there is evidence to back it up?
If you are wrong, you’re perpetuating an idea that is often used to discredit rape victims. In fact, the “consent defense” (a defense based on the claim that sex occurred, but was consensual) is the most common defense used in rape cases. It’s a very successful defense. Only about 16.3% of reported rapes end in jail time for the accused rapist.
And since most rapists are serial offenders who rape multiple victims (an average of 6 victims per rapist), letting one go free is no small matter.
So you should have a lot of evidence before you make a claim like that. A claim like that could hurt a lot of people.
Are you familiar with the literature on this subject? The studies done by sociologists and forensic psychologists and law enforcement specialists?
Have you read the work of Mary Koss? Bonnie Fisher? David Lisak? Steve Thompson? Stephanie McWhorter? I’m not talking about the selective commentary on this work provided by people with a political agenda. I’m not talking about the abstracts, or blog posts about the articles. Have you read the studies themselves?
If you really feel that the body of research on sexual assault is flawed, I would like to hear why.
Second, Privilege Denying Dude, I have a fact for you. The national rate of rape claims classified as “unfounded” is less than 10%.
Let’s be clear, “unfounded” is not the same as “false.” “Unfounded,” in law enforcement speak, includes both “baseless” claims, in which the account given was considered truthful, but in which the elements necessary to meet the legal definition of rape were absent (Laws vary from state to state. For example, marital rape is still not classified as “rape” in some states), and claims the officers involved felt were untrue. In my experience, police officers are just as likely to hold stereotypes about which rape reports are “real” as the general public. According to the Sexual Assault Training and Investigations training developed by nationally recognized law enforcement expert and former head of the San Diego Sex Crimes Unit Joanne Archambault, many untrained officers will disbelieve a victim because the victim knows the suspect, had a prior sexual relationship with the suspect, is acting “too” calm, is vague, later remembers more about what happened, is a prostitute, is drunk or on drugs, is belligerent, and for a whole range of other reasons that simply do not indicate that a report is false.
Some poorly trained departments may also improperly call cases “unfounded” when they have issues such as a victim’s refusal to cooperate, inability to find a victim, or simply insufficient evidence (this is what is called an “unsubstantiated” claim). Lack of evidence does not mean that a report was false. It simply means that there was not enough evidence for a criminal case to move forward.
Add to this the pressure on officers to report very low rates of certain violent crimes in their precincts, and you find a bias toward labeling rape cases “unfounded,” even though there is no evidence that the rate of false reports of rape is any different from the rate of false reports for any other crime (around 2-8%). According to a report by the American Prosecutors Research Institute, One of the largest studies available looked at 2,059 reported rapes, and found that 7% were false. The largest and most rigorous study looked at 2,643 cases reported over 15 years and found that 8% were considered unfounded by the police officers handling the cases. Another large study placed the false report rate at 2.1%, and others have confirmed the 2-8% range repeatedly.
In other words, the rate of false reports of rape is the same as the rate of false reports of muggings, car accidents, and home invasions. Two to eight percent.
Two to eight percent is important. Two to eight percent is the reason we have a justice system and a trial. It’s why we really, really need due process in all criminal cases. But it is not a majority, or even a large percentage, of rape cases. It certainly is not a reason to assume that many or most people alleging that a rape occurred are lying.
Now, privilege denying dude, if you still believe your original claim in the face of this overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I have another question.
Why do you think women would do that?
When someone makes a report of rape, they would generally need to get a rape kit done to have much success in a court case, unless there were witnesses or other victims. A rape kit is pretty invasive. For women, rape kits usually include a pelvic exam, and I don’t know any woman who looks forward to those. They’re not terrible, but they’re a lot like prostate exams in that you’d rather do something else if possible.
Not to mention, when someone reports a rape, they will be asked to provide a pretty detailed account to police. The kind of account that is hard to fake. It takes a few hours. And if an accuser is found to be lying, they face serious criminal charges.
A day’s worth of interviews and hospital time, a year’s worth of legal proceedings, a pelvic exam, and the risk of criminal prosecution seems like an awful lot of effort to go through just to get even with someone who didn’t call you back. So why do you think women, in particular, would be so driven? You specified that you believe it is women who lie about rape, so I am assuming that you don’t believe that men are likely to do the same. Why not?
I don’t know you all that well, PDD, but I have to wonder whether you think women are different from men in some important ways. Do you think that women are less trustworthy, or more unpredictable, than men?
If women are less trustworthy, why is there no evidence that they are more likely to falsely report crimes other than rape? Wouldn’t the tendency to make false police reports carry over to include other offenses? Wouldn’t women also be involved in more fraud of all kinds? Why would women’s greater propensity for dishonesty be isolated to allegations involving this particular offense?
Finally, privilege denying dude, I wonder what you think we should do about this problem you feel we have. If women are, in fact, less trustworthy than men, or uniquely tempted to make false allegations of sexual violence, how did they get that way? What is it in our culture that has created this epidemic of untrustworthy women, and what is your proposed solution? Certainly, for the time being we should give less validity to anything a woman says, in court or in life. But how do we prevent the dishonesty in the first place? Is it an immutable quality in female humans, or can we socialize girls differently to avoid it?
These are the questions we must ask if we take your claim seriously, PDD. And, as the person making an assertion without evidence, you are responsible for providing the answers. The burden of proving your claim lies with you. I am not responsible for disproving it (though I believe the information I have provided does just that). You are responsible for proving your claim, and for proposing reasonable responses to the problem you claim exists.
Until you have done this, I don’t feel we have anything further to discuss.
