Military Infomercials Regarding Rape and Women on AFN Europe

[Solly Mack]

A series of pictures goes by, each with a young boy and an older man or group of men.

Each young boy looks on while the man or men engage in unacceptable behavior toward women.

The boy then ask, "How can I learn to respect women when my role models are doing (fill in the blank?)

You're thinking "Whoa! They got one right finally." I know I was...

and then immediately after this segment

A young teen girl is seen passed out - that's fully unconscious - at a party. She's on a couch with another teen and assorted party-goers all around. All passed out or close to it. A young male teen saddles up to the passed out girl and begins to take her jeans off.

Voice over - "Don't do drugs. This is what happens"

I was already apoplectic by this point and I flew to my phone and called the AFN local station and the IG (inspector general) - the "infomercial" has since been pulled. At least it's been pulled in my AFN region. I can't speak for other areas.

Another "infomercial"

A montage of soldiers - all female. Their faces go by, looks of worry. Then the words -

"I should have been in the safest place possible. I was in my room. But I didn't lock my door"

And then the voice-over - "Rape - not in our Army"

Yet another blame the victim ad -

A female soldier is shown in the common room of a billet. A group of soldiers are playing pool. The female soldier among that group. Off to the corner, sitting in a chair is another soldier. He's hiding behind a magazine and leering at the female soldier.

Off the female soldier goes to her room. She is seen unlocking her door, entering her room, and then locking her door from the inside.

The leering soldier is then seen trying to enter her room ..but wait! he can't! because she locked her door.

The voice-over "Sexual predators can be anyone and anywhere. Maybe you even know them. Take responsibility and don't be a victim of sexual assault"

(Are you still waiting for the infomercial that doesn't blame the victim for the actions of the rapist? Me too)

Yet another informercial...

Two soldiers walking down a billet hall (a billet is what some call barracks) The male soldier is helping the female soldier to her room. The implication is that the female soldier is drunk.

The voice-over "She trust you. She thinks of you as her friend. Help her to her room and make sure she is safe. You're comrades. You'd do the same for your male buddies. Get her to her room and then leave her alone."

Talk about mixed messages. (As the first infomercial I described addressed - only to be exposed as hypocrisy by the next infomercial)



My husband enforces military law. He writes up the cases and he informs people of their rights - both the victim and the accused. He sits behind a desk.(now, thankfully)

Being drunk means you can't give consent because your reasoning abilities are impaired. And if you're too drunk to remember, you're too drunk to consent. That's the assumption my husband works on when he deals with sexual assault cases because that's the way the military trained him.

Anytime the military rules against that training, they are ruling against their own rules.

Nothing surprising about the military breaking it's own rules.

But that still doesn't change the fact that they did.

I'm working on getting some of the other infomercials pulled. Blaming the victim is just an excuse that allows the rapist to get away with their crime.

[merh]

1. Shit, that they even have to produce these infomericials

is a sign that they KNOW they have a problem and there is a huge break down in the training and messages given to the troops from the get go.

But it comes as no surprise, the clown in chief assumes that his unwelcomed touching of a female will be comfort and is appreciated. Oh and the iraqi people will welcome us with chocolates and flowers. :crazy:

:cry:

[Solly Mack]

2. Exactly

They know, all too well, that there is a problem.

[merh]

5. One afternoon when checking out at a store, I was in line

behind a woman who was buying all sorts of dog products. When I asked her if she had just gotten a dog, she said she was taking care of her daughter's dog while her daughter was in Iraq. We got to talking about the dog and her daughter's love of the dog and the woman said that she was going to do everything in her power to keep the dog happy and safe, it was the least she could do for her daughter. The mom went on to say that her daughter was under enough pressure in Iraq. She said that her daughter was working in payroll for the military and was not fighting, but was in the green zone. Mom went on to say that the green zone wasn't safe despite all that we have been lead to believe. The danger for her daughter and other women serving in the military didn't come from the insurgents, but from their fellow soldiers. Mom said that the number of rapes that had occurred was frightening, it wasn't rapes committed by insurgents, but soldiers, our soldiers. Mom was crying by this time and said that it was sad and frightening that her daughter couldn't feel safe living in her own military confines. As I listened to her, all I could do was offer prayers and give her a hugs of support.

We have serious problems, we have put our soldiers at great risk both emotionally and physically and have failed to support them the way they deserve. If another rightwinger tells me that war is full of bad things and shit happens, I swear to pete, I will loose it. The answer to their justification of the atrocities associated with war is simple, stop the fucking war.

[Solly Mack]

7. All too common story

There's a group of spouses who wrok with victims and who try and get things changed...but until sexist attitudes are addressed by the military , simply telling women to lock their doors isn't going to change anything

[merh]

12. Hell, look at the clown in chief.

ffs, his unwarranted touching of the German Chancellor is a prime example of WHAT NOT TO DO. That was sexual harassment, plain and friggin simple.

I have taught courses and given seminars on "sexual harassment in the workplace". His friggin touching of the German Chancellor just set all that training back decades.

That the man in charge of this country can touch another and think it is cute and sweet and that his loyalists can defend his behavior by thinking and arguing that he was just being kind and supportive,is a sign that our civilization is digressing under his reign. It is frightening.

:(

[Solly Mack]

17. Prime example

Of the misogynistic attitude that permeates this country.

Bush

[WinkyDink]

3. If I were a male soldier, I'd think twice about raping a woman with access

to a rifle.

[femrap]

129. I'm rather surprised that a female soldier hasn't

used her rifle on an attacker. I don't see how it couldn't be ruled 'self defense.'

It breaks my heart to see young women having to enlist in the military so to get money for college.

[Cerridwen]

4. So, if I understand these infomercials correctly, men are incapable

of controlling their sexual urges so women must control themselves?

So, it's okay to say you did something because "I couldn't control/help myself?"

Do men really think "I can't control my sexual urges so give me a gun and let me go do my job?"

Isn't this embarrassing for men? Do men actually think of themselves as some "out of control," walking, talking (drooling?) "dick head?"

If it's true that men are slaves to their urges and incapable of self control, why is it again we let them run the world?

[Solly Mack]

6. That's what I'm hearing

"Men can't help themselves"

and yeah, men should be insulted by the notion.

[Cerridwen]

15. I'm surprised more men aren't insulted by this particular

"common knowledge." Or at the very least, I'm surprised more men don't speak out against it. Hmm, maybe they do but we don't hear about them.

[Solly Mack]

16. I know of men that are outraged

Fortunately, I live with one such man. But , sadly, I think men who are insulted by this thinking are the minority. I'm not saying there aren't a few million or even several million - but a few million compared to 10's of millions still makes them the minority.

I also don't think some men "get it" - because they would never rape, they don't understand the implications behind "Lock your door and you won't be raped"

They don't understand how that shifts the blame to the victim. How such thinking has been used as a defense to get a rapist off.

Some men just don't want to get it.

Sure, rape prevention teaches us to lock our doors, check our surroundings....but who is teaching men? Who is undoing the conditioning of a patriarchal society? Who is challenging their assumptions about women and rape?

That's where the emphasis ought to be.

Sorry...I'm ranting.

[Cerridwen]

20. Rant away. I'm right there with you.

I'm not sure I agree that men who are insulted by this are a minority. I do agree that many men haven't yet recognized this theme as being an insult to their abilities to "control" themselves and so the ones who do get it may be a minority.

That's why it's so important to do what many here are now calling "reframe the debate." That's why you and I are sitting at our keyboards and typing away; reframe the debate, educate, state the (obscured) obvious.

And don't forget to break every so often to "re-charge."

:toast:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. I don't think you do understant them correctly.

They're saying not "women have a moral duty to do this" but "women will be safer if they do this".

Incapable or not, some men *don't* refrain from committing rape, and as such it is, I think, good advice to women to be careful. I fully agree that they shouldn't have to be, but saying "I shouldn't have to take this precaution, therefore I won't" seems unwise.

Incidentally, there is also a big difference between "men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges" and "a few men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges" - the overwhelming majority of men would never dream of committing rape, but one is all it takes.

[Cerridwen]

13. I understood them precisely. I've heard the message my entire

life. Men refuse to take responsibility for their actions, therefore, women must take responsibility to protect themselves from men who are incapable of taking responsibility. Yes, we must all take responsibility; how about, for a change, let's start with men who rape.

Incidentally, had you read to understand what I said rather than to attack and take exception, you might have noticed that I was, in fact, taking issue with the idea that kind of mind set is the norm. And no, I'll not weaken my argument by using apologetic and provisional language especially when I use my words to highlight the idiocy of such inaccurately and broadly applied assumptions.

In the future, I'll remember to use the :sarcasm: smilie.

edit: same old spelling mistake *sigh*

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. Men are unable to take responsibility for *one another's* actions.

If you can persuade all potential rapists to take responsibility for their own actions, I will be applauding you every step of the way.

Until that day, warning women to take precautions against rape will be a good thing.

[Cerridwen]

35. Yet you expect women to take responsibility for men's actions?

Women are expected to take certain actions which will prevent, that is influence or take responsibility for, men's actions. But men are not expected to take certain actions which will prevent, that is influence or take responsibility for, other men's actions?

Men's actions and words carry more weight with other men than do women's actions and words. Peer pressure. Men subjected to disdain and ridicule for questionable or horrific treatment of women by other men has far greater impact than women doing the same. Even a man's silence can be viewed as tacit approval.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. No, and that I don't believe that is what I've being saying all along.

My whole point is that "prevent" and "take responsibity for" are *not* the the same. Women *can* sometimes make it less likely that they will be raped; it is *not* their responsibility if they are, whether they did or not.

Usually (although obviously not always) no-one's actions will "carry as much wieght" with a would-be rapist as his victim's.

One of the adverts the OP was objecting to was targetted as much at men as at women; about what to do to make it less likely that people you know will get raped.

[Cerridwen]

84. And therein lies our conundrum.

I see that "prevent" and "take responsibility for" are the same thing. I'm not sure how one can perform actions without "taking responsibility" for those actions.

We're coming from 2 different frames of reference.

While you see some women as "likely that they will be raped;" I see some men as likely to rape. I put the focus on the actions of the male; you put the focus on the actions of the female.

I don't see women's efforts to protect themselves as a bad thing, in and of itself. I do see that focusing on ONLY women's actions, obfuscates the male role in rape. I believe the focus needs to change from the symptom to the disease.

Rather than "what to do to make it less likely that people you know will get raped" I'd like to see what to do to make it less likely that people you know will rape. Subtle, but again, different focus.

I bet I won't change your mind any time soon. I'm pretty sure you won't change mine. Let's agree that our respective "focus" is incompatible and educate others who have no discernible "focus." 'Cuz you and I are just "blowing smoke" at each other at this juncture. While fun, not very productive in the grand scheme of things.

:hi:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

113. "Have been discussing" rather than "put the focus on".

This thread was about advertisments giving advice on how to reduce the risk of being raped (and one on how to reduce the risks of your friends being raped), so that's what I've been discussing.

I agree that encouraging people not to rape is also clearly desirable (although I guess effort spent on that will pay lower dividends in terms of reducing the number of rapes, although I'm far from confident of that guess and certainly not willing to defend it), but the OP was suggesting not merely that that was desirable, but that adverts advising people how to reduce the chance of being raped were actively undesirable, and that's what I've been disagreeing with.

"The focus" *isn't* solely, or even largely, on women's adverts - I see "no means no" posters more often than things like this - but that's what this thread is about, or at least was initially.

[femrap]

130. Maybe you should start a Consciousness

Raising Group for men....they're the problem. Why not go educate men on behaving like human beings. Stop Raping Women.

I, for one, am sick and tired of going out of my way cuz of a bunch of sick men. Why not just tell women to carry a gun at all times....hey, even if you lock your door, he could just bust it down. So let's be safe...just keep a big, fat gun at your side at all times. And please make sure to aim between his legs. Maybe that'll teach these pervs how to behave.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Hang on.

There's a big, big difference between "If you do X, Y, and Z you are less likely to be raped" and "If you don't do X, Y and Z then it is OK to rape you."

Women *are* more likely to be raped if they invite men into their homes, or go out alone at night, or drink, or wear attractive/revealing clothing, or indulge in a host of other perfectly-reasonable behaviours than if they don't. I don't think that there's anything offensive about pointing that out.

What *is* offensive is suggesting that if they do so then raping them is less unnacceptable than if they don't, or that they have less cause for complaint.

[Solly Mack]

9. It's still blaming the victim by suggesting their actions invited the rape

when the military should be addressing the sexist attitudes that allow rapists to walk free.

It's never the victims fault.

Address the attitudes of men - work to change how men view women. Challenge the assumptions of a patriarchal society. But never blame the victim.

Blaming the victim of rape, by listing what she should have done to avoid rape, only allows rapist to go free.

The victim is never responsible for being raped.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. I didn't, nor would I ever, suggest that rape was the victim's fault.

There is an *enormous* difference between saying that the victim did things that made rape less unlikely and saying that the victim did things which made rape more justifiable, less reprehensible or in any way her/his fault.

If I don't lock my front door at night, then it's not my fault if I'm burgled, it's the fault of the person who decides to break in.

Inviting a strange man into your house is arguably *unwise*, but it is *in no way* reprehensible. It is very important to distinguish between the two.

[Solly Mack]

14. No, there is no difference in saying a victim "could have"

done something to make their rape less likely to have happened and saying the victim did things that made the rape more justifiable.

It's exactly the same side of the same coin.

The victim isn't to blame and listing the "could have done's" is shifting responsibility for the rape onto the victim.

It's not the victim's responsibility. It never is the victim's responsibility.

There is no "shoulda, coulda, woulda"...the victim is the victim. The victim didn't cause the rape by any actions on the victim's part.

When the defense claims "she didn't lock her door" the defense is saying "so that makes her partially responsible"

It's really that simple.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. Let me ask you two questions.

1) Do you believe that a woman who habitually invites men into her house on first date is more likely to be raped than one who doesn't?

2) Do you believe that it is more justifiable to rape a woman who habitually invites men into her house on first date than one who doesn't?

[Solly Mack]

22. Answers and Questions

What's wrong with inviting men into your home on the first date? Are you saying that sends men a signal that the woman is easy?? Why? Why do men think that way? An invitiation into your home isn't an invitation to sex...or rape. And only sick minds would think so.

1 - So, no, I don't think she is more likely to be raped. I do think your question is based on some sexist assumptions though.

such as - the idea that a woman who invites a man into her home on the first date is more likely to be raped than a woman who doesn't( *gasp! shocking! She's loose and easy - obviously! It's the sexist "good girl/bad girl" thinking. A woman who doesn't invite men in are seen as a "good girl" and good girls don't get raped doncha know but bad girls do because they do things that make rape happen - like inviting men in on the first date - again, blaming the victim)

2 - It's never justifiable to rape (duh)...or to blame the victim in any way.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. Your reasoning in your first answer is odd.

I asked "is a woman more likely to be raped if..."; you replied "what's wrong with...".

You also said "And only sick minds think so", which again makes me think that you're answering the question "should regularly inviting men into her house on first date make a woman more likely to be raped", not "will regularly inviting men into her house on first date make a woman more likely to be raped." Some people do have sick minds.

The two questions have nothing whatever to do with one another. The answer to the first, which is what you appear to be discussing, is clearly "no", I agree; however, I think that the answer to the latter is very clearly "yes", and none of the arguments you've advanced address it.

[Solly Mack]

29. Rape is never justified or "more justifiable"(question 2)

You'd have to be one sick puppy to think it is

Your question 2 (quoting you)

"2) Do you believe that it is more justifiable to rape a woman who habitually invites men into her house on first date than one who doesn't?"

and now you're saying the answer to question number 2 is Yes? (it is more justifiable to rape under the given circumstances of your question)

That's sick.

I answered your question number 2 already ..rape is NEVER justifiable...under any circumstances.


You might want to check your sexist assumptions

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Wrong "latter".

The "latter" question I'm reffering to is the one I think you answered in place of my first question: "should a woman me be more likely to be raped if...", not my original second question: "is it more justifiable to rape a woman if..."

[Solly Mack]

33. Good. I'm glad you are saying the answer is No

Still, you posed questions based on some sexist assumptions


Now, you might not harbor those sexist assumptions and were only using them as an example but far too many men do.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. What assumptions do you mean?

If you mean "A woman who invites a man into her home is 'asking for it'" then *I* don't believe that, and I don't believe many men do, but I do believe that the minority who do may be (or may not be, I don't know the statistics) large enough to make doing so unwise.

[Solly Mack]

43. LOL Try reading the other post where I answered your questions again

That post contains the sexist assumptions your questions are based on...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. Sorry, yes, I've found them.

"the idea that a woman who invites a man into her home on the first date is more likely to be raped than a woman who doesn't( *gasp! shocking! She's loose and easy - obviously! It's the sexist "good girl/bad girl" thinking. A woman who doesn't invite men in are seen as a "good girl" and good girls don't get raped doncha know but bad girls do because they do things that make rape happen - like inviting men in on the first date - again, blaming the victim)"

The assumption that a woman who invites a man into her house on first date is more likely to be raped is in no way, shape or form sexist.

The attitude you're describing clearly *is* sexist, but that assumption is based not on holding that attitude (which I don't) but on the belief that some other people do (which they clearly do).

[Solly Mack]

58. then why say the first date?

why say "invite men in"?

As if her actions are the reason men rape


sorry...sexist...nothing but

[Donald Ian Rankin]

69. You're far to quick to assume the worst.

The better you know somebody the more reliably you can judge whether or not they're a potential date-rapist. Clearly, you can never be 100% certain, but the longer you've known them the closer you can get.

Clearly, a woman is more likely to be a victim of date-rape if she invites a man into her house (or goes into his) on afformentioned date than if she stays in public.

There is nothing remotely sexist about either of those assumptions.

If you don't want to ask me about my beliefs, that's fine, but if you're not going to do so then it's unreasonable not to give me the benefit of the doubt in your (completely unsupported) assumptions; simply assuming that I'm motivated by sexism without evidence is unjustified.

[Solly Mack]

80. Maybe you just don't see the sexist assumptions in your remarks

did you ever consider that?

That maybe you harbor thinking you aren't even aware of because you just accept the thinking without considering where it came from or what it's premised in...

Ever consider that?

It's certainly possible

[Donald Ian Rankin]

83. Clearly, I can't answer that.

There may of course be things I believe that I'm not aware of, but obviously I can't be sure, so your comment is frankly rather silly and patronising.

However, even if I do harbour sexist assumptions without being aware of it, I haven't given you any evidence to that effect, so your accusation of doing so is still unjustified.

[Solly Mack]

85. It is not patronizing to ask that you examine what you believe

to see if maybe, just maybe, some of your assumptions are sexist.

I'm truly sorry you think it is.

That's what people do to grow...they examine what they think...that's how a racist stops being a racist and a sexist stop being a sexist.

If that's asking you too much, then there's really nothing more to say.

Again, I'm sorry. I truly am.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

88. It's patronising to assume that I don't without being told to, though.

If you want to point out a specific remark I have made that leads you to believe that I hold sexist attitudes, and explain why it makes you think that, then I'll happily respond; simply suggesting in general that I *may* do so and not know it is pointless; claiming as you do in post 58 that I definately *do* do so is both pointless and offensive.

[noamnety]

132. your assumption suggests a befief in rape myths

Most rapists are not first dates. Women are far more likely to be raped by a close friend or family member. By some estimates, 80% of rapes fit that scenario.

[Lars39]

23. "More justifiable to rape"

:wtf:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. It's a question to which the answer it clearly no.

My point is that the answers are clearly "yes" and "no" respectively, and given that the answers are different that refutes the claim that the two statements are "the same side of the same coin".

[Cerridwen]

24. Let me ask you 2 questions.

1) Do you believe men on a first date are more likely to rape a woman if she invites them into her house?

2) Do you believe men are more justified in habitually raping a woman on a first date if she invites them into her house rather than, say a second date? A third date?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Yes and no, respectively, of course.

Which proves my point that "more likely to be raped" and "less unjustiable to rape" are completely different.

[Cerridwen]

45. Except I didn't say "more likely to be raped," I said

"more likely to rape." Bit of a difference there. I was holding the man responsible for his actions and assumptions; you held the woman responsible for the man's actions and assumtpions.

The same with #2.

Another question I have is, for what "crime" is rape a suitable punishment? That is, what actions or lack thereof deserve to be punished by an act of rape and the act of rape excused as being deserved?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. Clearly, none.

Were you expecting another answer?

[Cerridwen]

87. Naw, I'm pretty sure it was a

rhetorical question using the Socratic method to make the point that rape happens. Period.

[Cerridwen]

18. Well, yuh see, the thing is, no matter what precautions women

may or may not take, men still rape women and are given a pass because the woman didn't take appropriate precautions.

Such as the women who fetch wood or women who are members of a rival faction: http://www.hrw.org/about/projects/womrep/General-28.htm

Or women whose country has gone to war: http://www.religioustolerance.org/war_rape.htm

Or who don't take precautions against being six years old and traveling with their family: http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=183345376&p=y83346x8z

Or like the women in Phoenix who go about their everyday lives rather than taking the precaution of remaining at home (like the 6 year old girl?): http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0712serialshooter0712.html

Telling women to take precautions against rape is like treating tumors with Mercurochrome and bandaids. Too little applied to symptoms rather than look for the source of the tumor.

And before someone starts in with only some men rape, why is it that you don't take exception to the fact that all women are held responsible for preventing rape while only some men are held responsible for raping?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. You've completely misunderstood what I'm saying.

I am *not* arguing that "all women are responsible for preventing rape"; I'm not sure what I said that made you think I was.

I am arguing that there are certain things a woman can do, if she chooses, that will make it less likely that she personally will be raped; there's very little a woman can do that will reduce the risk of rape to the populace in general.

I have no doubt that in some cases juries do "give rapists a pass" because their victims "asked for it" by not taking "appropriate precautions" (note: I wouldn't say there are such things as "appropriate" precautions; it depends on the balance a woman wants to strike between living in perpetual fear and risking being raped, there is no "right" answer); I think that's disgusting; I don't know how widespread it is; it's nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm talking about.

Telling women to take precautions against rape is like telling them to use sunscreen while sunbathing and have semi-regular checkups - it will make it happen less often. Sure, it would be far better if there wasn't a gaping hole in the ozone layer, and refusing to use sunscreen because it's the polluter's fault is silly.

[Cerridwen]

32. Please read the links I provided.

What precautions could those women and girls have taken to avoid "getting themselves raped?" Seriously, I'm not being snarky.

What about nuns who are raped? Surely they must be given a pass as to taking appropriate precautions. What about women or girls who are raped during war? What about women raped by family members?

Why aren't we debating what men can do to prevent rape rather than what women must do to prevent men from raping them? It seems an uneven and dangerous presumption to make that women have power over men which men appear to not have over themselves.

Why don't men take precautions against raping women?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. Clearly, in none of the examples you've cited

could the victim have prevented the rape; more generally, I suspect the number of rapes the victim could clearly have prevented is negligable; my claim is that some victims (although not the ones you've reffered to) would probably have been less likely to be attacked (although by no means certain not to have been) had they acted differently. That doesn't mean it was their fault; it does mean that it's worth advising people not to act in those ways.

As to debating what men can do to prevent rape, the best answer is "produce adverts like the ones the OP was objecting to"; along with "research better forensic methods" and arguably "lobby to introduce laws restricting the reporting of rape cases in the media".

I'm not presupposing that "women have power over men which men appear to not have over themselves"; I'd be interested to know what makes you think I was.

Your final question puzzles me. Normal men don't take precautions against raping women because they don't need to; rapists don't because they don't want to.

[Solly Mack]

40. Those ads are objectionable because they feed the sexist attitude

that rape is somehow the victims fault if she doesn't lock her door or gets high or drunk.

It's still addressing what the victim can do....those ads do NOT address the sexist attitudes that contribute to rape.

The problem isn't that women don't lock their doors...the problem is the men who rape.

[Recursion]

44. So are you saying

That until the world is emptied of rapists, murderers, and thieves, you intend to take no action to defend yourself from them? And you refuse to countenance others' encouraging people to defend themselves from them?

[Solly Mack]

54. Oh what bullshit....no one said that

I'm saying the military needs to address sexism.

[Recursion]

60. OK, 100% agreement there

They aren't doing nearly enough.

You still never answered why it's wrong to encourage people to adopt an aggressive security posture against a large number of crimes, one of which is rape.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. "The problem is", sure but that's not the same as "solutions include".

Asking men who rape to help do things to make rape less likely won't do any good, for obvious reasons. Asking potential victims, and ordinary bystanders, to do things, will.

The person one can do most to prevent being raped is oneself.

[Solly Mack]

57. I'm not asking men who rape anything..I'm asking men period

to challenge their assumptions

I'm asking society to do it

I'm asking the military to do it

[philosophie_en_rose]

100. Wrong. A systematic response to rape will prevent rape.

Individual safety is important, but it is fruitless if there is not a systematic response to rape. Maybe it would surprise you to know that rape victims come from all backgrounds - elderly women in nursing homes, children in foster care, women in their own homes, people walking down the street, as well as highly-trained military personnel with guns. Individuals can stop rape, but it very difficult when the system around you refuses to assist you.

The solution to the military's problem of idiocy towards sexual assault is to create an environment where rape, sexual harassment, and misogyny are actually not tolerated. They need to send the message that rapists will be caught, and that rape victims can come forward without retaliation.

[Solly Mack]

102. Thank you!

Well said!!!!

[Cerridwen]

75. The thing is, "advising people not to act in those ways" implies

and is frequently extrapolated to mean that what might have worked in "negligable" "number of rapes the victim could clearly have prevented," would be effective deterents to all cases in which men rape.

I said "It seems an uneven and dangerous presumption to make that women have power over men which men appear to not have over themselves." I didn't say you held this presumption. I do believe it is a "commonly" held presumption by many.

"Normal men don't take precautions against raping women because they don't need to..." but do they take active measures to let the men and boys around them know that rape is wrong? Do they speak up when a group gets together in a locker room, a sports bar, a fraternity or even one on one with their friends when those friends start talking about what they'd like to do to/with such-and-so-woman-of-"note"? Do "normal" men correct or rebuke or educate the guys who talk of rape and/or sexual "conquest" as a cool, "manly" thing to do or that some woman "deserved it"? Or do "normal" men sit back and figure "it's none of my business" and let the talking and boasting and ragging continue and accept that their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and female friends are just gonna have to learn to protect themselves from "normal" guy's friends?

I bet there are many guys here who have stopped or attempted to stop a female friend or family member from going out with one of their "dickhead" (used soley for differentiation from "normal" men) friends? I wonder how many have ever attempted to educate previously mentioned "dickhead" about their questionable behavior? Which tact may do the "greatest" good? "Saving" one female on one occasion or "saving" many women with whom previously mentioned "dickhead" will come into contact throughout his life. Better yet, "saving" one female AND educating previously mentioned "dickhead."

I'm not sure you and I will ever agree. But thanks for the debate.

[noamnety]

133. Solving rape by teaching women to imprison themselves

That's quite the self-defense technique. It's very much like the wearing of burkas - not saying I ought to be forced to wear one, but if I don't, I shouldn't be surprised if I get raped. Not that the rape is my fault, just saying, I shouldn't be surprised, and there's no harm in advising me to wear one.

I've got kids at school that keep getting randomly pulled over by cops and having their cars searched for DWB on their way to school. (Driving While Black in our white neighborhood) Should I tell them to take the bus, otherwise cops will violate their civil liberties? I'm not saying it's their fault they're getting pulled over, but if they just wouldn't drive in my neighborhood, they wouldn't get victimized ...

Similarly, in the military, let's say - hypothetically - that white supremacists in the military were attacking black soldiers. How would you feel about a public service announcement telling blacks to stay in their rooms and lock the doors?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

134. Yes and no, respectively.

In the case of being harassed by the police, by the sound of it it's not worth not driving to avoid them. If there were/is a risk that the police will do more than stop them then I probably would advise them to take the bus.

Your example of hypothetical white supremacists is slightly different, because white supremacists almost always come in organisations, which makes them much easier to oppose than either rapists or police racism - there, I would expect it to be possible to crack down on them with sufficient efficiency to make anything else unnecessary. If there really weren't any way of preventing it, though, then I think warning potential victims how best to avoid it would be a good thing.

[Greyhound]

119. And yet, that is exactly what you are saying.

Your argument is that the victims actions, or lack thereof, constitute mitigating circumstances. You have taken an untenable position, this is the part where you say "Oops, my mistake." and move on.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

123. No, that's simply wrong.

If my argument was that the victims actions constituted a mitigating circustance then I fully agree that my position would be untenable; as I've said in more or less as many words that they don't, it isn't.

This is the part where you apologise for flaming before bothering to read and assimilate.

[Recursion]

34. Preventing rape is not blaming the victim

Address the attitudes of men - work to change how men view women.

Agreed; we should change the attitudes of rapists. We should also change the attitudes of thieves and murderers. Until we do change them, I'm locking my door and I'm not getting drunk or high with people I don't know. And I don't see why encouraging security-aware behavior should be seen as blaming the victim.

You're right, it's never the victim's fault. But there are things you can do to lessen your chance of becoming a victim, and they're largely the same for all personal crimes, rape included:

1) Don't do drugs
2) Don't drink with large groups of people you don't know
3) Don't drink until you pass out
4) Lock your doors
5) Don't go places alone at night
6) Don't be alone with someone you don't know at night

Not to sound preachy, but maybe people should ask themselves if their need for moral purity in not blaming the victim is preventing an aggressive, security-focused posture that could prevent many rapes and other crimes in the first place. Frankly, we *do* need to change the attitudes of a lot of women, and teach them that their lives and bodily sanctity are worth defending. No, they shouldn't have to defend themselves, but neither should men. I assistant instruct a women's self defense class in my dojo (I'm essentially the man whose ass they learn to kick). The instructor (who is awesome) always points out to each class that many women don't fight back when they are attacked, but would become vicious killers the second someone threatened their kids. I have to say I agree with that -- women need to fight back, be aggressive, and defend themselves.

[Solly Mack]

38. The onus still shouldn't be placed on the victim

This is real simple.

The military and society, both, never...never...address the causes of rape or the sexist attitudes that contribute to rape....only what women can do to make it less likely to be a victim...not really prevent...and that's just bullshit.

The emphasis should be put on the potential rapist. Not the victim.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. The onus has to be placed on those who *don't* want the rape to happen.

If you place the onus for preventing rape on would-be rapists then they will simply say "thank you very much" and go ahead and commit rape.

Everyone else should be trying to prevent rape; the person it is easiest to prevent being raped is oneself. That is why it arguably makes sense to advise women to take precautions.

The problem about demanding that men address the attitudes to lead to rape is that the men who will commit rape are, more or less by definition, the ones who won't do so if asked.

Any form of suggestions for voluntary activity has to place the onus on either the victim or on bystanders (and I think adverts about things like watching out for people who have been drugged and taking people home and such like would also be good); asking rapists to help prevent rape is not going to work.

[Solly Mack]

50. LOLOLOL No..you're not blaming the victim

The "onus is on those who don't want the rape to happen"...so if you are raped and your door isn't locked...you so obviously wanted it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

71. That is illogical, captain.

You don't believe that.

There is no possible way that that could be deduced as a consequence of my post.

It is clear from that and my other posts that I don't believe that.

So why bother with it, except to annoy me?

[Solly Mack]

79. LOL Of course I don't believe it....

lololol

[philosophie_en_rose]

89. The Onus must be placed on those in power.

The military obviously doesn't give a flying fuck about sexual assaults. Many times, victims are the ones punished, while rapists are not. The military must create a culture where it is unlikely for rapists to go unpunished.


Women can be raped, even after doing "all the right things." It is the nature of a rapist to do whatever it takes to overcome the protections in place. If a woman locks her door, maybe she'll be attacked in a bathroom or hallway or stairwell. Or maybe she'll be in her office. Maybe someone will have keys or a gun.

The problem is that there is nothing stopping the rapes. And it is simply ridiculous to place the responsibility on women (and men) who are raped.

[Solly Mack]

92. Yes, those in command should also be held accountable

[Donald Ian Rankin]

114. I've never been in the American (or any other) military

So I can't comment one way or another about how much it cares about rape or what its internal culture is like, although the fact that it's producing a series of infomercials about the subject rather gives the lie to the claim that it doesn't give a flying fuck about it.

My understanding is that your comment about the nature of a rapist is essentially innaccurate, and that the majority of (although by no means all) rapes are unpremeditated attacks by people known to the victim, on the spur of the moment. But yes, there is no certain way to prevent being raped.

See my (many) other comments in other posts about the difference between "placing the responsibility on" and "encouraging to take steps to reduce the likelihood of".

[Recursion]

47. Read post 41

When I was in the Marines we were assigned 64 hours total of sexual harrassment and gender attitudes classes. We were told twice to lock our doors. I'd say the emphasis has been on blaming the attacker and changing his attitude. It hasn't been very effective yet, but that's where the emphasis was.

Encouraging an aggressive security posture against any crime, even rape, is not blaming the victim. It's teaching people not to be victims in the first place until such time as there aren't predators out there to make them victims.

[Solly Mack]

53. That's because the military is chock full of hypocrisy

They talk a good game...but when the chips are down and the trial is at hand...they blame the victim. Those infomercials do not address the sexist attitudes that contribute to rape...they feed it.

I live on a military post...I'm so well aware of the classes the military teaches..and the attitude about rape the military embraces

[prole_for_peace]

55. i do agree with the op that those ads put most of the burden on women

but it is a sad truth that even though i should be safe from rape at all times i am not. i don't live my life scared of being raped or robbed but i do try to minimize any risk to myself. i lock my doors and park in well lighted areas if i go somewhere alone at night. just general safety precautions that anyone, man or woman, should take. but i am writing about safety precautions. saying someone should dress less "provocatively" or not talk to any man she doesn't know sounds like the taliban. that is blaming women for men's actions.

[NotGivingUp]

118. You ARE blaming the victim. You are limiting their lives. ....

1) Don't do drugs
2) Don't drink with large groups of people you don't know
3) Don't drink until you pass out
4) Lock your doors
5) Don't go places alone at night
6) Don't be alone with someone you don't know at night


Now the men should be free to do whatever the hell they want, but the women should not. Bullshit.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

124. You're confusing "it is unwise to" and "you should be forbidden from".

If the person you're responding to was saying that women shouldn't be allowed to do the things you list, then your case that he's advocating restricting their freedom would be perfectly valid, but that's not what he/she (or anyone else) is saying; saying "doing these things will make it less likely you will be raped; make up your own mind but be aware of this" is not in any way limiting their lives.

Incidentally, all of those are also very sound pieces of advice to give to men, too - rape is far from being the only bad thing that can happen to one, and most victims of violent crime are male.

[Greyhound]

121. Fallacy upon fallacy.

You state that you "don't see why encouraging security-aware behavior should be seen as blaming the victim." Well, let me try to help you.

First, by placing the onus of "prevention" on the victim, you are accepting the premise that this is simply "man's nature" and therefore there is nothing that can be done to change it. This is completely false, and is closely related to the other fallacy that rape is, or has anything to do with, sex.

Next, you buy into and advocate the utterly ineffective measures of

1) Don't do drugs
2) Don't drink with large groups of people you don't know
3) Don't drink until you pass out
4) Lock your doors
5) Don't go places alone at night
6) Don't be alone with someone you don't know at night

In effect this "argument" is that if we restrict our actions and movements, surrender "just a little" of our Liberty, we will somehow be more safe. Again, this plays right into the hands or those that would enslave you and I, along with the rest of the "little people".

The canard that increased security (read; diminished liberty) is the solution to "crime prevention" (another fallacy that is fodder for another topic), is thoroughly discredited by simply looking at our domestic prison system. Rape, robbery, drug abuse, murder, every crime imaginable (OK, I guess GTA may be unknown in prison), is perpetrated every single day in every maximum security prison. If living in a maximum security prison will not prevent rape, how will locking your doors be any real deterrent? Yet, that is the path that many, perhaps even most, amerikans choose to follow.

Does this help you to see why there is so much resistance to your assertion?

[Solly Mack]

122. Excellent post!!!!

Thank you!!!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

125. You're confusing not doing something with not being allowed to do it.

Asking you to agree to make it illegal for women to do 1-6 would be asking you to surrender your liberty.

Pointing out that they are potentially unwise and suggesting it might be a good idea not to do them (whether male or female) is not.

[Greyhound]

126. Hey, I tried.

Good luck to you. "There are none so blind as those that will not see." - Jeremiah

[femrap]

131. Hey you forgot another RULE that us

members of the fairer sex must abide by:

7. Carry gun at all times.

Your rules suck. You know something...some women have jobs where they work at night. Are we supposed to hire a bodyguard to drive us home at night?

I am sick of having fear around me all the time. Go give some rules to your buddies...don't rape women and don't rape your dogs.

Rapists are perverted scum.

[phylny]

135. "Women *are* more likely to be raped f they...

....wear attractive/revealing clothing...."

I know I have that burqa SOMEWHERE....

Sigh.

[Recursion]

27. Are you against seat-belt ads too?

Does the "Buckle Up" campaign blame the victims of car crashes?

Encouraging soldiers to lock their doors
A) is policy anyways (you're supposed to lock them to deter theft, vandalism, and, yes, rape)
B) is behavior that can greatly decrease the incidence of rape

[Solly Mack]

36. Hmmm...

In rape prevention women are taught to check for locked doors and watch our surroundings...but the emphasis shouldn't be on prevention by the women, it should be on male sexist attitudes that DO contribute to rape.

Is that really so hard to understand?

The military...and society as a whole ...is telling women

We aren't going to stop rape. We aren't going to address the causes. We aren't going to challenge the assumptions of a sexist, patriarchal society....so you better lock your doors! We aren't going to take responsibility for the actions of some men by addressing their actions..we are only going to address what you should have done...so lock your doors.

And in a court of law, when the defense says "she didn't lock her dsoor" he is really saying "so she is partially responsbile for being raped"

If all that doesn't register with you, you might want to ask yourself why.

[Recursion]

41. Sorry, I must have missed the part...

...where I said "she didn't lock the door" should be a defense in a rape trial. I'm looking back and I just don't see it. I also have never heard of a trial where that was a defense; not saying there haven't been any, I've just never heard of that. I said if she had locked the door, she would not have been raped (or stolen from, or beaten up, or any other number of crimes). Leaving your door unlocked does not excuse a rapist, or a thief, or a murderer. But locking your door does prevent them.

but the emphasis shouldn't be on prevention by the women, it should be on male sexist attitudes that DO contribute to rape.

In my 7 years in the Marines, we were assigned a total of I think 64 hours of sexual harrasment and gender attitudes classes. In that same 7 years, we were instructed twice to lock our doors. Where do you think the emphasis is?

[Solly Mack]

48. Nice try but I didn't say you did say that

So spend time on how you were wrongfully accused of saying something you didn't say...regardless of the fact that no one claimed you did say it.

If locking your door prevents rape then why are women behind locked doors raped? You know, when the rapist breaks into the house to rape the victim?

Try reading on case histories...it's used in the defense.

[Recursion]

59. You mentioned the court defense

I assumed your were attributing its use as a defense in court to me, since I didn't see otherwise what relation it had to our conversation. My apologies.

If locking your door prevents rape then why are women behind locked doors raped?

Significantly fewer are, just like significantly fewer people behind locked doors are murdered, beaten up, or stolen from. What makes rape so different from any of these other crimes, that it's not allowed to encourage people to avoid being victims of them?

[Solly Mack]

62. Yep. I sure did mention it but I didn't attribute it to you

or anything you said

I was showing an example of why those infomercials contain an inherently sexist message.

Yet their still raped, still murdered..still robbed...

so really, locking the door doesn't prevent it does it?

We can't prevent all of any crime...but we can deal with the causes...and an unlocked door ain't the cause.

[dsc]

56. Can't we do both?

As a gay male I am in a similar situation to women in this regard. Gay men sometimes take advantage of drunk guys. Giving women or gay men common sense precautions to follow doesn't preclude telling men they shouldn't be raping people. They aren't mutually exclusive. Getting passed out drunk infront of total or near strangers is dumb. People shouldn't do it. I have done it. Fortunately I wasn't raped. But telling me not to get drunk in front of strangers isn't saying to the strangers go ahead and rape, it is telling me to protect myself.

I would rather my sister learn not to get drunk in front of other people by watching a PSA than by doing it and getting raped.

[Solly Mack]

61. Women are taught rape prevention and they need to be

because of the sexist society we live in and because society has a lot of sick minds.

I'm not speaking against rape prevention - though that's been the favored strawman on this thread to avoid discussion of the role sexism plays in attitudes about rape and women

I saying the emphasis needs to be on those sexist attitudes and it's not.

[Recursion]

65. Really?

I'm not speaking against rape prevention

You sure? You seem to be saying the military shouldn't put out PSAs encouraging women to take security precautions. As it was, this segment seemed to include 2 ads focused on women and 2 ads focused on men (maybe I miscounted). OK, I'll agree with you that that's unbalanced. Take out one of the women's ads and replace it with a men's ad. And take out the "dress provocatively" comment too. Will the outrage subside?

I take rape threads too personally, I think, for two reasons.

1) I write self-defense booklets at my dojo and occasionally catch hell for telling people how to defend themselves whenever the victim is a woman, the assailant is a man, and the crime is rape (nobody ever seems bothered when I tell women how to avoid a male purse-snatcher or mugger)
2) I was a victim of sexual abuse as a teenager and I wish to God somebody had told me to be more aggressive and security-focused (not to drag this discussion down the vortex of personal anecdote or anything)

[Solly Mack]

70. What a crock of shit. I am not saying that

But it is the favored strawman...

It's easier to make the claim I'm against rape prevention than it is to deal with the causes of rape, I guess

Those infomercials aren't dealing with the causes..and the military never deals with the causes. One minute they are making infomericals that "how can I respect women with my role models attacking women" and the very next minute blaming the victim for being sexually assaulted.

Exactly what are they accomplishing that benefits women and fights against rape when they are sending out mixed messages like that?

I live the military life..I know the attitudes.

I'm a rape survivor too.

[Recursion]

74. Did you notice when I said

that at least when I was in we spent nearly 4000 times as long on trying to prevent the sexist attitudes that produce rapists as we did on security precautions against rape? The dramatic drop in rapes in the country (what is it, 85% in the past 20 years?) as far as I remember is also reflected in the military. We haven't done enough but we are doing something and we're getting closer. I'm just really angry at this absolute need for moral purity that prevents people from also encouraging security-focused behavior on the part of rape victims, when similar advice for other crimes is fine.

[Solly Mack]

81. I appreciate everything you've done and are doing

I don't mean to sound as if I don't

[dsc]

67. again we can do both

I don't think telling people common sense instructions negates telling people not to break the law. To take a personal example when in college I was repeatly told not to walk down the alley behind a gay bar I went to. I rarely did so due to it being dark and deserted. On one of the rare occasions I chose to walk down the alley I got gay bashed. I certainly am not to blame for being gay bashed but I should have listened to the advice of my fellow gays who warned me not to walk down that alley. I chose a short cut and paid a dear price for it. I learned a valuable lesson. I should have learned the same lesson from other people. Realizing that doesn't negate the blame of the perpretrators nor negate the need to make sure our youth are educated not to engage in gay bashing.

Similarly I want young women to protect themselves from rapists, who will always exist in some numbers, regardless of the degree to which society chooses to address rape. Name a country and rape occurs in it. That doesn't exuse it, nor does it say that society shouldn't make it harder to rape, but it does say that everyone needs to protect themselves from crime, all crime. I lock my doors at night. Not because I fear rape or gay bashing but theft.

[Solly Mack]

72. I answered the question but I'll answer it again

I'm doing a lot of repeating anyway

Sure..do both. But put the emphasis where it belongs...

[dsc]

76. what is your definition of emphasis?

You imply that something is wrong with each and every ad which in any way, shape, or form, says a woman should take precautions (or does a desire to pull the ad mean something else). So in your world there would be one ad about the male and nothing else. That strikes me as only one message. If I am wrong about what you meant, fine. But words have meaning and the clear meaning of the words you wrote in your OP is that any message showing a woman taking precautions should go.

[Solly Mack]

82. No, I didn't

The first ad I mentioned I clearly stated "getting something right..finally" by addressing the attitudes that men pass on to boys...then they follow that up with an ad that blames ther victim

In a perfect world where no man has a sexist bone in their body, the idea to blame the victim of rape because her actions invited the rape wouldn't exist...but it does exist and those ads feed that attitude.

The last ad....where the male is helping the female to the room and not raping her...just making sure she is safe was to show the hypocrisy of the military in a recent verdict. The rules of the military state you don't have sex with a drunk soldier...they can't give consent. If you can't give consent...it's rape.

It's also one of the better ads.

I want more ads like the first one...challenging the treeatment and attitudes against women

I also want ads challenging the attitudes against the GLBT community. I know the exact same sexist attitudes used against women are used against the GLBT community. I know you understand this fully...intimately. You live it.

But please try and understand that an ad suggesting gays act less gay in public so they won't get attacked and murdered is the exact same thing women are being told when they are told to stay away from certain places, dress a certain way, lock your doors...that somehow our actions contribute to us being attacked....it's not us...it's the rapist...it's not being gay...it's the hater. Yes, practicing self survival is important...but shouldn't the onus be on those attacking us isntead?



I want the military...and society...to emphasis...more ads...more discussion...more actions...that show they understand how sexist attitudes harm women.

[philosophie_en_rose]

93. Seat-belt ads are completely different.

If you don't buckle-up, you'll get a ticket.

If you rape someone, welll..... she was drunk or didn't lock her door. How is that remotely the same?



The message should be:

1. If you rape someone, you will be caught, tried, and punished.

2. Be safe. Lock your doors and be careful.

3. But there is NO EXCUSE FOR RAPE. Come forward and report it. Do not blame yourself.


Unless message 1 and 3 are true, message 2 is meaningless. A rapist is not like a pickpocket. If they want to rape someone, they'll do it regardless of the victim's actions.

[Recursion]

51. Is it the fact that it's rape being discussed?

Imagine an ad:

A soldier goes to the PX and sees a stereo. He looks in his wallet and it's empty.

He walks back to the barracks, pauses, and opens a door to an empty room. Looking around, he quickly goes to the desk, opens the drawer, pulls out a roll of twenty-dollar bills, stuffs them in his pocket, and leaves.

Cut back to the PX: he goes in, buys the stereo with the cash, and leaves.

Narrator: "If you had locked your door, you would still have your money"

Would that ad outrage you?

[Solly Mack]

64. Yeah...you don't blame the victim

it's the criminals fault....

[Recursion]

66. Help me here

Outline the difference between the hypothetical ad I mentioned and the ad telling women to lock their doors.

[Solly Mack]

73. You still don't blame the victim

You asked if I was bothered by your hypothetical ad....I said yes

So for me, there is no difference in any ad that blames the victim.

I would have thought that would be obvious...if I don't agree with blaming the victim then I don't agree with blaming ANY victim.

[Recursion]

77. Sorry! Misread

I see your "yeah" was to my "would that ad outrage you?"

Cool, then, we just fundamentally disagree on someone's responsibility for his or her own security. And with that, I'm ending my spamming of this thread :)

[philosophie_en_rose]

97. The unsaid message: stealing is great!

If someone doesn't lock their door - why then. . . steal all of their stuff.

If someone is passed out, then, by all means, drop their drawers. She wants to have sex with you, even if you're too ugly for her to be conscious!



The problem is that rape is not like stealing a wallet. It is not a crime of opportunity. Thus, a woman can do everything in her power and still be raped. The message of "lock your door and you'll be safe" is a false sense of security for women, a barrier to reporting of crimes (guilt because of not locking doors or trusting someone), and a ridiculous justification for rapists/ people that support rapists. (well, she didn't lock her doors, so what can she expect?).

[ecstatic]

68. Those ads reflect reality

And if they stop one woman from becoming so drunk at a party that she becomes unaware of her surroundings then I say more power to them! This is not the time for self righteousness. Of course it's never a woman's fault when she is raped, but there are steps that can be taken to at least minimize the potential for rape.

[Solly Mack]

78. Yes, they reflect reality

the reality that women can't rely on her government or her employer to address the causes of rape, so she better protect herself because society doesn't give a fuck.

The reality that sexism won't be dealt with

The reality that it's OK to use her gender against her with sexist assumptions but it's not OK to address those sexist assumptions

They truly do reflect the reality

I'm a women, believe me I know all about rape prevention...and ther sexist assumptions that contribute to rape.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

86. Some right, some wrong.

"the reality that women can't rely on her government or her employer to address the causes of rape, so she better protect herself..."

This is clearly true.

"because society doesn't give a fuck."

This is nonsense, as the adverts you've been so vociferously objecting to prove.

"The reality that sexism won't be dealt with"

This is clearly true.

"The reality that it's OK to use her gender against her with sexist assumptions but it's not OK to address those sexist assumptions"

This is too vague for me to be sure what you mean. Clearly, it's not OK to "use a woman's gender against her", and it is OK to "address sexist assuptions", but I haven't seen anyone advocating the former or opposing the latter on this thread.

[Hidden Stillness]

90. They Will Never Face the Real Problem

I no longer pretend that the defenders of rapists are "honestly mistaken," or "goodhearted people who just disagree"; I have learned that no matter how many times you tell them the facts or how clearly you describe it, a minute later, they are back repeating the same lies and stereotypes you just talked to them about. They do not care, they have a hatred for women that needs to be faced, and they will not change by just trying to educate them as if they care. Rape is a hate crime against women, and is based more on the glee of overpowering and attacking a woman victim, making her afraid and degraded, hopeless, than any other motivation--yet, instantly, immediately, here on DU again, for the thousanth time, the woman-haters instantly jump to the "she was drunk," "she was forward" sterotype that has no relation to anything. They never, never turn the spotlight of judgment on the violent male--never. They always, only attack the woman.

Since you do not care about women, let's try an experiment: imagine an ad campaign about hate crimes committed against gay males, but worded like this--

Narrative voice-over: "Gays--do you 'swish' when you walk? Do you sometimes lisp when pronouncing words with the letter 's' in them? If so, you could be unknowingly inviting an anti-gay attack. These signs tell others that you are an 'openly gay person,' which to many people is considered a provocation; so--be careful, lest you too, invite more than you bargained for..." etc.

Outraged? This is the approach given to women victims, however unrelated to the true source of the male's rape attitude, which is a general, violent, contempuous hatred of women. "Lock your doors..." etc.? Do you claim that women are not raped in their own homes by male family members? It is like some of you are still living in the 1950s. Any campaign that attempts to stop a crime by chastising the victim, and then not taking the charges against the attacker seriously, with no consequences ever, (many recent cases showing this, and threads on DU), shows that they are not going to do anything about this crime--again--but only want to cover the problem over and shut the victims up.

[Solly Mack]

91. Thank you

Thank you Thank you Thank you

[Cerridwen]

94. Well said.

Thank you.

[philosophie_en_rose]

95. *excellent post*

They also forget how their attitudes prevent victims from coming forward, lest they be blamed for a truly disgusting crime - simply because they didn't lock their door. (as if rape can't happen anywhere or to anyone).

I can only imagine how difficult it is for men that are raped in the military.

[Lars39]

96. Excellent post!

I've gotten to the point that I wonder how many women some of these defenders have raped.

[Solly Mack]

98. Sadly, I wonder that too

and have for quite some time now

I know some who will find that unfair but damn...you can only defend such things so long before someone wonders if you're not just on the defensive because of something you did.

[Cerridwen]

105. Yet again, I agree with Solly

and I agree with you.

Especially when I take the time to notice it's the same names over and over doing the defending and justifying.

[Cerridwen]

99. An ad I'd like to see...

a bunch of guys sitting around a locker room...

one guy pipes up with how he "nailed" some "broad" the night before. "At first she didn't want to, kept saying "no, no" but I convinced her and she "purred like a kitten" when I was finished with her."

The rest of the guys just stare at the one guy. Some have horror on their faces. Other's just look at him like "WTF?"

They get up and leave in twos and threes. Shaking their heads in disbelief. Some of them commenting on what a pig the one guy is.

The one guy is stuttering and explaining, "but guys, that's what they want. You'd have done it, too. Really, c'mon. It's not like it was your sister or something."

The one guy is left sitting in the locker room by himself. Embarrassed. Confused. Angry.

The coach walk in, goes over to the one guy and starts explaining in no uncertain terms what rape is, how to respect women, and that real men don't rape; real men don't let friends rape.

Fade out as one guy is looking seriously chagrined and sick to his stomach.


edit: typo

[Solly Mack]

101. That'll work

[Cerridwen]

104. We need a whole series of them....

everything from rape to sexual harassment to violence.

Wonder if it could get on the air or even if it could get made?



Hmm, I need some video making expertise...

[Solly Mack]

107. Yes! Where men take other men to task for their sexism/misogyny

Shaming the men. Ostracizing the men. Letting those men know in no uncertain terms that such behavior is not "cool", is not "macho", is not acceptable.

What a wonderful thing that would be!!!

[Cerridwen]

108. Time to make the act of rape as shameful and "taboo" as being

a "40 year old virgin."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

115. Um...

I presume you're joking? You don't really think that rape is anything other than far, far more taboo than being a 40 year old virgin (or just about anything else)?

[Solly Mack]

116. Exactly. I grok. Can't speak for others getting it though

Damn shame, too.

OMG. You're still a Virgin! (outraged men then plot to get you laid because it's just so scandalous! Something must be wrong with you? Are you gay?))

But those same men won't be found shaming other men for their sexist attitudes.

In fact, if I recall the movie correctly, one man did play act at being outraged by sexist attitudes just to keep his woman friend from being angry at him... the sexist attitudes all became one big joke of men having to hide their "true selves" from the women.

[madmusic]

103. Is this possible?

This movie was on Lifetime Television the other day, hardly Spike TV. Frankly, I'm hesitant to post this, but wondered at the time and wonder now what some DUers would think.

SINS OF THE MOTHER

PEOPLE MAGAZINE REVIEW:
Based on Jack Olsen's nonfiction crime book, Son, this movie about a rich-boy rapist in Spokane, Wash., and his domineering, demeaning mother grabs you right from the eerie opening scene: We watch Dale (Elvis and Me) Midkiff and Elizabeth (Bewitched) Montgomery dress for a party--she slips on nylons; he fastens her dress. It suggests a symbiotic, sexual and superenmeshed relationship.

Director John Patterson makes the mood so claustrophobic that the sound of a phone ringing or a lawn sprinkler ticking can jangle your nerves. Montgomery is dynamic as the possessive, shaming man-hater. Midkiff, who starred earlier this month in The Marla Hanson Story, is excellent as the charmer who acts out his repressed rage in a series of brutal rapes.

Their performances elevate this movie into the company of The Deliberate Stranger, in which Mark Harmon grippingly portrayed serial killer Ted Bundy. Grade: A- -- Reviewer: David Hiltbrand

[Cerridwen]

106. Is what possible? That this has nothing to do with the topic here?

Yep.

That mother blame happens? Yep. Since time began.

That some women are so messed up (by what or whom?) that they contribute to creating messed up kids? Yep

That it's a common cause for rape? Uh, doubt it.

That she messed him up so he gets to go mess up others? Er, nope, don't think so.

That women are dangerous and are to be blamed for the ills of the world? Yah, go with that if it floats yer boat. Damned that Eve and all her progeny!

[madmusic]

109. The topic is the cause of rape.

No one said he "gets to go mess up others" and the film never blames the rape victims at all. Not in the slightest. The movie in fact elicits a great deal of sympathy and empathy for the victims.

[Cerridwen]

111. Which I addressed as part of my response to you.

"That it's a common cause for rape? Uh, doubt it."

I don't remember how the movie portrayed the boy's victims which is why I didn't address that part of it.

What I do remember about it was that the whole movie made me sick to my stomach because of what it said/implied about our sick world.

[Solly Mack]

110. Funny innit? And not funny haha either

Some men don't want to take responsibility for sexism/misogyny and how such attitudes contribute to rape and other assorted abuses of women...but there's no problem blaming all women for the world's ills because of the actions of a one woman.

[Cerridwen]

112. Deflect and distract.

*sigh*

I swear to whatever anyone thinks is holy, that I do not believe that men and women are different species. But some days I do have serious "crises of conscience" about that belief.

[madmusic]

117. You are deflecting and distracting.

The film does not say it is a "common cause" or even often the cause. It does imply in this case that could be the cause. True, it goes against the grain of "blame the patriarchal society," because he grew up in a matriarchal society, so to speak.

Lifetime Television is hardly the bulwark of the "patriarchal society," and maybe they are interested in ANY point of view that could help prevent rapes.

The movie does not blame all women or mothers and does not blame the victims. It only explores why some men might hate that much. Law enforcement is not a remedy for that kind of hate and never can be.

The movie is based on true story. Did they get it right, or slightly right, or maybe right? Or is it all wrong even though based on a true story? Who knows, but anyone who cares about prevention would probably be willing to consider all causes and potential solutions.

While watching it I was reminded of a post here demanding men behind on their child support payments should be DEBALLED.

Hardly the kind of thing that encourages empathy.

Anyway, I didn't make, star in, or air the movie on Lifetime. No need for me to defend it and I'm not sure I even agree with it. I do think it is possible though in some cases men's attitude toward women can be formed long before the patriarchal society has any influence, and this influence could come from the mother or the father or both.

Yeah, that's a damn liberal attitude if there ever was one. Maybe you can blame it on "born criminals." I can't. That is a cop out to which the only solution is more prisons. Prison is always too late.

[Solly Mack]

120. actually, it doesn't go against "blame the patriarchal society"

- to use your phrase. I wouldn't use the phrase because it sounds dismissive of the very real fact that patriarchy has been bad on women. As if it's just a handy excuse when it is in fact, a real problem and a real cause.

The mother grew up in a patriarchal society, the son grew up in a house where the mom was conditioned by a patriarchal society. But even that doesn't explain screwing your own kid.(that's called child abuse)

Don't confuse the portrayal of a dominating, overbearing and obviously warped women with matriarchy.(you might ask yourself why the woman was portrayed that way)It's not the same. And don't confuse child abuse with matriarchy either.

Some women actually go along with their own oppression. Women who have sex with their own children are sick and should be jailed...same as any father who does it. And certainly they both need help.



And in a patriarchal society, blaming women for everything is par for the course. Ever since Eve was blamed for the fall of man, women have been blamed for all manner of social ills throughout the ages. It really wasn't until the last century that the patriarchal society has been closely looked at for the harm it causes women. The feminists movement really brought it into focus.


No one suggested little boys are born sexist...they're conditioned that way....by the attitudes their parents display and in a big way by society. Which lets us know that if we change attitudes, we can reduce sexism. And society is in dire need of an attitude adjustment.

[madmusic]

127. Thanks for the post.

It makes a lot of sense. No doubt times were much worse for women when they couldn't vote and females were the most often sterilized during the Progressive Era, usually for being permiscous and out of line. I understand that 100%. However, other women were often, but of course, not always, behind that movement. For example, Kevles writes In the Name of Eugenics:

Many of the women in the leadership of the Eugenics Society were suffragists and single, and no doubt constituted something of a lobby for feminst positions. (Soloway, "Feminism, Fertility, and Eugenics in Victorian and Edwardian England," pp. 133-36, 126.

Frances Swiney was the founder of the Eugenics Society in England, and Eugenics had many factions that led to sterilzation:

From "Eugenics, Spirituality, and Sex Differentiation in Edwardian England: the Case of Frances Swiney":

At the turn of the century, a number of feminists, including Swiney, focused attention on venereal disease as the ultimate example of male sexual exploitation of women and as a leading factor in the supposed degeneration of the English race. According to Swiney, "from the time that woman lost her power of selection, and man exercised upon her the abuse of sexual excesses, the race began to degenerate." Women's independence was therefore a eugenic issue. In her controversial novel of 1893 , The Heavenly Twins, Sarah Grand argued that the cycle of venereal disease could only be broken when women were free from dependence on marriage and thus free to reject diseased and degenerate suitors. Eugenicist Dr. Alice Drysdale believed that women must have economic independence if they were to exercise "that natural selective power in the choice of a mate, which was probably a main factor in the . . . evolution of the race."

The further evolution of the race depended on the emancipation of women. As Swiney argued in The Awakener, "upon her selection of a mate depends the future of the race -- physically, mentally and spiritually, as she is potentially, the creatrix of forms, the transmitter of hereditary traits, the primal impressionist on the embryonic brain, and the imparter of psychic gifts." Indeed, if women were not freed from their sexual subjugation to men, the Anglo-Saxon race would degenerate and the British Empire would go the way of Rome. In Woman and Labor, Schreiner maintained that nations decay when their women are deprived of freedom and turned into a parasitic class. By way of example, she condemned the "Turkish harems, where one of the noblest dominant Aryan races the world has yet produced is being slowly suffocated in the arms of a parasitic womanhood." Would England with its wan, corseted, suburban wives be far behind?

Frances Swiney was instrumental in devising a feminist eugenic discourse that sought to empower women by making them the arbiters of sexual reproduction. In her view, men's uncontrolled sensual natures led to venereal disease, eugenically unsound marriages, and excessive, debilitating pregnancies. To arrest this pattern of degeneration, men must, submit to women's more finely developed sense of racial fitness. In Swiney's view, women must "redeem men, in spite of themselves, from the bondage of their vices; to bring to bear on polluted humanity the healthgiving, life-inspiring ozone of moral thought and conduct by the means of hereditary transmission."34 Chasteness before marriage was to be the rule for men as well as women, and men with "pasts" would become social pariahs along with "fallen" women. Within marriage, women would exercise restraint over their husbands" sexuality, which would return to the natural function of species reproduction --" an episode, not a habit." 35 "Fewer but better children" was a popular eugenic slogan. Swiney argued that no woman should have more than three or four children and that "by natural law a woman, as the most highly evolved organism, should not produce a child under intervals of four to six years between each birth."36 Significantly, Swiney herself had six children, born in rather swift succession. Since artificial means of birth control would only encourage masculine vice, many women within the social purity movement, including Swiney, favored marital restraint.

In a startling transvaluation of values, Swiney contested her society's definition of "natural." Sexual desire, even for men, was not natural. In particular, the male dominance of society was unnatural. After all, the male was "an afterthought of Nature," 37 or, in Swiney's words, "the male, the immature organism, is produced by the female, of the female, from the female, for the female alone." 38 The natural superiority of women has been recognized by the earliest, matriarchal societies. According to Swiney, primitive man "regarded the male with the greatest suspicion. Here, he argued, is a being unlike the Mother, smaller, weaker, unformed, unfinished, incapable of reproduction, less intelligent, more brutal and animal than the woman, essentially, 'the hairy one' "39 Unfortunately the worship of the Divine Mother was overthrown by men, who replaced the natural law of sexual self-control with the cult of the phallus and sexual excess. Male domination was a historical anomaly that would lead to a downward spiral of racial degeneration if left unchecked.

Frances Swiney sought to lend feminism greater power and legitimacy through the use of science. She forcefully and cleverly attacked the dominant Victorian medical discourse that constructed women as physically and mentally inferior to men. Women represented a higher stage of evolution than men, Swiney maintained, but, if women were to exercise their proper role as guardians of the race, they must be emancipated politically and economically, and given back control over their own bodies. The superman would be made through the body, eugenicists emphasized, and this dictum elevated motherhood to new heights. 40 "Motherhood," Swiney rhapsodized, "is the basic principle of creation. From that source all flows." 41 Yet in emphasizing motherhood and eugenics, or better breeding, Swiney and like-minded feminists created a dilemma for themselves; motherhood became the defining characteristic of womanhood. Women without children were not only seen as less feminine, they had also let down the race. Indeed, feminists sometimes reinscribe "traditional sexual divisions" while trying to challenge the sexual status quo. 42 By embracing eugenics and attempting to elevate feminism to scientific status, these women implicated themselves in the conservative, pro-natalist rhetoric which saw anything that interfered with motherhood, such as careers for women, as a threat to civilization. Ultimately, eugenics left women with Zarathustra's precept: "Let your hope be: 'May I bear the Superman.' "43

Attempts to escape the seeming biological imperative, such as the birth control movement, often served to further elevate motherhood as an almost divine calling that was not to be undertaken lightly, but that had to be carefully "controlled." Births were to be spaced at greater intervals, but complete freedom from childbirth was unthinkable. Even so sanguine an advocate of birth control as Stopes emphasized that the avoidance of motherhood was unnatural. In 1920, Stopes asserted: "Every lover desires a child. Those who imagine the contrary, and maintain that love is purely selfish, know only the lesser types of love." Two years later, Stopes predicted that in the future all women would have children and that "exceptional" women would have six or more. 44 Given this rhetoric of motherhood, both by feminists and their opponents, is it any wonder that some women hoped to transcend the physical?

The growing popularity of spiritualism and what today would be called "new age" philosophies among middle- and upper-class English women at the turn of the century was in part a response to the "biology is destiny" arguments of science. Recent scholarship demonstrates that occultism attracted many feminists because it emphasized that women were more spiritual than men and were destined to lead men upward, away from the physical and the sexual. 45 In both England and America, many women found power and authority through mediumship.

....

Frances Swiney, unlike most Theosophists, did not believe in future androgyny, but prophesied the complete disappearance of men, who were in the process of evolving back into women: "The man shall become of the substance of the woman; the male shall be re-absorbed into the feminine nature by a gradual and persistent transmutation of the many to the one; an integrating synthetic determination of mankind to one ideal standard of perfectibility." 62 Swiney had always argued, based on contemporary biological authority, that males were only a temporary expedient of nature for attaining greater variation within species. Now, having served that purpose, they could be dispensed with.

There is no telling how many feminists here agree with Swiney, at least in part, but what I'm trying to suggest is that like in the Middle East there are chain reactions. If indeed the mother was the product of the patriarchal society, so is he in reaction to her.

The son never had sex with the mother and they never did anything illeagal in the movie or in their backstory. The point was about how she controlled him. Perhaps you misunderstood that. The point of the movie was that his hidden rage was taken out on innocent victims. There can be a lot of reasons for that rage but what I got out of the movie is that victimizing someone should never be the solution, but acklowdging that rage can be very important and healthy from the point of view of prevention, in terms of both the cause and the effect.

In brief, it is probably a good thing Nancy Grace doesn't have any sons.

[Solly Mack]

128. I don't think it's my job to redeem men

and I'm most certainly not going to play into the "women as men's conscience - savior - whatever" nonsense. And I would be surprised if any feminists on this board bought into such thinking. Seriously surprised. I doubt any do.

But I will fight against sexism and I will ask men to fight against it too.

Sexism hurts men as well. It's not something that gets discussed a lot around here but it does. Truthfully though, it can be hard to have compassion for the damage embracing sexist thinking does to men when others bear the brunt of it. Just like there is white privilege in a racist society dominated by white people, there is also male privilege in a patriarchal society. White and male and you hit the lottery...rich white male and you hit the trifecta.In a racist and patriarchal society, men of color don't fare well either. The GLBT community doesn't fare well in a patriarchal society.

Patriarchal thinking says men must be strong - so a definition of what constitutes strength in men is born. Men don't cry. Men don't show emotion. Men don't "act like women".(whatever that means). So men are cheated out of that part of themselves - their emotions, their feelings.

Patriarchal thinking says men are stronger than women...so when a man is confronted by a woman that is obviously stronger(in whatever way), his manhood, as defined by patriarchal thinking, is called into question and he reacts angrily. Often taking his anger out on women or gay men....because sexism also teaches him that gay men aren't "real" men.

Patriarchy teaches that women are weaker, meeker and just plain less than a man. So when a woman isn't any of those things - the man sees her as challenging his manhood, as defined by sexist/patriarchal thinking. He'll attack(verbally, physically) in hopes of regaining his "place."

When fact is, I'm not challenging anyone's manhood, I'm just being a woman. I'm just not being the kind of woman a sexist society says I should be.

Patriarchy assigns gender roles based on the thinking that men are superior and that "real" men (acceptable men) behave this certain way, so anyone that doesn't fit that mold is subject to attack from society.


I'm not getting in-depth but just showing some examples.I'm certainly no expert and there are people better qualified on DU to address this topic.

I know not all men behave in this manner and not all men buy into the patriarchal paradigm...but by and large, our society does.

I don't excuse women who promote their own, and my, oppression.

Edit to add:

Don't misunderstand me - I don't excuse sexism in men even if the sexist conditioning harms them too. In fact, it makes me more angry that some men can't see the total picture. I don't excuse any crime committed against a woman because of the conditioning either. I don't feel sorry for men either. I don't find it a mitigating factor. Men, by and large, benefit from sexist/patriarchal thinking. I'm not going to pity those who benefit from an unjust system.

[madmusic]

136. Solly, thanks again for your posts.

Seriously, I appreciate it.

It has been difficult to reply because I couldn't find the words to express what I'm trying to say.

But then realized it's already been said far better than I ever could.

Is the Greek tragedy "Eumenides" too patriarchal? The Greeks more or less founded Western civilization and "Eumenides" is the foundation of our judicial system, including trial by jury. It's themes reveal a balance:

http://www.gradesaver.com/classicnotes/titles/eumenides/themes.html

Because it places timeless and encompassing social themes within the context of the family while striving for a higher ideal, it reaches beyond the Furies to a higher form of justice, love and civilization.