Rape
 What Nobody
Wants To Admit About Rape Culture Myths and Facts
about Male Victims and Rape
When Is It
Rape? It also ruled that statements such as "I should go home" constitute an unambiguous "no" on the woman's part. The definition of rape has evolved again. What are the facts of the case? Seventeen-year-old Laura T. attended an otherwise all-male party at which she did not drink. After allowing two teenaged boys to undress and fondle her in a bedroom -- acts she admitted enjoying -- she had sex with each. Laura did not say the word "no" nor did she resist. Instead, she said, "I have to go home." Because John Z. continued for approximately four minutes after she first expressed what might have been reluctance, he was convicted of rape. Rape is an abomination no civilized society can tolerate. But precisely because rape is such a serious crime, it is important to establish explicit and reasonable standards by which to judge the guilt or innocence of those accused. If a woman (or man) clearly says "stop" during consensual sex, then the partner should be morally and legally constrained to do just that -- stop. But what if the partner proceeds in good faith on the basis of a "yes" given moments before? Common sense dictates that the rescinded "no" must be explicit and that the partner should have a reasonable amount of time to grasp the changed circumstances. But the court ruled that sex becomes rape the instant the woman rescinds consent and it provided no guidance on what constitutes the withdrawal of consent. The sole dissenting voice, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, found that none of Laura's statements were "unequivocal." Her requests to go home could have been interpreted as a need for reassurance or a request for greater speed. This is a nontrivial point. The law assumes that all adults are responsible agents in sexual matters. (Laura T.'s age was not introduced as a significant factor in the court's conclusion.) The law assumes that women and men are able to make their wants known and, so, have a responsibility to do so. As for the timing issue ... the court relied heavily upon John Z.'s failure to desist immediately. But, as Brown observed, the decision "does not tell us how soon would have been soon enough. Ten seconds? Thirty? A minute? Is persistence the same thing as force?" John Z.'s attorney, Carol Foster, argued that her client should have been given a "reasonable amount of time" in which to withdraw. This is also nontrivial. If John Z. had a reasonable belief of consent, then he should also have a reasonable amount of time to realize circumstances had changed. Brown -- the dissenting judge -- continued, "and even if we conclude persistence should be criminalized in this situation, should the penalty be the same as for forcible rape?" In essence, Brown is asking whether consensual sex that becomes nonconsensual at some point should be treated in the same manner as a back alley rape committed at the point of a knife. Or should there be another category of rape, such as negligence, which carries a lesser penalty? No one wants to return to the '70s when women who took rape cases to trial were emotionally shredded in cross-examinations. None of us long for the days when the reports of a raped woman were summarily dismissed by a cynical police department. But the recent California decision is not a remedy for such problems surrounding the issue of rape. Sixties feminism deserves a lot of credit for bringing sanity to bear on the crime of rape. They broke down a mythology that claimed only "bad" girls who walked alone at night in tight clothing were raped. Research showed exactly the opposite to be true. Every woman was vulnerable to attack, even in her own home and especially from men she knew. Sixties feminism attacked a court system that believed rape complainants were less reliable than other victims. Feminists attacked the "reasonable resistance" requirement imposed by most states; that is, rape was not deemed to have occurred unless the woman had manifested strenuous resistance. Meanwhile, other crimes did not require a victim to resist in order for a crime to have occurred. The prosecution of rape used to be
skewed against women. Now it seems to be skewed against men.
No longer is criminal intent necessary for criminal
guilt
The Laura T. decision may well become a Pandora's Box for false accusations of rape. No longer can the man point to a woman's explicit consent because she can now argue that -- once penetration occurred -- she changed her mind. She need not utter the word "no!" She can merely say, "I have to go home." As the former mainstream feminist
professor Erin O'Connor notes in her blog
Woman
Explains Difference Between Rape And Consent In 5 Tweets To
Men Who Still Don’t Get It “I don’t get how rape is so hard to understand for some men,” she wrote in the first of a series of tweets. “But, if you put it like this, they get it.” Ahmed then goes on to explain the difference using a super simple and effective analogy involving a purse and some money. While it’s pretty sad that she even has to do this, we’re certainly glad that she did. Let’s just hope everybody takes note. Twitter user Nafisa Ahmed used a simple analogy to explain the difference between rape and consent If you ask me for $5, and I'm too drunk to say yes or no, it's not okay to then go ake $5 out of my puse...just because I didn't say "No." The internet was quick to respond to her tweets Walley - I'm not chastising anybody...But being aware of how much alcohol u can consume before u don't know between ys/no is being an adult. What do you think? Michel M. Prins Source: www.boredpanda.com/sexual-assault-consent-analogy-tweets-nafisa-ahmed/
What
Nobody Wants To Admit About Rape Culture The first reaction most people have, upon being told about the concept of rape culture, is to dismiss it. It’s intuitively obvious to them that our society doesn’t condone rape or consider it a trivial matter. Very much the opposite: rape is seen as the worst crime in the world, rapists are considered inhuman monsters, rape is often talked about as worse than murder. (Editor's note: While male-to-male prison rape is common, usually a convict who ends up in prison for rape or child molestation is hated and fears for his life daily. Many of his fellow convicts would rather see him dead which happens quite often.) What nobody wants to admit is that those assumptions and attitudes are rape culture. The key to understanding rape culture is that, in our society, nobody (outside a few MRA bloggers, who are beneath consideration) says “Hey, rape is just fine and dandy!” They say “Rape is awful, it’s vile, it’s the worst crime a human can commit, I am totally opposed to rape.” Yet somehow, when any actual case of rape is put before them, they work to find reasons why it wasn’t really rape, it was something else instead. Those last two sentences depend on and support each other. One of the most common occurrences when a woman has been raped is that her entire sexual history is brought up and used against her. The point of this attack is not that rape is okay, it’s that she’s a slut so she must have consented, right? Therefore it’s not rape. When guys are told “When a woman says no, she means try harder,” it doesn’t mean that rape is okay. It means that a woman is still consenting even if she says no. Therefore it’s not rape. When a man is raped, he’s often outright laughed at. Everyone knows guys are always horny, there’s no way a man wouldn’t consent to sex. Therefore it’s not rape. Perhaps most often, we see the character or friends of an accused rapist being held up as proof that they can’t possibly be guilty. “I’ve known that guy for years, and he’s no rapist!” “How could someone think he’s a rapist? He volunteers at the food bank!” and so on and so forth. Rapists are inhuman monsters, everyone knows that, and this person’s not an inhuman monster. Therefore he’s not a rapist. Therefore it’s not rape. It’s weird to have to say this to adults, but let’s be clear: there’s no such thing as monsters. Every person who’s ever been raped has been raped by a human being. No exceptions. Dehumanizing rapists actually helps perpetuate the very culture it tries to oppose. There’s a certain platonic ideal of rape, a model of what it’s supposed to look like. It was most clearly described, in disturbingly specific detail, by a state senator named Bill Napoli, who thought he was discussing abortion policy: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. That, our cultural subconscious is vaguely aware, is what “legitimate rape” looks like. The further from that image that any given rape gets, the more likely that we’ll pull out our excuses for how it’s not really rape. What’s more, even anti-rape campaigns very often buy into that image. All those lines about how women should carry their keys sticking out between their fingers like Wolverine, all those slogans about women being afraid to walk down the street; they’re all based on defending against Bill Napoli’s legitimate rape. This can’t be repeated enough: most real-life rapes don’t look anything like that. If you’re raped, it will probably be by someone you know, in a place that you usually feel safe. It will definitely not be by a monster, so stop keeping an eye out for monsters. Most likely it will be someone fairly likable in most respects, as most people are. You might have been laughing at their jokes right up until they assaulted you. It is very, very common for people who’ve just been raped to have a hard time admitting that that’s what happened. They’ve heard all the reasons why something doesn’t really count as rape. They’ve probably said or thought some of those rationalizations themselves. So if all those other cases weren’t really rape, theirs must not be either, right? Then, too, rape is the worst crime in the world, the most horrible, traumatic, life-destroying thing that can happen, right? So if they don’t feel completely traumatized and destroyed, it couldn’t really have been rape, right? And the person that raped them isn’t a monster. Maybe they still like their rapist, even love them. Maybe they don’t want to permanently label that person as an inhuman monster. Maybe they just don’t want to accuse someone who’s well-liked and will have an army of defenders arguing that they’re not a monster. Maybe they don’t want to be accused of lying because after all, it obviously wasn’t really rape. So another man or woman just keeps
their mouth shut about what happened, tries to file it away
and forget about it. And another rape ends up being condoned
by a society that vociferously does not condone rape. And
nobody wants to talk about how this happens, because saying
that rapists are human beings, and human beings commit rape,
sounds like being insufficiently anti-rape. We would rather
condone actual rape than appear to not oppose imaginary rape
strongly enough. Think
"No" means "No"? A far-reaching anti-choice bill, introduced by Republican Chris Smith and supported by 173 members of the House, includes a provision that could redefine rape and set women's rights back by decades.1 Right now, federal dollars can't be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger. But according to the New York Times, the Smith bill would narrow that use to "cases of 'forcible' rape but not statutory or coerced rape."2 This could mean cases where women are "drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes" would no longer count as rape.3 As far too many women know, bruises and broken bones do not define rape—a lack of consent does. The Smith bill is scary. And with 173 supporters it already has a frightening chance of passage—unless the public speaks up right away with an outcry that can't be ignored. Can you sign the petition to Congress today, demanding they oppose the sexist, anti-choice Smith bill? The petition says: "Bruises and broken bones do not define rape—a lack of consent does. Stand up and oppose the dangerous GOP legislation to redefine rape." Federal funds are already severely restricted when it comes to reproductive rights and women's health care, a situation that ends up hurting lower-income women in particular, who tend to use federally-funded services more often than wealthy women. The last thing we ought to be doing is legislating to make these laws more stringent. In addition, the Smith bill is full of dangerous anti-choice provisions as well as the rape redefinition. Called "Stupak on Steroids" by NARAL Pro-Choice America in reference to Rep. Bart Stupak's failed attempt to push stringent restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion during the health care debate, it would "force millions of American families to pay more taxes if their health plan covers abortion care, jeopardizing abortion coverage in the private market."4 The Smith bill is just the first of many attacks on women's rights to come in the new GOP-controlled House.5 If it moves forward, it would set an incredibly dangerous precedent for GOP action in the House for the next two years. Can you sign the petition asking
Congress to denounce the Smith bill to redefine rape? Click
here: pol.moveon.org/smithbill/?id=25965-299027-G0utnUx&t=4
Sources: 1. "The House GOP's Plan to Redefine
Rape," Mother Jones, January 28, 2011
www.moveon.org/r?r=205936&id=25965-299027-G0utnUx&t=5
"Stupak on Steroids," The Hill,
January 25, 2011 www.moveon.org/r?r=205938&id=25965-299027-G0utnUx&t=6
2. "The Two Abortion Wars: A Highly
Intrusive Federal Bill," New York Times, January 29,
2011 www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/opinion/30sun1.html
3. "The House GOP's Plan to Redefine
Rape," Mother Jones, January 28, 2011
www.moveon.org/r?r=205936&id=25965-299027-G0utnUx&t=7
"Stupak on Steroids," The Hill,
January 25, 2011 www.moveon.org/r?r=205938&id=25965-299027-G0utnUx&t=8
5. Ibid. Worst States For
Pregnant Rape Victims This bill will not pass, as Democrats control both chambers of New Mexico's state legislature, but there are plenty of other state laws that extend the nightmare for women who are impregnated through rape. Of the 26 states that require a waiting period (usually 24 hours) for women seeking abortions, only Utah makes an exception for cases of rape or incest. Pregnant rape victims in some states must also undergo counseling about the negative effects of abortion before having the procedure. If a woman who conceives through rape does go on to have the child, she can open herself up to being victimized by her rapist again and again. In 31 states, paternal rapists are allowed to sue for custody and visitation rights like any other father, as a Chicago woman who was served with custody papers from her rapist brought to the public's attention last summer after former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) made his "legitimate rape" comments. Even in the states that don't protect the parental rights of rapists, many rapes never lead to a conviction and certain provisions can make it difficult for a woman impregnated through sexual assault to keep her attacker out of her and her child's life. Mother Jones reports: But of the 19 states that have laws addressing the custody of rape-conceived children, 13 require proof of conviction in order to waive the rapist's parental rights. Two more states have provisions on the issue that only apply if the victim is a minor or, in one of those cases, a stepchild or adopted child of the rapist. Another three states don't have laws that deal with custody of a rapist's child specifically, but do restrict the parental rights of a father or mother who sexually abused the other parent. Rape Victims in
Louisiana Are Being Charged for Hospital Exams 1 in 5 U.S. Women Are Raped at Some Point, Report Says Some rape victims in Louisiana are being forced to literally pay the price of their own assault. An investigation by the Times-Picayune found that many victims of sexual assault were being billed by hospitals after they sought treatment and, in some cases, were charged thousands of dollars. Though the Violence Against Women Act was amended in 2005 to stipulate that sexual assault victims should not be billed for medical forensic exams in the wake of their attack, the requirements only include the basics for a rape kit or SANE exam, such as “an examination of physical trauma, a determination of penetration or force, a patient interview and collection of evidence.” “By that definition,” reports Rebecca Catalanello in the Times-Picayune, “costs for procedures that are a regular part of the SANE screening — pregnancy tests and HIV tests, among them — could be considered extra. And, in many cases throughout Louisiana and the United States, they are.” Some of the women who spoke to the Times-Picayune reported they had been billed for simply being admitted to the emergency room, despite being required to do so in order to have their exam completed. One woman, who was violently sexually assaulted, received two medical bills following her visit to the hospital, which came to $4,200. Her mother told the Times-Picayune, “You know what really gets me? Prisoners in Angola [the Louisiana State Penitentiary] get medical treatment for free.” Some of the costs can be recouped by victims, as long as they apply for reimbursement from the Louisiana Crime Victims Reparations Board. Yet there are conditions: Victims must file charges against their rapists, and must also be clear of felonies on their own records (at least within the past five years). Victims also can’t have been involved in illegal activity at the time of the rape, which could include underage drinking. What’s more, the victim must not “have behaved in a way that, in the opinion of the board, ‘contributed to the crime.'” Yet Louisiana doesn’t appear to be an outlier. According to the Times-Picayune, only 15 states pay for tests for STIs and medication prescribed in the course of a forensic exam and only 13 states pay for pregnancy tests. There are only 10 states that cover the cost of emergency room fees for sexual assault victims and the number of states that cover the cost of treating injuries sustained during a sexual assault is a mere five. This practice could have serious consequences. While law enforcement workers and victim advocates often lament that only around a third of rape victims actually report their attack to the police, the possibility of being saddled with exorbitant bills for medical treatment could deter victims from seeking medical treatment. And without the forensic exams, valuable evidence against the rapist is unlikely to be collected, which would likely hinder prosecution of the victim did file a report at any time. But while Catalanello’s
investigation is an upsetting read, the report has already
made waves. In a statement released after the
Times-Picayune piece was published, the Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals said, “We take a
strong stand against sexual violence. Our heart goes out to
victims of these crimes. This is a result of disjointed
local parish health policies, as well as a poor legacy
charity system that was run inefficiently for many years. We
will work with the Legislature and the partners to address
this and ensure sexual assault victims are provided the
services they need, and also make sure we are doing
everything we can to fight sexual violence.” FBI Rape
definition expanded to include male victims The new definition will increase the number of people counted as rape victims in FBI statistics, but it will not change federal or state laws or alter charges or prosecutions. The issue received top-level White House attention starting in July, when Vice President Joe Biden raised it at a Cabinet meeting. Biden, author of the Violence Against Women Act when he was in the Senate, said the new definition is a victory for women and men. "We can't solve it unless we know the full extent of it," the vice president said. Since 1929, the FBI has defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. The revised definition covers any gender of victim or attacker and includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age. Physical resistance is not required. The Justice Department said the new definition mirrors the majority of state rape statutes now on the books. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said all rape victims "should have access to the comprehensive services that will help them rebuild their lives." In November, Leahy introduced legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and provide an increased emphasis on efforts to stop sexual assault. "We've always had a broad definition of who is eligible for services, and the change could result in additional resources being made available for survivors of rape," said Linda McFarlane, deputy executive director of Just Detention International. The nonprofit human rights organization works to eliminate sexual abuse in prisons and other detention settings. Congress approved $592 million this year to address violence against women, including sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, under the Violence Against Women Act and Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. The Obama administration had sought $777 million to combat violence against women. Using the old definition, a total of 84,767 rapes were reported nationwide in 2010, according to the FBI's uniform crime report based on data from 18,000 law enforcement agencies. Nearly 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men in
the United States have been raped at some time in their
lives, according to a 2010 survey by the National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control. Myths and Facts
about Male Victims and Rape Rape is an act of violence in which sex becomes the weapon used to control and or harm a victim the rapist perceives as vulnerable. Myth: Men and boys cannot be raped. One in six men report having been sexually abused by the time they were 18 (Finkelhor et al., 1990). Anyone from infants to the elderly, regardless of gender, race, religion, socio-economic status, education, physical appearance, marital status, or culture can be raped. Rapists choose their victims carefully, looking for anything that will make the victim vulnerable and give them the advantage. They isolate their victims from bystanders who could help them, and rely upon shock, surprise, weapons, threats, strength, or positions of authority to counter the victim’s ability to resist. Myth: Homosexual males perpetrate most sexual abuse of boys. Men who sexually abuse males are usually pedophiles or persons who prefer a child as their sexual partner, not homosexual males. Most perpetrators know their victims (Groth et al., 1989) (Roesler et al., 1994). Myth: A man or boy who experiences sexual arousal or orgasm during the abusive act enjoyed it. Males may respond to stimulation even when it is abusive or violent. A man or boy who experiences sexual arousal may feel shame and guilt, but the arousal does not mean that he was willing or enjoyed it (Gartner, 1999). Myth: Boys abused by males are or will become homosexual. A boy may question or be confused about his sexual identity and orientation after having been abused by a male, especially if he experienced sexual arousal. But there is no reason to believe that sexual abuse causes homosexuality (Gartner, 1999). Myth: Boys who are sexually abused will grow up to be sexual abusers. While the majority of sexual abusers were abused themselves, the majority of sexually abused boys never become perpetrators (Lisak et al., 1996). Myth: If the perpetrator is a female, the boy should consider himself lucky, not abused. Our societal norms encourage a boy to deny any negative or traumatic responses to having been “so lucky,” to having earned a “badge of honor.” But, having been coerced or manipulated into sex by an older girl or woman is always abusive and often damaging (Lisak et al., 1996). Comments: Monika said... Great myth busting, and great link. (It seems to be linked incorrectly, however, on your post; I think blogger sometimes does that). There are also some great books out
there for male survivors. An autobiography I read that I
found particularly moving was Sheldon Kennedy's "Why I
didn't say anything" www.amazon.ca/Why-Didnt-Say-Anything-Sheldon/dp/1897178077
Kennedy did a great job of showing the complexities male survivors (and survivors in general) experience. In my experience (I am a sexual assault/abuse therapist), men and boys are really hit with the "you are going to be an offender" myth, as well as homophobia / "you are going to turn out gay" - both of which are often well internalized. Just as there needs to be greater awareness about sexual violence in general, so does there need to be greater awareness about male survivors, specifically. Thanks for the education! Men
Against Sexual Violence: Sexually Abused Males by Joe
Kort Tell
the FBI: Rape is Rape! This excludes rapes involving forced anal sex and/or oral sex, vaginal or anal fisting, rape with an object (even if serious injuries result), rapes of men and transgender people and other injurious and degrading sexual assaults. Also, because the definition includes the word “forcibly,” police departments often interpret the rule (against UCR guidelines) as leaving out rapes of women with physical or mental disabilities and those who were unconscious or under the influence of drugs and alcohol. A recent Ms. investigation revealed that the archaic definition plays a key role in the vast underreporting of rape in the U.S.:
Without an accurate definition, we won't have accurate statistics about rape, and without accurate statistics, we will never have adequate funding for law enforcement to solve these crimes. A change in the definition of rape would lead to better law enforcement response and could thus reduce dramatically the incidence of rape. It’s high time for a change. For rape survivors, a modern definition of rape at the federal level would acknowledge, once and for all, that rape is rape—and that the stories and experiences of all rape survivors (women and men, gay or straight) count. Make sure that all rapes are counted. Sign this petition to tell FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General Eric Holder to update the overly narrow, outdated “forcible rape” definition. Read Petition Letter Change the "forcible" rape definition Greetings, I was shocked to learn that the FBI uses an archaic definition of rape (“The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will”) to gather statistics for the Uniform Crime Report. This definition, drafted more than 80 years ago, is problematic for many reasons, chief among them that it excludes victims of forced anal or oral sex, rape with an object, statutory rape, and male rape. Moreover, this definition is often used by law enforcement to exclude rapes of women whose ability to give consent has been diminished by drugs or alcohol. This poses several problems: 1. This archaic definition of what constitutes "real rape" affects perception of the crime by law enforcement, and likely impacts the treatment of rape victims 2. With such an incomplete description, the FBI has undercounted rapes by hundreds of thousands of cases, resulting in an inaccurate understanding of the scope of the problem. 3. Without accurate rape statistics, allocation of funding to (and within) local law enforcement to combat and investigate crime will be misdirected away from this terrible crime. It’s high time for the FBI to recognize this error and modernize the definition to reflect the reality of rape in the United States. Please update the Uniform Crime Report so that the definition of rape includes all victims. Every rape should be counted. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, [Your name] If a Woman
Isn’t Bruised and Bleeding, Will Her Rape Be
Counted? After a week of intense pressure, Rep. Smith dropped the term “forcible” from the controversial bill. Problem solved? Hardly. In fact, the concept of “forcible rape” has long been used and is still being used to limit the reporting of rape at the federal level. Since 1929, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR), which tallies all crimes reported to local law enforcement each year, has used this archaic definition of rape: “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” That counts some rapes, certainly. But what gets left out? Plenty. The UCR’s definition excludes victims of nonconsensual sodomy and oral sex, and those raped with fingers, fists or objects. And all male victims, of course. Also, because the definition includes the word “forcibly,” police departments often interpret the rule (against UCR guidelines) as leaving out rapes of women with physical or mental disabilities and those who were unconscious or under the influence of drugs and alcohol (despite the fact that at least 22 percent of all rapes involve those substances or incapacitated victims—and some studies put the number as high as 77 percent). The assumption, strangely, is that those women weren’t “forced.” The UCR definition, both in its wording and its effect on police practices, thus omits a large number of rapes—which then impacts the investigation and prosecution of rapists. Some studies have shown that 90 to 95 percent of rapes are committed by serial rapists. If those serial predators are not prosecuted, they’re free to rape again and again. And that’s why a change in the definition of rape would lead to better law enforcement response and could thus reduce dramatically the incidence of rape. A modern definition would include sex of all kinds without consent. It would embrace victims regardless of sex, gender, age, disability, consciousness or level of intoxication. And it would encompass incest; rape with an object, finger or fist; and sodomy or oral copulation without consent. Joanne Archambault, a sexual-assault-investigation expert and founder of the nonprofit End Violence Against Women International, insists that the UCR’s definition of rape sends a frightening message to society about what types of sexual assaults matter. “The fact that it only tracks forced penile-vaginal rape says a lot,” she points out. “Are we saying all those other ones aren’t important? Of course they are.” She adds that the UCR definition feeds into social stereotypes about who is a “real” rape victim, which have a huge impact on rape reporting. “When they’re first assaulted,” she says, “[rape survivors] aren’t thinking of law enforcement; they’re thinking of safety. They go to their friends, loved ones, family first.” If a rape survivor isn’t validated by her community, she’s less likely to report the crime. It’s high time for a change. For rape survivors, a modern definition of rape at the federal level would acknowledge, once and for all, that rape is rape—and that the stories and experiences of all rape survivors count. This is an excerpt from the cover story in the Spring issue of Ms. magazine. For the entire story, look for Ms. on your newsstands or join the Ms. community and have a copy of the magazine delivered to your door. Comments on this piece? We want to hear them! Send to letterstotheeditor@msmagazine.com. To have your letter considered for publication, please include your city and state. Want to help fight rape in your own
community? Join the No More Excuses! campaign of the
Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. magazine and demand
that the FBI change its outmoded definition of rape, that
city police departments test every rape kit in their backlog
and that cities make sure untested kits don’t
accumulate again. Go to our online campaign headquarters
where you’ll be directed to letters you can send to FBI
director Robert Mueller and U.S. Attorney General Eric
Holder. You can also order a local take-action package that
includes a dramatic video about the rape-kit backlog by
Lorraine Sheinberg and Susan Rubin and ideas for making a
difference on this vital issue. Teen Slang: Why The Word 'Rape'
Should Never Be Used Casually Words, like most other teenage cultural expressions, go in and out of fashion. And though certain phrases we use on a daily basis can leave older generations perplexed, they are often harmless and insignificant. However, the increasing use of the weighted word “rape” as a casual slang term threatens to do much more than raise a few parental eyebrows. The word “rape” is generally used by high school students either negatively, to represent mental or physical injury or damage, (“Wow, that math test totally raped me.”) or positively, to represent beating, winning, or acing something. (“Oh yeah, I just raped that math test.”). The use of “rape” in such a casual way misrepresents the gravity of sexual assault. Rape is no laughing matter. In the United States, approximately 16 percent of women and three percent of men have been victims of attempted or completed rape. Fifteen percent of sexual assault victims are under 12. Sexual assault victims are three times more likely to suffer from depression and four times more likely to contemplate suicide than non-victims. Therefore, the use of rape as a positive term is confusing and worrying. How can committing an act of rape be equated to winning or doing something well? There is nothing glamorous about rape, and nothing “cool” about committing sexual assault. The negative use of the word ”rape” is not much better. Losing a sports game or doing badly on a test is nowhere near comparable to being a victim of rape. Imagine how a victim of sexual assault would feel hearing the word thrown around so casually. Sure, rape is not the only word used in this context. “Kill” has often been used in exactly the same way, and complaints about it are few and far between. The use of murder in this context, however, is not as problematic as that of rape. The two words, while perhaps interchangeable in a sentence, are different entities with different histories. For the last several centuries, murder has been universally accepted as the horrible crime that it is. When a murder is reported, it is always investigated and taken seriously. Even young children know and understand that killing is wrong. Rape, however, still has a long way to go in terms of awareness, understanding, and prosecution. Almost all rapists (94 percent) do not spend even a day in jail. On average for the past five years, 60 percent of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Even when a rape is reported, there is only a 50.8 percent chance of an arrest being made, and 31 percent of those convicted of a felony for rape will not spend time in jail. In addition, rape prevention efforts and the recognition of marital rape as a crime did not come about until fairly recently, contrary to what one might assume. The first legally incorporated rape crisis center was not established until 1972. Every U.S. state had a marital rape exemption law, which stated that a husband raping his wife was not a crime, until 1975, when South Dakota became the first to remove it. The last state to remove this exemption, North Carolina, did not do so until 1992. Many countries today still do not view rape within marriage as a crime. In just four decades, the United States has come a long way in terms of assistance for rape victims, education about rape, and prosecution of rapists. But there is still a long way to go in both our own country and others. We need to start by treating rape as the serious issue that it is. How can students in our generation understand the damage and severity of rape when it is thrown around in every other sentence? How can the 60 percent of sexual assault victims who do not report the crime to the police find the courage to do so when “rape” is used jokingly and treated as “nothing”? I know that the students who use the word “rape” in a casual way usually do not mean anything by it. They do not condone rape or think that it is a good thing. I know that there have been times I’ve used the word more lightly that I should have. But in this case, intention doesn’t count. Even if you don’t think rape is insignificant or funny, using it as a slang term sends the message that you do. There is nothing funny, glamorous, or
casual about rape. Committing an act of rape does not make
you cool, powerful, or superior. As high schoolers, we
should know this. So why can’t our vocabulary reflect
that knowledge? Ohio
school rape victim didn't consent, prosecutor says But a lawyer for the defendant said his 17-year-old client "did not rape the young lady in question." Special Prosecutor Marianne Hemmeter and the defendant's attorney, Brian Duncan, spoke at the opening of the juvenile court trial, which has drawn international attention to a small town in a football-loving region of eastern Ohio. Hemmeter told Judge Thomas Lipps, who is hearing the case without a jury, that she would show that the girl was "somebody who was too impaired to say no, somebody who was too impaired to say stop." The attorney for the other defendant, 16, gave no opening statement. The case has divided the community amid allegations that more students should have been charged. It also has led to questions about the influence of the local football team, a source of a pride in a community that suffered massive job losses with the collapse of the steel industry. The defendants are charged with digitally penetrating the West Virginia girl, first in the back seat of a moving car after a party and then in the basement of a house. The 17-year-old defendant also is charged with illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material. Witnesses said the girl was so drunk she threw up at least twice and had trouble walking and speaking. She also was photographed being carried by the two boys. In an excerpt of a videotaped interview with ABC's "20/20," Richmond said the photo was a joke. He contends the girl was awake and was a willing participant, the show said. Following opening statements, prosecutors presented two witnesses, 17-year-old girls who saw the girl the night of the party. Questions by prosecutors and defense lawyers focused on how much the girl had been drinking that night. One of the 17-year-old girls, a Steubenville High School student, said the 16-year-old girl was having trouble walking but never appeared to pass out. The other 17-year-old girl said she had never seen her friend so intoxicated. If convicted, the defendants, who deny any wrongdoing, could be held in a juvenile jail until they turn 21. They were charged 10 days after the party, after a flurry of social media postings about the alleged attack led the girl and her family to go to police. Steubenville officials have protested that outsiders have unfairly criticized police handling of the case and have given Steubenville a black eye. Officials created a website to counter misinformation about the case, disputing, for example, the allegation that the police department is full of ex-football players from the local powerhouse team, nicknamed Big Red. Hacker activists have publicized tweets and other social media postings made the night of the alleged rape, including a 12-minute video in which one student joked about it while others in the background chimed in. The National Organization of Women has demanded that the student be charged under the state's failure to report law. Attorney General Mike DeWine has called the video disgusting but said the student didn't have firsthand knowledge of the alleged assaults. Bob Fitzsimmons, a lawyer for the girl's family, said, "The family wants this matter over so they can move on with their lives and their daughter's healing." Dozens of witnesses for both sides were expected to testify at the trial. Their testimony is considered crucial because the girl was severely intoxicated that night and appeared to be passed out at times, according to several witnesses. Editors’ Note: The Associated
Press named the suspects in the case but FoxNews.com did not
because the trial is being held in juvenile court. Student
says school rules punished her for reporting rape Actual
leter: Hot
Link - Rape Culture? The video, presented by Caroline Kitchens from the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank), offers a counterargument, backed up by a few statistics. The original one-in-five statistic was based, according to Kitchens, on a fairly superficial study: self-reporting from 5000-plus women in two colleges, one in the Midwest and one in the South. Kitchens claims that the study was flawed in numerous other ways, including using the Internet to send a questionnaire to the respondents and not verifying their claims. Rape and other sexual crimes are serious issues, and should be punished accordingly. And if true, the one-in-five statistic should have young women and their parents very nervous. In case you don't bother with Kitchens's video, here's the gist, according to studies cited by Kitchens: Rape is on a long-term decline generally; the rate is more like one in over 50 (still horrible); college-educated women are less likely to be raped on a college campus than off a college campus. Kitchens also makes a logical point: if the one-in-five statistic were true, many or most parents wouldn't be sending their daughters to college. Initially, given the studies Kitchens cites, I tended to go along with her analysis, even though her references whizzed by as I watched. My wife encouraged me to dig deeper, and I found myself in a labyrinth of data, claims, and conclusions. Kitchens's video is just over five minutes long - not a sure indication of superficial reporting, but the statistics she cites did go by pretty quickly. On my second viewing, I had to go back over small sections of the video, hitting "pause," just to be clear about what she was saying and to get some references I could look up. And then I hit Google. It seems that both the proponents and debunkers of "rape culture" have some valid points. I started with a story by Alia Wong in the online edition of The Atlantic: "Why the Prevalence of Campus Sexual Assault Is So Hard to Quantify: Every statistic seems to be contradicted by another one" (January 26, 2016). There are many links to external sources in the article, and though I highly recommend this article, I admit that it could become difficult to navigate the labyrinth of popular-press articles and government studies. One link was to the 2007
US Department of Justice
I followed many other links in the Atlantic article and in the articles it sent me to - which I doubt you'll bother with. One article concluded that rather than a pervasive rape culture on college campuses, there was a small percentage of men committing the vast majority of rapes. If you've stayed with me this far (thank you), let me just stick my own nose into the situation: Is there a true rape culture on college campuses? Probably not. Does Kitchens's video, by itself, make a definitive case against the term "rape culture"? Probably not. Bottom line from the mixed salad of articles on the Internet? Sexual assault of all kinds is real (and horrible); reporting of incidents and prosecuting of perpetrators needs to be made easier and less traumatizing to the victims; accused perpetrators deserve due process (not only to mitigate false accusations but because due process is guaranteed by the Constitution); convicted perpetrators need to be punished severely. Finally: There is a lot of room for intensified efforts at education, in academic institutions and in the wider society, of all aspects of sexual assault - from prevention to victim empowerment. And here's my educational message for readers of Menletter: If you think rape or assault is okay; if you think women "have it coming to them" or that they are merely objects for your pleasure: over ninety percent of the men around you consider you to be the worst kind of scum. You're not only making the rest of us look bad, you're making our sincere attempts at romantic connection a lot harder. And, of course, you're needlessly traumatizing women. Clean up your act. Aftermath: A Broader Issue There's a broader issue, beyond the discussion above, about research and the way popular culture and the Internet mess things up. When a set of claims about a problem becomes a meme (as I think happened with the term "rape culture" and the Super Bowl claim in the next paragraph), the meme takes over and stops or distorts further inquiry, into both the underlying facts and the best ways to address the problem. Some supposed phenomena, ostensibly backed up by purported statistics, but with dubious factual support, take on lives of their own. As memes, they are hard to refute, and factual evidence is ignored or discounted as politically motivated. An example from 1993 was that domestic
abuse skyrocketed on Super Bowl Sunday - apparently
perpetrated by
testosterone-poisoned
Even ostensibly scientific medical
investigation is not immune to playing around with facts and
coming to preordained conclusions. An example is a meta
study of research, leading to the questionable claim that
men should not be screened for prostate cancer. See my
articles here
Due diligence Any claim, especially one that gains wide distribution, can be solid, or it can be the result of a combination of careless research, a political agenda, a compliant media machine, lazy journalism, and sometimes downright dishonesty. This applies not only to social issues but to "hard" science research, medicine, and anything else for which results are supposed to be backed by numbers. It's always a good idea to check out Snopes, but also to seek out further information by following links in online articles and by Googling the study, the authors, and other research on the topic. Specifically, what question was being asked? Was it asked in such a way as to bias the numbers? How much data were collected? How much of the data was cherry-picked, ignored, or set aside? Does the interpretation match the data or lapse into speculaton? Who is making claims, and what is their affiliation? What other, independent studies are cited? Is the article we're reading a rehash in the popular press or websites? This kind of due diligence can be difficult, time-consuming, confusing, and annoying. I certainly discovered that in trying to untangle the skein of information and misinformation about rape culture. But that's what due diligence is all about. It can keep us from going crazy or from spouting counterarguments with no backup. Should We Answer? As men, we have a vested interest in claims having to do with violence, crime, assault, the wage gap, and any other claim purporting that all men or most men or even lots of men do harmful things. When we hear something that sounds fishy (like the one-in-five meme being equated to rape culture), it probably doesn't do us a lot of good launching into a verbal dueling match - mansplaining, you know. I suggest listening carefully and then saying: "Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree. But I don't have enough information to form a clear response. I'll get back to you." And I suppose it's a bad idea to say anything that can be quoted to others with intentional or unintentional misinterpretation. This gives us breathing space to do a little research and to decide whether the "get back to you" part is worth doing. A lot of times, it's not worth it. The readers of Menletter are mostly of like mind and agreeable. And I get to write and edit my thoughts. But in the heat of a verbal exchange, with someone who is angry and unmovable, I try (my ego doesn't always cooperate) to disengage. [Many many thanks to my wife, Ann,
for encouraging me to do my own due diligence for this
article.] Margaret
Lazarus Documents Human Rights Violations Margaret Lazarus has been confronting issues and encouraging social consciousness in documentary films for over 25 years. Margaret and her partner Renner Wunderlich founded Cambridge Documentary Films in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1974. Margaret Lazarus has documented such diverse topics as alcohol in advertising, the power of trauma and recovery, the threat of nuclear weapons, media literacy, homophobia, the labor movement, gender roles, reproductive health hazards, the women's health movement, gay and lesbian parenting, and how women are perceived and perceive themselves in society. She received an Academy Award for "Defending Our Lives," a powerful film about eight women in Framingham Prison incarcerated for murdering their abusive husbands. Her film "Rape is..." has also received praise and much attention, appearing in festivals, selected for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and UCLA/Film Department series of "outstanding documentaries" and honored as winner of the 2003 PASS Award from the National Council on Crime. I met Margaret Lazarus recently in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where she was a presenter in a panel discussion about Documentary Filmmaking at the Women, Action and the Media Conference put together by The Center for New Words and co-sponsored by the MIT Program in Women's Studies. I talked with Margaret about what she does and how she confronts social issues in filmmaking. Cate Woodruff: Margaret, what inspired you to choose documentary film as way to communicate? Margaret Lazarus: My interest began when I was just out of college and was interested in visual arts as well as social activism. I thought that all you had to do was show people injustice and things would change. I thought documentary was the perfect way to do that. Over the years, I have seen that it is not that simple. Documentary can be an important tool in social change, but it needs to be used in very specific ways. Woodruff: "Rape is..." is your second piece about rape. You first explored this topic in a film called "Rape Culture" about 20 years ago. Was the film "Rape is..." a way to expand the perspective of the issue of rape? Lazarus: "Rape Culture" (1974-5) explored how myths and media contributed to a culture that tolerated acquaintance rape and found ways to blame the victim for stranger rape. We came up with the term "rape culture," and the phrase and the ideas became widely spread throughout community organizations, universities and health institutions. It was an eye-opening concept then, but it was clear that we needed to revisit the subject with new ideas and respond to new developments in the struggle against sexual violence. We thought it was important to expand how we think about rape; to show the relationship between the rape of children, rape of men in prison, rape of prostitutes, rape of trafficked women and children, rape of civilians during war, and the more "traditional" concepts of rape. An important part of our work as filmmakers is that we also do the work to distribute our films. In this way we are in contact with the people who actually use and screen our films. We had been hearing from many of them that what was needed was a new film on rape that went beyond what was out there. We responded by making "Rape is..." and hope that we were able to create something that helps the educators and organizers working to end sexual violence. Woodruff: "Rape is..." explores the meaning and consequences of rape and also looks at rape from a global and historical perspective. What domestic cultural conditions make this human rights violation the most underreported crime in America? Lazarus: I am so glad you described rape as a human rights violation. When we produced our film, "Defending Our Lives," about domestic violence, one of the most important things we wanted to show, was that domestic violence is a human rights violation. In fact, at the very beginning, a former DA, who was a battered woman, describes domestic violence and then says, "Am I talking about something that Amnesty International is asking you to write about? No, I am talking about domestic violence as it exists in America." When we decided to make a new film on rape, the idea that rape is a human rights violation became the underlying organizational theme. There are many reasons why rape is so vastly underreported. In the first place, anything to do with sexuality in our society is surrounded with secrecy and shame. There is also a great unwillingness to be perceived as a victim, and that happens when one comes forward to report a rape, but perhaps the most powerful disincentive to reporting is what happens to someone who does report a rape. In our legal system, in order to avoid prosecution, the defendant must attack the credibility of the accuser. She is not believed and is described as complicit in the act or as someone who is exacting some unjustified retribution against the defendant. After experiencing the horrible trauma of being raped, it is difficult to contemplate the trauma of a legal proceeding. If we think about how many children have been raped, how many young people are raped on the streets, how many women are raped on dates, how many are raped in marriages, it is very difficult to comprehend how much rape is occurring in our society. Data from the '90s indicated that only 16 percent of rapes were reported, making it the most underreported violent crime. Woodruff: So, many types of sexual assault are not considered a serious crime by the legal system and our society refuses to see the true cost of this brutal denial of basic rights. Rape is not a sporadic and rare occurrence, but a cultural and criminal outrage that affects millions of women, children and men all over the world. How does "Rape is..." expand the narrow ways we think of sexual violence? Lazarus: Many human rights agencies are collecting data about rape from around the world, and this is a growing movement. Information about sex trafficking is also rising in our awareness. We know that this is a massive human rights problem and one that not just affects the person who is raped, but one's entire family and community. Recognizing the magnitude and severity of this problem requires an adjustment of one's world view, and in many cases a relinquishing of power that one group has over another. This is not an easy change. It is in many ways a revolution. "Rape is..." tries to show how big the problem is, how what we term child abuse is rape, how what goes on in prisons removes the gender issues and exposes rape as the power crime that it is, how rape and prostitution are related, how rape is finally being recognized as a war crime and a form of genocide - all things that expand our vision of rape from something that happens when a stranger jumps out of the bushes. Woodruff: What did you hope for when you set out to make "Defending Our Lives" and "Rape is..."? Lazarus: A revolution. Woodruff: You are a filmmaker who makes strong contributions to social justice and social change. Would you like to see more responsibility for social justice and change taken by filmmakers and the media in general? Lazarus: Yes, I always say when I am asked to speak about filmmaking and media - you are what you produce. We all contribute to the cultural climate of our society, and we need to take responsibility for what we say and do. Media makers need to be held accountable for work that contributes to inequity, injustice, maintaining a destructive status quo. Woodruff: What kind of changes would you like to see in the media? Lazarus: This is such a big question. We need transparency - it must be perfectly clear who pays for it and who benefits ... we need diversity - the gateways and portals of information are controlled by a very small number of corporations ... we need accountability - when journalists and other media makers fall into stereotyping a situation, not investigating and reducing real complexity to fit a time slot or entertainment purpose, they need to be held accountable ... we need to acknowledge that the culture we create has real impact on people's lives, and we need to be more active consumers of media - not passive, not accepting - challenging perspectives and seeking information. Woodruff: What do you think needs to be accomplished to set these standards in the media today? Lazarus: It clearly is not a question of censorship or legislation. It is a question of educating media consumers and supporting their ability and efforts to challenge inequity and injustice. Woodruff: How do you think a strong women's media and a media for social justice can affect young people? Lazarus: A strong women's media and a media for social justice can be a model to everyone, especially young people. It can show that there are alternative points of view from what they see in mainstream media. It can be an inspiration. Woodruff: You mentioned earlier that it is important to use documentary films in very specific ways. You are managing to reach into our culture and create change in the way we view and define rape as a human rights issue. An example of this is the way your film "Rape is..." is being used. The US military has recently begun showing "Rape is..." as a training film to educate cadets, is that right? How did that come about? Lazarus: Yes. It came about in an interesting way. The Air Force academy and the military in general have a problem with sexual assault. They acknowledged it and looked to find people to help with raising awareness, training, counseling, and developing protocols to handle the situation. Anti-violence activists, advocates, therapists, medical personnel and others who had been working in the rape crisis movement were the available authorities in this arena, and they were aware of our work. They suggested it be used in training and in curriculums. The film has been sold to the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard. In some cases, recruits view the film as part of their basic training. Woodruff: You teach documentary filmmaking at Tufts University. Do you think our educational system can do more to support social justice? Lazarus: I am extremely fortunate to be part of a program developed by the Tufts University Communications and Media Studies Department and the Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service that offers an intensive course, "Producing Films for Social Change." The course not only teaches the rudiments of nonfiction filmmaking, but also explores how to create media that supports social justice. I don't think that there is anything like this anywhere else, and this is exactly what we need. We need more courses like this. I recognize that this is a demanding and labor-intensive course, but Tufts recognizes the critical component that the media play in shaping our culture and importance of working with young people to give them the tools to be active citizens in this media-driven world. Woodruff: What changes do you think are needed most urgently in the world right now? Lazarus: You do ask hard questions. At this moment I am horrified that the United States is engaged in a preemptive war with unclear aims and thousands are dying. I am horrified at the situation in the Sudan and in other parts of Africa. I feel a looming sense of crisis about burning of carbon fuels and the impact on our environment. I see a growing gap between the rich and poor, both in the US and throughout the world. I see human rights violations against women, immigrants, children, gays and lesbians, and people with less power. I know that there are other areas needing urgent change, but I can't think of them right now. Woodruff: Do you see the movements for social change, justice, minorities, immigrants, gender equality, gay and lesbian rights, labor, peace and the environment as interconnected, and do you think it is important for the media to support this connection? Lazarus: There is a profound connection, and it has to do with power. If we can create a media consciousness, which analyzes who has power and how the powerful benefit, and critiques inequities in the use of power, we are laying the groundwork for a movement towards a more just, peaceful and better world. Woodruff: Do you think we have time to make all these changes? Is that something that worries you? Lazarus: Yes. I worry we cannot decrease carbon dioxide emission soon enough to prevent the destruction of the world as we know it. I worry that we cannot defuse warlike and violent behavior throughout the world soon enough to prevent some group or nation from using massively destructive technology. And the list goes on from there. Woodruff: What are your hopes or dreams for the future? Lazarus: My dream is that we can tap into our natural well of empathy as human beings and struggle against the cultural messages that encourage warlike, vengeful and violent behavior. Woodruff: Well, thank you for bringing us closer to that goal with the important and innovative work you do. And thank you so much, Margaret, for speaking with Truthout, and for allowing our readers and viewers to see parts of your films "Rape is..." and "Defending Our Lives." For information on ordering "Rape
is...," "Defending Our Lives" and other Margaret Lazarus
documentary films, please go to Cambridge
Documentary Films
Rape
and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Jamie can't file U.S. criminal charges because the rape took place overseas, and a fine-print clause in her contract takes away her right to file a lawsuit in the U.S.2 Why? Because big corporations, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have worked for years to prevent workers from suing their employers in almost any circumstance, even sexual assault.3 The good news is that a bipartisan group in Congress is working to protect the rights of rape victims like Jamie. But, shockingly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is fighting it. They sent a letter to Congress saying that it would "set a dangerous precedent" to allow rape victims into court.4 The worst news? The Chamber has enough clout to tie up the bill for years, unless we fight back. Then, forward this petition to your friends so we can keep it going. Jamie Leigh Jones is not alone. Mary Beth Kineston was a truck driver with a private contractor in Iraq when she was sexually assaulted by one coworker and groped by another. When Mary Beth complained to her supervisors, she was fired. Like Jamie, Mary Beth was blocked from bringing charges in U.S. court.5 Workers who are sexually assaulted while working for defense contractors overseas typically have few options. They can't bring charges in the country where the crime was committed, and they are blocked from U.S. courts as well. Their only option is to go before a secretive, private panel where the process is heavily biased in favor of corporations.6 Jamie has teamed up with organizations like the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Public Citizen, and others to end this injustice. Congress is considering an amendment to do just that, but they've run into a massive lobbying campaign led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber says it will "set a
dangerous precedent" to allow these sexual assault victims
to bring their cases to court. "Corrective
Rape" She barely survived, but she is not alone -- this vicious crime is recurrent in South Africa, where lesbians live in terror of attack. But no one has ever been convicted of 'corrective rape'. Amazingly, from a tiny Cape Town safehouse a few brave activists are risking their lives to ensure that Millicent’s case sparks change. Their appeal to the Minister of Justice has exploded to over 140,000 signatures, forcing him to respond on national television. But the Minister has not yet answered their demands for action. Let's shine a light on this horror
from all corners of the world -- if enough of us join in to
amplify and escalate this campaign, we can reach President
Zuma, who is ultimately responsible to uphold constitutional
rights. Let’s call on Zuma and the Minister of Justice
to publicly condemn ‘corrective rape’, criminalise
hate crimes, and ensure immediate enforcement, public
education and protection for survivors. Sign the petition
now and share it with everyone -- we’ll deliver it to
the South African government with our partners in Cape Town:
secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_corrective_rape/?vl
South Africa, often called the Rainbow Nation, is revered globally for its post-apartheid efforts to protect against discrimination. It was the first country to constitutionally protect citizens from discrimination based on sexuality. But in Cape Town alone, the local organization Luleki Sizwe has recorded more than one 'corrective rape' per day, and impunity reigns. 'Corrective rape' is based on the outrageous and utterly false notion that a lesbian woman can be raped to 'make her straight', but this heinous act is not even classified as a hate crime in South Africa. The victims are often black, poor, lesbian women, and profoundly marginalised. But even the 2008 gang rape and murder of Eudy Simelane, the national hero and former star of the South Africa women's national football team, did not turn the tide. And just last week Minister Radebe insisted that motive is irrelevant in crimes like 'corrective rape.' South Africa is the rape capital of the world. A South African girl born today is more likely to be raped than she is to learn to read. Astoundingly, one quarter of South African girls are raped before turning 16. This has many roots: masculine entitlement (62 per cent of boys over 11 believe that forcing someone to have sex is not an act of violence), poverty, crammed settlements, unemployed and disenfranchised men, community acceptance -- and, for the few cases that are courageously reported to authorities, a dismal police response and lax sentencing. This is a human catastrophe. But Luleki Sizwe and partners at Change.org have opened a small window of hope in the fight against it. If the whole world weighs in now, we could get justice for Millicent and national action to end 'corrective rape': This is ultimately a battle with poverty, patriarchy, and homophobia. Ending the tide of rape will require bold leadership and concerted action to spearhead transformative change in South Africa and across the continent. President Zuma is a a Zulu traditionalist, who has himself stood trial for rape. But he condemned the arrest of a gay couple in Malawi last year, and, after massive national and international civic pressure, South Africa finally approved a UN resolution opposing extra-judicial killing in relation to sexual orientation. If enough of us join this global call for action, we could push Zuma to speak out, drive much-needed government action, and begin a national conversation that could fundamentally shift public attitudes toward rape and homophobia in South Africa. Sign on now and spread the word: A case like Millicent’s makes it easy to lose hope. But when citizens come together with one voice, we can succeed in shifting fundamentally unjust, but deeply ingrained practices and norms. Last year, in Uganda, we succeeded in building such a massive wave of public pressure that the government was forced to shelve legislation that would have sentenced gay Ugandans to death. And it was global pressure in support of bold national activists that pushed South African leaders to address the AIDS crisis that was engulfing their country. Let’s join together now and speak out for a world where each and every human being can live without fear of abuse. With hope and determination, Alice, Ricken, Maria Paz, David and the rest of the Avaaz team Blog of Luleki Sizwe, South African
organization leading the call to their government to stop
'corrective rape', and provides support to victims.
lulekisizwe.wordpress.com
Minister of Justice Radebe’s
nationally televised interview (South African Broadcasting
Corporation) www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkx-PYqHM0U
Protest against ‘corrective
rape’ (The Sowetan) www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2011/01/06/protest-against-corrective-rape
Petition launched on Change.org by
activists from Luleki Sizwe humanrights.change.org/petitions/view/south_africa_declare_corrective_rape_a_hate-crime
"South Africa's shame: the rise of
child rape" (The Independent) www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/south-africas-shame-the-rise-of-child-rape-1974578.html
"Exploring homophobic victimisation in
Gauteng, South Africa: issues, impacts, and responses"
(Centre for Applied Psychology, University of South Africa)
www.avaaz.org/out_ucap_gauteng_study
"We have a major problem in South
Africa" (The Guardian) www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/nov/18/south-africa-murder-rape
"South Africa: Rape Facts" (Channel 4)
www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/south-africa-rape-facts
"Understanding men’s health and
use of violence: interface of rape and HIV in South Africa"
(Medical Research Council) gender.care2share.wikispaces.net/file/view/MRC+SA+men+and+rape+ex+summary+june2009.pdf
"Preventing Rape and Violence in South
Africa" (Medical Research Council) www.mrc.ac.za/gender/prev_rapedd041209.pdf
Support the Avaaz community! We're entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way -- donate here. Avaaz.org/en
Through
a Rapist's Eyes (No Joke)
1) The first thing men look for in a potential victim is hairstyle. They are most likely to go after a woman with a ponytail, bun, braid or other hairstyle that can easily be grabbed. They are also likely to go after a woman with long hair. Women with short hair are not common targets. 2) The second thing men look for is clothing. They will look for women who's clothing is easy to remove quickly. Many of them carry scissors around specifically to cut clothing. 3) They also look for women on their cell phone , searching through their purse or doing other activities while walking because they are off guard and can be easily overpowered. 4) Men are most likely to attack & rape in the early morning, between 5:00 a.m. And 8:30 a.m. 5) The number one place women are abducted from/attacked is grocery store parking lots. Number two is office parking lots/garages. Number three is public restrooms. The thing about these men is that they are looking to grab a woman and quickly move her to another location where they don't have to worry about getting caught. 7) Only 2% said they carried weapons because rape carries a 3-5 year sentence but rape with a weapon is 15-20 years. 8) If you put up any kind of a fight at all, they get discouraged because it only takes a minute or two for them to realize that going after you isn't worth it because it will be time-consuming 9) These men said they would not pick on women who have umbrellas, or other similar objects that can be used from a distance, in their hands. Keys are not a deterrent because you have to get really close to the attacker to use them as a weapon. So, the idea is to convince these guys you're not worth it. 10) Several defense mechanisms he taught us are: If someone is following behind you on a street or in a garage or with you in an elevator or stairwell, look them in the face and ask them a question, like what time is it, or make general small talk: "I can't believe it is so cold out here", "we're in for a bad winte r." Now you've seen their face and could identify them in a line-up; you lose appeal as a target. 11) If someone is coming toward you, hold out your hands in front of you and yell STOP or STAY BACK ! Most of the rapists this man talked to said they'd leave a woman alone if she yelled or showed that she would not be afraid to fight back. Again, they are looking for an EASY target. 12) If you carry pepper spray (this instructor was a huge advocate of it and carries it with him wherever he goes,) yell I HAVE PEPPER Spray and holding it out will be a deterrent. 13) If someone grabs you , you ca n't beat them with strength but you can by outsmarting them. If you are grabbed around the waist from behind, pinch the attacker either under the arm (between the elbow and armpit) OR in the upper inner thigh VERY VERY HARD. One woman in a class this guy taught told him she used the underarm pinch on a guy who was trying to date rape her and was so upset she broke through the skin and tore out muscle strands - the guy needed stitches. Try pinching yourself in those places as hard as you can stand it; it hurts. 14) After the initial hit, always GO for the GROIN. I know from a particularly unfortunate experience that if you slap a guy's parts it I S extremely painful. You might think that you'll anger the guy and make him want to hurt you more, but the thing these rapists told our instructor is that they want a woman who will not cause a lot of trouble. Start causing trouble, and he's out of there. 15) When the guy puts his hands up to you, grab his first two fingers and bend them back as far as possible with as much pressure pushing down on them as possible. The instructor did it to me without using much pressure, and I ended up on my knees and both knuckles cracked audibly. 16) Of course the things we always hear still apply. Always be aware of your surroundings, take someone with you if you can and if you see any odd behavior, don't dismiss it, go with your instincts!!! You may feel a little silly at the time, but you'd feel much worse if the guy really was trouble Source: E-Mail Perhaps rape itself is a gesture, a violent repudiation of the female, in the assertion of maleness that would seem to require nothing beyond physical gratification of the crudest kind. The supreme macho gesture - like knocking out an opponent and standing over his fallen body, gloves raised in triumph. - Joyce Carol Oates
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
