I came across this article on Slate today. The subject is a new study that shows that men are victims of rape about as often as women. Even when one factors in all of the rape that occurs in prison, apparently a substantial amount is woman-against-man violence.
I will admit, I have not looked at the study itself in great detail, and I perhaps do not have the skill required to evaluate its merits. Furthermore, I have not found any reporting on the study beyond this Slate article. So there is a possibility that it is flawed.
I do think it is important to consider the results seriously, though. Regardless of what the evidence shows, it is important to have an accurate understanding of the circumstances under which rape occurs (if one wishes to stop it).
That said, I am a little concerned about how the results of this study may be used by those who like to claim that feminists make things up and resort to wild exaggerations to maintain their "victim" status.
Let's ask ourselves: do the results of this study, if true, really prove that men have it "just as bad" as women? That patriarchy is a figment of feminists' imaginations?
Well, first of all, your conclusions will depend on how you understand rape. If rape is merely an outgrowth of uncontrollable sexual desires, then the results of this study indicate that a not-insignificant portion of humanity, male and female alike, is so unable to control its sexual appetites that it cannot but help inflicting violence on fellow humans in order to satisfy primal urges.
Some people do hold such a view of humanity and I don't know that there is anything I can do to convince them (on a blog, at least) otherwise. I have written previously, however, in opposition to the idea of an innate, unchangeable "human nature" that is ultimately unaffected by the forces of society and history.
A more sociologically informed view of rape sees it as an instrument of domination, a manifestation of hierarchy, rather than simply a means of obtaining sexual pleasure. From this perspective, what the results of the recent study would mean is that there are forms of subjugation other than those based on male domination of females, which may be carried out, on a micro level, through sexual assault.
The discussion in the Slate article fails to address any social dimensions other than gender. What we don't know is how class, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other social realities factor into this. There is, however, evidence that the oppressed among all of these categories are far more likely to be subject to sexual violence. Therefore, it should not be so shocking that men are raped very often too.
But it should also not be overlooked that this study (once again, if true) undermines some of the key arguments of feminism's detractors. Namely:
1. There's not much we can do about rape, because men just can't control their sexual desires
2. There's not much we can do about rape unless women change the way they dress or how they act at parties
3. There are fundamental, biological differences between men and women
3.a. Men are naturally aggressive
3.b. Women are naturally passive, helpless
Obviously, women are just as capable of perpetrating acts of violence and men are just as capable of falling victim to them.
It will be interesting to see what information further research provides.
Showing posts with label rape. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rape. Show all posts
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Friday, May 10, 2013
Sexual Violence and the Military
Recently there has been a lot of reporting on the high prevalence of sexual assault in the U.S. military. My favorite is the guy who was in charge of the Sexual Assault Prevention Program, accused of sexual assault himself. I have heard people speculate that this is a result of the transition to allowing more gays and women into the military. Yeah, it is always integration itself that is the problem, not the people who refuse to be integrated.
However, this is just another case in which people are resistant to (or completely incapable of) scrutinizing the military. Not certain things that it does here and there, but the logic of its operation – in fact, its very existence. The natural response to the current scandal is to think of more ways the military can be regulated, or more effective policy that can be put in place. I say, have fun with that.
The truth is, the predisposition toward violence against women lies in the very fabric of the military itself – and not just the U.S. military, but any military. For all of human history, from what I can tell, pillage and plunder has always been associated with rape. You can’t have one without the ooooothers. To understand why, we have to revisit the inherent nature of violence.
Violence is not a universal aspect of human nature, but rather a feature of structures of inequality. There are, of course, plenty of ways to sustain inequality without resorting to violence, and some have argued that power must defined in terms of the ability of both parties to act (thus precluding violence). Therefore, the relationship between violence and inequality/power is not merely a matter of direct practical necessity. Violence is, rather, one component of a particular kind of authority - an authority that is established upon the differential valuation of human life and dignity. Just as the distinction between man and animal, which entailed the exalted status of man, was traditionally justified by man’s dominion over animals (and this was always expressed through the act of hunting), the imposed hierarchical distinctions among different types of human beings are ideologically sustained by the “naturalness” (in some cases even virtue) of violence committed by white men, as the vanguards of human progress, and the complementary insignificance or invisibility of acts of violence carried out against Others (women, people of color, etc.).
In other words, while hierarchical structures do not always require violence to sustain their general existence, individuals employ violence to maintain the day-to-day, lived experience of hierarchy. Wherever the particularity of social life lies in the interstices of structures of inequality, violence works to reproduce the larger structures within the gaps that escape the hierarchy, and in so doing extend the hierarchy into its own margins.
So, with the notion of “legitimate violence” comes the white man as the legitimate purveyor of legitimate violence. There are two ways in which this is ideologically reinforced. First, violence is construed as a masculine characteristic. Science does its part by lending pseudo legitimacy to nonexistent data. Testosterone provides the link between gender and violence, despite a serious lack of knowledge about the effects of testosterone (for a number of reasons, testosterone is very difficult to study). Then families, schools, and entertainment media join the effort by subtly (or not so subtly) implying that “boys will be boys” and promoting violence as a valued expression of masculinity. Real men punch back. If men feel that their masculinity (i.e. superiority) is being threatened, they reliably resort to violence. This is why rape, or any violence against women, is essentially a means for men to assert their hierarchical domination over women.
Second, violence becomes part of the “white man’s burden” when it is encapsulated within the narrative of Progress. This has been true since the colonial era (as colonialism was ostensibly designed to bring civilization to the savages), and it is just as true today when military interventions are supposedly undertaken to support human rights and democracy, by fighting the forces of darkness, as represented by Muslims...err, terrorists... well, really, Muslims.
So yes, the military is inherently racist too. (Since race and religion are co-constructed and intricately entwined, Islamophobia does indeed count as a form of racism.) I have seen photo evidence that basic training primes recruits to view “the enemy” as someone existentially unlike them. Make them look like a cartoon version of the Evil Arab, and suddenly it’s not so hard to envision killing them. That is not to say, of course, that in the end many people in the military don't find it psychologically impossible to cope with the things they are doing. The military doesn’t seem to care too much about anyone’s psychological health once they’ve done their duty, but they do need to make it just a little easier for people to actually accomplish something before they develop PTSD.
If one wants to do anything about the scourge of sexual assault in the military, one has to accept the role of the military in sustaining gendered and racial hierarchies both ideologically and materially. The military itself is the problem. Or, rather, the military functions primarily to enforce the ideological and material regimes of domination that make sexual assault possible in the first place. Only with the dissolution of the military and radical systemic change can anything really be done about sexual assault.
However, this is just another case in which people are resistant to (or completely incapable of) scrutinizing the military. Not certain things that it does here and there, but the logic of its operation – in fact, its very existence. The natural response to the current scandal is to think of more ways the military can be regulated, or more effective policy that can be put in place. I say, have fun with that.
The truth is, the predisposition toward violence against women lies in the very fabric of the military itself – and not just the U.S. military, but any military. For all of human history, from what I can tell, pillage and plunder has always been associated with rape. You can’t have one without the ooooothers. To understand why, we have to revisit the inherent nature of violence.
Violence is not a universal aspect of human nature, but rather a feature of structures of inequality. There are, of course, plenty of ways to sustain inequality without resorting to violence, and some have argued that power must defined in terms of the ability of both parties to act (thus precluding violence). Therefore, the relationship between violence and inequality/power is not merely a matter of direct practical necessity. Violence is, rather, one component of a particular kind of authority - an authority that is established upon the differential valuation of human life and dignity. Just as the distinction between man and animal, which entailed the exalted status of man, was traditionally justified by man’s dominion over animals (and this was always expressed through the act of hunting), the imposed hierarchical distinctions among different types of human beings are ideologically sustained by the “naturalness” (in some cases even virtue) of violence committed by white men, as the vanguards of human progress, and the complementary insignificance or invisibility of acts of violence carried out against Others (women, people of color, etc.).
In other words, while hierarchical structures do not always require violence to sustain their general existence, individuals employ violence to maintain the day-to-day, lived experience of hierarchy. Wherever the particularity of social life lies in the interstices of structures of inequality, violence works to reproduce the larger structures within the gaps that escape the hierarchy, and in so doing extend the hierarchy into its own margins.
So, with the notion of “legitimate violence” comes the white man as the legitimate purveyor of legitimate violence. There are two ways in which this is ideologically reinforced. First, violence is construed as a masculine characteristic. Science does its part by lending pseudo legitimacy to nonexistent data. Testosterone provides the link between gender and violence, despite a serious lack of knowledge about the effects of testosterone (for a number of reasons, testosterone is very difficult to study). Then families, schools, and entertainment media join the effort by subtly (or not so subtly) implying that “boys will be boys” and promoting violence as a valued expression of masculinity. Real men punch back. If men feel that their masculinity (i.e. superiority) is being threatened, they reliably resort to violence. This is why rape, or any violence against women, is essentially a means for men to assert their hierarchical domination over women.
Second, violence becomes part of the “white man’s burden” when it is encapsulated within the narrative of Progress. This has been true since the colonial era (as colonialism was ostensibly designed to bring civilization to the savages), and it is just as true today when military interventions are supposedly undertaken to support human rights and democracy, by fighting the forces of darkness, as represented by Muslims...err, terrorists... well, really, Muslims.
So yes, the military is inherently racist too. (Since race and religion are co-constructed and intricately entwined, Islamophobia does indeed count as a form of racism.) I have seen photo evidence that basic training primes recruits to view “the enemy” as someone existentially unlike them. Make them look like a cartoon version of the Evil Arab, and suddenly it’s not so hard to envision killing them. That is not to say, of course, that in the end many people in the military don't find it psychologically impossible to cope with the things they are doing. The military doesn’t seem to care too much about anyone’s psychological health once they’ve done their duty, but they do need to make it just a little easier for people to actually accomplish something before they develop PTSD.
If one wants to do anything about the scourge of sexual assault in the military, one has to accept the role of the military in sustaining gendered and racial hierarchies both ideologically and materially. The military itself is the problem. Or, rather, the military functions primarily to enforce the ideological and material regimes of domination that make sexual assault possible in the first place. Only with the dissolution of the military and radical systemic change can anything really be done about sexual assault.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Women's Issues
In my post about Breast Cancer Awareness Month I briefly alluded to my annoyance with the idea of "women's issues." However, I centered my discussion on "women's health." For the sake of completeness, I will finish my thought about "women's issues."
In generally, the problem I have with "women's issues" is the assumption that women or their bodies are the core of the concern. Take rape, for example. It is a "women's issue" because it affects women. See, women find themselves in this unfortunate circumstance of having bodies that are so irresistibly tempting that people can't help but violate them.
Why isn't rape a "men's issue." Most rapes involve men. And men generally cause rape. Isn't it slightly concerning that so many men are prone to acts of violence against women? Why do we not see it as some sort of pathology infecting the male population, and try to stage interventions or develop cures for this mental/moral debility? (I'm not saying that is the "right" way to look at things of course, just noting the significance that it is never discussed in those terms.) Instead, we choose to treat it as a "women's issue" and focus on what women wear and where they go at night.
The real problem for women of all classes and colors, and for everyone who is oppressed, is an exploitative capitalist system that depends on a variety of structural inequalities. Therefore, everything that is typically labeled a "women's issue" I would consider a structural characteristic. "Women's issues" are not problems specific to women, they are conditions that are endemic to our social system.
In generally, the problem I have with "women's issues" is the assumption that women or their bodies are the core of the concern. Take rape, for example. It is a "women's issue" because it affects women. See, women find themselves in this unfortunate circumstance of having bodies that are so irresistibly tempting that people can't help but violate them.
Why isn't rape a "men's issue." Most rapes involve men. And men generally cause rape. Isn't it slightly concerning that so many men are prone to acts of violence against women? Why do we not see it as some sort of pathology infecting the male population, and try to stage interventions or develop cures for this mental/moral debility? (I'm not saying that is the "right" way to look at things of course, just noting the significance that it is never discussed in those terms.) Instead, we choose to treat it as a "women's issue" and focus on what women wear and where they go at night.
The real problem for women of all classes and colors, and for everyone who is oppressed, is an exploitative capitalist system that depends on a variety of structural inequalities. Therefore, everything that is typically labeled a "women's issue" I would consider a structural characteristic. "Women's issues" are not problems specific to women, they are conditions that are endemic to our social system.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
The Limits of Comedy
Every so often a comedian will say something really racist or sexist or homophobic or in some other way controversial (for some reason this usually tends to occur at the Laugh Factory) and it creates a huge media buzz. The resulting discussion is the same every time and reveals that there is a gaping chasm regarding what people consider to be acceptable territory for comedians. For those who are wondering, yes, this post was prompted by Tosh’s rape joke.
So, it always turns out that some people are totally offended, while others insist that nothing should be off limits. Personally (and from a partially amateurish social scientific point of view), I do think that the exploration of societal boundaries is a useful function that comedy can perform. Comedy provides a useful means of juxtaposing the expected/stereotypical/acceptable with the unexpected/transgressive/taboo, as well as demonstrating the fuzziness, instability, and arbitrariness of the boundaries and categories we construct. In short, comedy reveals all the intricacies of social life that normally exist below the level of conscious awareness.
But there are other types of comedy that do not perform this function. For example, certain forms of humor serve the purpose of making people feel better about themselves at the expense of others (it may be worthwhile to note, in that regard, that the middle school boys who taunted their bus monitor were inspired by their experiences watching Tosh.0 and their desire to get on the show). This type of comedy includes the brand of “stupid humor” that portrays fictional characters acting unrealistically idiotic, to satisfy people’s pleasure in feeling superior to someone less intelligent.
[I should add that not every portrayal of stupidity falls into this category. For example, the Dylan character on Modern Family is used partially to mock the stereotypical suburban teenage boy and to highlight the disparity between the parents’ expectations for their daughter and the reality of her choices; furthermore, an exchange such as –
Father: I mean, it's the tux I got married in so it's double breasted.
Dylan: Perfect. So am I.
– also serves as a clever linguistic quip.]
Then there is the brand of humor that is based on a desire to liberate oneself from any social norms and say everything that normally goes unspoken (the Saying Poop for the Sake of Saying Poop brand of humor). Some (but not all) of the practitioners of this form of humor argue that boundaries should not exist, and comedians must have free rein. Every time a controversy occurs, these people insist that anyone who is “too sensitive” should not go to comedy clubs, and that comedians can say whatever they want – because, after all, “it’s just comedy.”
Despite all my radical anarchist/antiestablishment tendencies, even I see the necessity of some social norms. Certain boundaries exist because they protect oppressed populations. In particular, certain limits on discourse are necessary to erode assumptions that specific types of people are inferior to others. For example, if it were not taboo to say (overtly) that black people are less intelligent, then there would certainly be more people who believe such nonsense actually expressing it openly, and these open affirmations of belief would reinforce one another, further entrenching racism in the collective conscious of society. To those who doubt the power of the Word, I would point out that the prevalence and circulation patterns of discourse always affect social reality, and that is why efforts at social control always begin with discourse (propaganda). I should also point out that I am NOT arguing that: 1) Social norms require legal enforcement; or 2) We can make problems go away simply by not talking about them. My claim is simply that discourse – any kind of discourse – has social consequences, and therefore, limitations on discourse may be useful in mitigating (though not necessarily eradicating) certain negative consequences for oppressed groups.
I believe that only the first form of humor that I described above is socially productive. I think the second lacks insight and can be personally damaging in many cases. And the third tends to be employed (by coincidence and not necessity) by comedians who are ultimately unable to think beyond commonplace assumptions. These comedians, in their quest to eradicate boundaries, are not attempting to challenge the social order or dominant ideologies, but merely fighting for their ability to express already hegemonic ideas (about race, gender, sexuality) in the crudest possible terms.
I also want to respond to the common argument that these controversies are the fault of people who are too easily offended. For example, in Louis C.K.’s odd and inconsistent reaction to the Tosh/rape controversy on the Daily Show, he made the “joke” that “feminists don’t have a sense of humor.” There are a couple of reasons why I don’t find this funny. Number one is that, from a purely comedic standpoint, lines get progressively less funny the more they are repeated and I have heard this one far too many times. But more importantly, this “joke” about feminists is generally used to undermine the legitimacy of their claims. It is a license to not take feminists seriously. It is also a power-trip. What angered me most was when Louis C.K. said, “Okay, we’ve listened to you. Now shut the f*** up.” It reminds me of being at work, when I compile reams of data and logical arguments to try to influence courses of action within my department.... and I’m told, in effect: “Okay, we’ve listened to you. Now shut the f*** up.” The fact is this: Louis C.K. is not only absolutely wrong, but is also perpetuating gender stereotypes, when he says that all women want is for someone to listen to them. No. What feminists (assuming, for the moment, that they are all the same) want is to be taken seriously, to have a seat at the table, to participate in social decision-making, to enact change. Who gives a crap about listening; what about an end to discrimination, stereotyping, and violence?
I think what I hate most about the “feminists don’t have a sense of humor” bit is the assumption that it is not possible to simultaneously care about things and have a sense of humor. Although I am quite a politically correct person, I have a sense of humor that constantly throws people for a loop. The faulty assumption is a case of boundary-phobes seeing things in black/white, and not recognizing the existence of people who both appreciate boundaries and like to explore them as well (in fact, it is impossible to explore something that is being destroyed). For example, to those who say my disapproval of Tosh’s joke indicates my lack of a sense of humor... would I automatically get upset about any joke that mentions rape in any context whatsoever? No! (For example.) But do I believe that there are inappropriate contexts and executions of rape jokes? Sure.
The fact of the matter is, I don’t see any reason why comedians should be granted complete immunity. Every social actor bears responsibility for the social implications of their work. The idea that the world of comedy operates by different rules is, to me, a cop out answer.
So, it always turns out that some people are totally offended, while others insist that nothing should be off limits. Personally (and from a partially amateurish social scientific point of view), I do think that the exploration of societal boundaries is a useful function that comedy can perform. Comedy provides a useful means of juxtaposing the expected/stereotypical/acceptable with the unexpected/transgressive/taboo, as well as demonstrating the fuzziness, instability, and arbitrariness of the boundaries and categories we construct. In short, comedy reveals all the intricacies of social life that normally exist below the level of conscious awareness.
But there are other types of comedy that do not perform this function. For example, certain forms of humor serve the purpose of making people feel better about themselves at the expense of others (it may be worthwhile to note, in that regard, that the middle school boys who taunted their bus monitor were inspired by their experiences watching Tosh.0 and their desire to get on the show). This type of comedy includes the brand of “stupid humor” that portrays fictional characters acting unrealistically idiotic, to satisfy people’s pleasure in feeling superior to someone less intelligent.
[I should add that not every portrayal of stupidity falls into this category. For example, the Dylan character on Modern Family is used partially to mock the stereotypical suburban teenage boy and to highlight the disparity between the parents’ expectations for their daughter and the reality of her choices; furthermore, an exchange such as –
Father: I mean, it's the tux I got married in so it's double breasted.
Dylan: Perfect. So am I.
– also serves as a clever linguistic quip.]
Then there is the brand of humor that is based on a desire to liberate oneself from any social norms and say everything that normally goes unspoken (the Saying Poop for the Sake of Saying Poop brand of humor). Some (but not all) of the practitioners of this form of humor argue that boundaries should not exist, and comedians must have free rein. Every time a controversy occurs, these people insist that anyone who is “too sensitive” should not go to comedy clubs, and that comedians can say whatever they want – because, after all, “it’s just comedy.”
Despite all my radical anarchist/antiestablishment tendencies, even I see the necessity of some social norms. Certain boundaries exist because they protect oppressed populations. In particular, certain limits on discourse are necessary to erode assumptions that specific types of people are inferior to others. For example, if it were not taboo to say (overtly) that black people are less intelligent, then there would certainly be more people who believe such nonsense actually expressing it openly, and these open affirmations of belief would reinforce one another, further entrenching racism in the collective conscious of society. To those who doubt the power of the Word, I would point out that the prevalence and circulation patterns of discourse always affect social reality, and that is why efforts at social control always begin with discourse (propaganda). I should also point out that I am NOT arguing that: 1) Social norms require legal enforcement; or 2) We can make problems go away simply by not talking about them. My claim is simply that discourse – any kind of discourse – has social consequences, and therefore, limitations on discourse may be useful in mitigating (though not necessarily eradicating) certain negative consequences for oppressed groups.
I believe that only the first form of humor that I described above is socially productive. I think the second lacks insight and can be personally damaging in many cases. And the third tends to be employed (by coincidence and not necessity) by comedians who are ultimately unable to think beyond commonplace assumptions. These comedians, in their quest to eradicate boundaries, are not attempting to challenge the social order or dominant ideologies, but merely fighting for their ability to express already hegemonic ideas (about race, gender, sexuality) in the crudest possible terms.
I also want to respond to the common argument that these controversies are the fault of people who are too easily offended. For example, in Louis C.K.’s odd and inconsistent reaction to the Tosh/rape controversy on the Daily Show, he made the “joke” that “feminists don’t have a sense of humor.” There are a couple of reasons why I don’t find this funny. Number one is that, from a purely comedic standpoint, lines get progressively less funny the more they are repeated and I have heard this one far too many times. But more importantly, this “joke” about feminists is generally used to undermine the legitimacy of their claims. It is a license to not take feminists seriously. It is also a power-trip. What angered me most was when Louis C.K. said, “Okay, we’ve listened to you. Now shut the f*** up.” It reminds me of being at work, when I compile reams of data and logical arguments to try to influence courses of action within my department.... and I’m told, in effect: “Okay, we’ve listened to you. Now shut the f*** up.” The fact is this: Louis C.K. is not only absolutely wrong, but is also perpetuating gender stereotypes, when he says that all women want is for someone to listen to them. No. What feminists (assuming, for the moment, that they are all the same) want is to be taken seriously, to have a seat at the table, to participate in social decision-making, to enact change. Who gives a crap about listening; what about an end to discrimination, stereotyping, and violence?
I think what I hate most about the “feminists don’t have a sense of humor” bit is the assumption that it is not possible to simultaneously care about things and have a sense of humor. Although I am quite a politically correct person, I have a sense of humor that constantly throws people for a loop. The faulty assumption is a case of boundary-phobes seeing things in black/white, and not recognizing the existence of people who both appreciate boundaries and like to explore them as well (in fact, it is impossible to explore something that is being destroyed). For example, to those who say my disapproval of Tosh’s joke indicates my lack of a sense of humor... would I automatically get upset about any joke that mentions rape in any context whatsoever? No! (For example.) But do I believe that there are inappropriate contexts and executions of rape jokes? Sure.
The fact of the matter is, I don’t see any reason why comedians should be granted complete immunity. Every social actor bears responsibility for the social implications of their work. The idea that the world of comedy operates by different rules is, to me, a cop out answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)