Is This Famous Photo Fueling Rape Culture?

[redqueen]

This much better piece was linked from the Lounge thread. Thought I'd post it here in case anyone missed it.

I don't think the photo itself fuels rape culture. I do think that a lot of the reactions to it display rape culture really well, though, and that failing to point out and discuss this kind of thing does fuel rape culture.

http://lawsonry.com/2012/08/is-this-famous-photo-fueling-rape-culture/

...

Friedman herself said that the kiss “happened so fast” and “wasn’t a big deal,” but lets not forget that this was a time in America when women were socialized into property-like gender roles. When George laid Greta over in his arms and she describes him as “very strong,” certain images of the controlling nature of male socialization and the devaluation of women stemming from that period come to mind. Need a refresher?
...

Considering the social atmosphere at the time, it’s not that far-fetched to assume that Greta and every other woman who was kissed that day might have thought the same thing – that the sailors kissing them were excited, strong, and not asking for permission. If you read the NYP’s unraveling of the story, they point out that George admitted to drinking so much that he doesn’t even remember grabbing and kissing Greta. But does this make it reprehensible?

Some argue that the celebration was tantamount to New Year’s Day, where everyone expects to give and receive kisses from willing strangers who are excited to ring in the new year. This, however, doesn’t excuse the obvious lack of consent from all accounts. After all, just because you surprise me with a clenching non-consensual kiss and I dismiss it as you just being excited, does that make it any less non-consensual, forced, and selfish on your part?

Others say that it’s “just the way things were back then” and that sometimes, “you just grabbed a girl and kissed her.”

...

And on that note, about "the way things were back then", I love this post in the comments:

"In the context of that era" is a roundabout way of saying "back then it was okay to do this to women." Anything that disrupts a firmly held belief is going to be considered "reaching," and I'm okay with that. When we're comfortable looking back on cherished American history through a feminist lens we'll have made positive intellectual traction.

In other words, what some people would describe as 'the good old days'.



Another linked piece, this from the NYP, shows an interesting quote. While talking about the moment when Greta saw the picture and realized it was her:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/kiss_is_just_kiss_x8pgRGiSNtEL9zbSO3TTiP/2

Greta, by now married with children, had the same reaction as George: She knew it was her. “The seams in my stockings were perfectly straight — I was always careful about that,” she says. “And it was my figure, and my hairdo. I was carrying this little tapestry purse that I owned.”

Her husband, now deceased, noticed something else: The odd angle of the woman’s left thumb. According to Verria, Greta’s husband said, “You know, when you get very tense, your arm stiffens up and your thumb sticks out just like that.”

[hlthe2b]

1. re:

I don't want to confuse an unexpected act with an non-consensual act that asserts power in a violent manner over another.

To me, this was clearly the former, brought on by the ecstasy of a nation having won a war that had affected everyone to such an intense degree for so long. That the sailor in uniform chose a nurse in uniform might to some extent well have reflected a commonality of experience and dedication to a common goal--as much as a young man conveniently kissing an attractive girl. Had this not occurred in a setting fueled by celebration and shared relief I think the context would be quite different and woman's response would likely have been much different. I think most who view it and know the context realize that this was a more extreme reaction, yet not unlike the reflexive need to hug and pat the back of strangers, we see occurring after a shared event.

I disagree with the premise of the article for that reason.

[redqueen]

2. The sailor was drunk and thought she was a nurse.

Greta was a dental assistant, but due to what he'd seen in the months leading up to this announcement, he was overcome with appreciation for nurses so much that he ran away from his date to kiss the first one he saw.

This is clearly a non-consensual act, there's no question about that. The degree of violence isn't one that would leave bruises, but a discussion of the amount of violence really isn't at issue here, from what I see. No one is saying that he raped her or physically hurt her.

The thing is, for me, that it wasn't something he even thought about, that she might not want to be kissed. A hug or a pat or any physical touch is one thing, but he has her in a headlock, off balance, and ... well it's all been said and pointed out already.

She had emigrated from Austria, and wasn't sure at the time of the announcement if her parents were alive or dead. As it turns out they died in a concentration camp.

[hlthe2b]

3. Context is being ignored in that assessment.

Had she slapped him or tried to pull away and he had failed to break the hold, the kiss, I would totally agree with you.

Had this occurred in nearly any other context--the absence of a national celebration of such unprecedented magnitude--I would agree with you.

[seabeyond]

4. this is where i sit with that. having to show signs of struggle, is the issue we are having today

in the discussion of rape. forcible, honest, legitimate.

for the most part, women didnt, and dont today show signs of struggle for many different reasons and that does not mean consent.

i think we can all say, that grabbing a woman, putting her in a head lock where she cant move and kissing her really is not ok. but, the times and the celebration and the relief it was over makes it more understandable.

and about leave it at that.

it was simply more acceptable, also.

it was more acceptable, because in those time women were second class and did not have ownership and rights like today.

certainly a different time.

i dont think it is a black and white

all wrong, all right

but, i think it is an example of the difference of yesterday and today.

for me.... ALL of that makes for a more interesting conversation than whether 70 yrs ago this woman was assaulted.

another perspective, is that flash hold the moment in time. so it may feel like they sat in the position for a longer moment. we do not know. it might have been a 5 sec grab, kiss, done and before even realizing what was happening was on her way.

still a grab and kiss, but.... less invasive. we do not know.

stories in a picture.

[redqueen]

5. She said it was very fast, yes.

Just a quick kiss by her account. He was drunk and didn't even remember doing it.

[hlthe2b]

6. As I said, if it had occurred in any other setting but one so unprecedented, I'd agree

In nearly any other context, a drunk guy coming out of no where to grab and kiss a strange girl is assault and indefensible.

Just as we tend to forgive the stranger who reaches out to hug another after a shared celebration of common import, I think this more extreme example-- after the most momentous of NATIONAL shared experiences-- likewise should be viewed through that contextual lens. Had I been there that day, I know I would have been hugging strangers--even without benefit of alcohol. Doubtful I'd been kissing anyone, but good gawd--this was in celebration of defeat of the Nazis. Everyone in the US was involved or touched by this war, unlike the wars since, in some very personal way.

And while I don't condone such behavior today, let's PLEASE not conflate an unexpected and impulsive quick kiss with rape.

[seabeyond]

10. let's PLEASE not conflate an unexpected and impulsive quick kiss with rape.

certainly not. i do not think ANYONE is. so along with us not conflating it to rape, maybe the people that are not willing to go into the exploration of the kiss, can not conflate our discussion into saying it is rape. it works both ways. i am certainly not suggesting rape.

i replied immediately to the lounge thread, putting me today, in that position of yesterday. i am much older now, than the woman was. it is a different today, than it was yesterday. i didnt take the celebration into consideration.

i looked at the picture with a perspective of the very basics. a drunk man grabbing a strange woman.

thinking about it after posting, taking all that in, i was telling someone, i would probably experience, see, feel exactly the same as that woman, and react in exactly the same way.

[hlthe2b]

12. re:

I don't have any desire to argue with you. But, if you re-read your posts, particularly "having to show signs of struggle, is the issue we are having today in the discussion of rape. forcible, honest, legitimate", I think you would see why many would think that yes, you were indeed, conflating the two.

[seabeyond]

13. re re: lol

i am not about arguing either. if you are referring to my comments at the beginning of the post, it was thinking about and responding to this, hlthe2b.

Had she slapped him or tried to pull away and he had failed to break the hold, the kiss, I would totally agree with you.

i know you meant nothing by it. but, when reading that, it reminded me of some of the issues today. it really had nothing to do with the kiss. but, it did bring up another issue, that we are experiencing today.

i was not taking the kiss to rape.

i cannot force others to believe i was not, i can just say it out loud, and hope that people get it. if they read that post.

[hlthe2b]

15. Thanks for that explanation..

It seems that you were sort of "thinking aloud" in saying that and certainly in light of today's issues, that is understandable.

[seabeyond]

16. "thinking aloud"

exactly. thank you. lol. this is kinda funny. i have been way sick. and doing a nebulizer (or whatever it is) and it gets me kinda high while i do it. i was sucking on the thing, typing out the post and thinking exactly that.... kinda thinking this outloud, and i was gonna even add that in that post.


thank you.

[hlthe2b]

17. ...

Only a bit of "Rocky Mountain High, here, after our first little snow spritzing (didn't last, but am enjoying the cooler temps)....

[seabeyond]

18. ha

i forget where you are. we are at 40. i was hoping for a little to come our way. i want a whole lot.

ask hubby this morning, how cold does it have to be to turn on the heater.

he says 40.

looked at weather

41.

we are safe, lol.

i love winter.

send us your snow. lots of it.

[seabeyond]

7. i do not know why a conversation about this, and an understanding that

a picture 70 yrs ago reflects a different world today, should be such a struggle for people. for me, it is not that big a deal and more interesting than anything else.

i had always looked at the picture as many say, with a smile.

looking at the picture today, with the thought of it being a woman minding her business, grabbed, held, kissed, and photographed in this position with no say in it, allows me to see it in a different manner.

this is not the end of the world.

it does offer me an opportunity to consider the then and now. what would be acceptable then, and what is not allowable now.

i would think that a person could recognize that ya, it might have been an invasion for the woman, yet still have it in a healthy perspective.

saying that it was ok, that the man had the right, that she should have expected it, that there was no assault, or any number of reasonings say something about today.

does it make women prudes if in celebration they do not want to be grabbed, forcibly held and kissed by a stranger. does it mean a woman is not accommodating if they do not want to be grabbed, forcibly held and kissed by a stranger. does it make all us women who might see that, you know, that is not so ok as extremist, evil radicals if a woman does not want to be grabbed, forcibly held and kissed by a stranger.

as much as i see some people in a couple other threads on du right now who accept and defend this picture then ridicule and use scorn toward anyone discussing grabbing a woman, head locking a woman, kissing the woman without consent, or accusing us of going apeshit over the picture, i feel they are being a bit inflexible.

meh.

[hlthe2b]

8. I find your last paragraph

rather insulting, sea... No one--on this thread, at least-- is doing that.

I was in agreement with you up until that last paragraph

[seabeyond]

11. thank you. i will clarify. the wonderful thing about du3, we can edit.... and often.

i was NOT talking about this thread. and absolutely not, no one in this thread is saying any of that stuff. i was referring to two other threads on du, that are going right now. thanks.

[redqueen]

9. Exactly, it's not the end of the world...

no one is saying to lock him up, or he should be in jail, or he's a monster... but those are the hyperbolic, defensive types of strawman overreactions that keep coming up in discussions about the picture.


Why is it so offensive to even discuss it? I suppose because it's a cherished icon and the event associated with it is so positive (despite the events which led up to the surrender, but that's a whole other can of worms).

[seabeyond]

14. I suppose because it's a cherished icon

Why is it so offensive to even discuss it?

actually, i am now thinking that this is even a more interesting area to explore.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. Was there malicious intent in this man's action?

[seabeyond]

20. how could there be malicious intent if men had the right to a woman and a woman was to submit?

does that make it right though?

at the time, that woman, what she felt, wanted, expected, demanded was NOT a consideration. how could he even process a malicious intent if he had the right to do that to her?

slap on the butt, pinch on the ass, a kiss. meh. cultural norm.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. that was then. this is now. If she was not offended why should I be now some 50 odd years later.

look for offense and you will find it.

meh.

there are bigger battles to be fought.

I save my energy for those.

carry on

[seabeyond]

22. but, this is interesting. i dont know that anyone is "offended".

that would be projection and giving people something they are not feeling. like... if i told the woman whether she felt it an assault or not, it is and she must be offended. none of us are doing that either.

i think one of the basics to our discussion is the then and now.

i dont think anyone is saying others need to be offended by the picture either.

nor do i think anyone is saying there are not bigger battles to fight.

but, one can have an interesting exchange of thought, on a discussion board about any given subject.

lounge.... brought up this conversation. no one went out looking for it to manufacture an outrage.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. ok then, let me just answer the question from the OP.

No. My answer is no. That famous picture is not (imho) fueling Rape Culture. YMMV.

[seabeyond]

24. another interesting. redqueen agrees with you. i had to go back and see

what the question was. i didnt even consider it when i perused the OP. considering it now, i say no, also.

[ismnotwasm]

25. It is perhaps

A product of rape culture that a man, just back from a horrible war--one that's finally--over grabs an anonymous woman off the street and tries to shove his tongue down her throat. He could hugged an old lady, kissed a baby, shook hands with a grandfather. Any number of things. His joy is expressed instead in a form of sexual release using a female without her permission.

I used to love this picture until I learned the story behind it.

It's now Americana. Iconic. I think people not knowing the history see what I first saw, two lovers passionately reunited. I don't think it contributes now, but I think it arose from rape culture.

[redqueen]

26. What really amazes me are so many of the reactions to anyone who dares to discuss it.

If we looked at any other image from a less enlightened time, and analyze the sociological reasons which created the attitudes surrounding it at the time, we would not see the same eye-popping, vein-bulging outrage that anyone dared to talk about it.

I think what that indicates quite well is that we haven't come so far in the issues surrounding this image as we have in many others. I was tempted to think it was the event it represented, but I really don't think that's it. There are too many other similar issues which are met with the same over-the-top reaction.

And your description of the kiss as passionate is relevant. Many have tried to spin it as a celebratory kiss. Celebratory kisses with strangers are typically with puckered lips. This is not that kind of kiss.

[ismnotwasm]

27. You know on second thought

Put in that light, those that defend this picture knowing the actual history of it are no doubt legion. And that *is* rape culture. In a nutshell as it were.

[seabeyond]

28. And that *is* rape culture.

that is what i am thinking. the number of people that say... he is celebrating, so it is ok.

does it really matter how HUGE, how RELIEVED, how HAPPY someone is to commit something on another body against their will. and it was certainly not the womans will.

she may walk away understanding and being ok with it, but when he did it he had no idea if she would be and really didnt give a shit if she would be.

and people in this day and age, is saying it is ok.

and people this day and age, have a huge issue with someone bring that up. just saying it out loud.

ya

[Kalidurga]

29. I agree the question is wrong..

The question is, would this be possible without a rape culture? I don't think it would be so much or at least you wouldn't hear reports of multiple women being kissed that way. And the reaction to the question even now would be much different if we didn't still have a rape culture. I guess if anything this picture and this issue being discussed now, does show that change has happened even if it is at a very slow pace and even if the said changes are very uneven. I don't think this conversation could have happened at the time. I don't think any two people would have looked at that picture and discussed if the man had a right to do that or not. Now we can at least ask that question and some will say he had no right.

[seabeyond]

30. "Now we can at least ask that question" that does not seem to be correct and i am curious

Last edited Sun Oct 7, 2012, 05:46 PM - Edit history (1)

about that.

you say "Now we can at least ask that question". but there are a couple threads elsewhere where too many are sneering, angry, bothered that the question is even posed.

so what does that say about us today, that even discussing it brings so much anger?

[Kalidurga]

31. I didn't say it would be without consequence or blow back.

But, I am old enough to remember things that just weren't discussed. But, I am not old enough to remember this picture being on the cover of TIME. In any case I am going to concede that having a discussion is small crumbs indeed. I would have thought that we would have been well beyond rape culture by now, in some ways it seems worse ie your example of people being angry over the fact people are discussing an issue. But, it's not being swept under the rug. I don't think anyone is going to be ostracized for talking about this. Which where I grew up this would be taboo. It is still taboo in some places or in some sub cultures. I consider my family one of those sub cultures. My mother would have been horrified if I talked to her about something like this. So, while I appreciate the ability to have a discussion. I am well aware that women shouldn't have to worry about this culture that is still a rape culture in so many ways.

[ismnotwasm]

32. There an interesting dynamic

Or, horrifying might be a better word, between war, sex and gendered status. Its almost a different topic, but the photo brushes the edges of it. Then, while women did a lot more than they're given credit for, 'Rosie the Riveter' aside, woman were wives, mothers, sex objects. Teachers and nurses maybe. They were expected and expected to stay at home and tend hearth and home. Marriage and family was the ultimate goal.

A man could legally rape his wife, as well as ensure she was financially and legally dependent on him. Spouse abuse was a dirty secret. On and on and on. The victories feminism won in so many areas hadn't happened yet.

So, in the aftermath of bloody conflict the soldier felt entitled to grab a 'girl' and put her in physical position she couldn't get out of, and kiss her; and the country felt him to be entitled. What would be seen at best as bad behavior in peace time-- although probably laughed off--made the cover of a major magazine and became part of wartime history.

So you are right. It wasn't discussed, it was celebrated.

[MadrasT]

33. Colletive wailing against the idea that this was a boundary violation and is not OK

Has risen to a fever pitch in various threads on DU.

It is amazing how some people are reacting so negatively to the idea that it is never OK for someone physically force an intimate act on someone else. The level of outrage seems ridiculously disproportionate to the subject.

It seems pretty fucking basic to me. Don't violate another person's space without consent.

Seems like it really touched a nerve.

How dare anyone suggest that a man can't just help himself to a woman? The audacity.

[seabeyond]

34. and this is 2012. we are talking. i am truly amazed at the blatant misrepresentation of what is

being said in such dishonestly to be able to them dehumanize women more, for the mans use. and an expected pat on the back, with no one challenging.

my boys did not have a tough time figuring this out. why.... are these things so simple and easy for them, but seem to be so challenging for an adult man.

they readily saw the point, it was 70 yrs ago, every one is fine. a meh... but an understanding.

wow, big deal.