Rape is never the victims fault

[theatokos]

Women say some rape victims should take the blame

WHAT? I don't even need to read this entire article to know that women have internalized the hateful misogony of the patriarchy and suffer from self-loathing ideology. Why do women hate each other like this? Rape is NEVER the victim's fault. Even if you're comatose from drinking or you're walking naked down the street. Women make loads of stupid decisions all the time. And there are other consequences of the above actions: alcohol poisoning and the flu, perhaps. But rape? It is not a man's duty to 'punish' me for my stupid actions. Women and men may judge women who make stupid choices and think 'they got what they deserved', but that's not what it is about is it? No. It's about men thinking women are sex objects, that any woman who is passive enough is theirs for taking, that women are sub-human and do not have the dignity that men have. In cases of rape the blame is ALWAYS on the assailant. It is the perpetrator who cannot keep his hands (and other bits) to himself. It is HIS lack of self-control and his lack of honor for other living creatures.

I was date raped when I was 20. I take responsibility for my stupidness. I acknowledge that I was weak and had poor boundaries. I did not report it because it was so.... murky. I was up for fooling around. I was not up for sex. I said no. He didn't listen. We were in my bed. Am I to blame? If you say yes, defriend me right now.

Comments

[erinya.livejournal.com]

Agreed, except I prefer the term and concept kyriarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy) to "patriarchy."

I was thinking while writing my last comment that rape is a form of male-on-female gender role enforcement (aimed at "sluts"), but I'm not so sure. Maybe that's a myth of the kyriarchy, part of the "only bad girls get raped" myth. Women get raped and their consent ignored whether or not they gender-conform, whether they walk alone down dark alleys or not. Marital or partner rape happens a LOT, just like date rape. I consider my experience partner rape or attempted partner rape, because the perpetrator was someone I trusted and had had sex with before. Then again, in my case I'm sure someone would have blamed and slut-shamed me for my previous sexual behavior with my ex. Because once you say yes to sex once, you don't get to change your mind later...

I just wish consent and communication was more central to mainstream discourse about sexuality, the way it is in the kink community. I think learning to negotiate a sexual encounter--vanilla or not--should be a required part of sex education! Beyond the safety concerns, it just makes sex so much better.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

Kyriarchy! Great term! But I still think that we're not there yet. Kyriarchy is for the post-feminist, post-gender world. God, I hope that happens soon.

I have learned SO MUCH from the LGBT, BDSM, and poly worlds. I would say that I'm only on the fringe of them. But I've learned a lot about communication, consent, boundaries, etc from them.

[erinya.livejournal.com]

You don't think that acknowledging intersecting structures of domination is pertinent in the real world today? Really?

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

Hm. I think I'm talking myself into corners. This is what makes me despair of ever writing an actual dissertation. Turns out I'm a lazy writer.

I do think acknowledging intersecting structures of domination is pertinent. Yup. Sure do. I think what I am wary of is letting fancy phrases like 'intersecting structures of domination' muddy the work of actually firing up women (and men) for feminism and serving women - most of which are still dealing with less esoteric issues. I mean, the majority of women I meet are still unsure they are feminists! Getting into the paradigms of domination is advanced work! Does that make sense?

[erinya.livejournal.com]

It does, but I'm not convinced...yes, the word sounds fancy, but intersecting oppressions are part of almost all women's experiences, and a lot of women, particularly trans women and women of color, reject feminism because feminism fails to address the kind of oppression they face. If you're facing issues because you're a person of color, have a disability, are queer, and happen to be female, typical "feminist" issues are probably way down there on your list of concerns. Gender does play an important part in the challenges you face, but traditional feminism is going to miss a hell of a lot about what's going on in your life.

I also think getting away from the term "patriarchy," or at least using it with care, is important because "patriarchy" implies that women can't be powerful or be oppressors. I think "patriarchy" only works as an accurate representation of our culture's power structure for those of us for whom gender is one of the only oppressions we face. And "blaming the patriarchy" can be an easy out for privileged feminists, allowing us to leave our own privilege unexamined.

Feminism as I have witnessed it recently (the last 2-3 years) seems to forget that gender isn't the only axis of injustice going on in the world, or posits gender to be the most important axis. When we do that, we make feminism less relevant to a lot of people (including myself...lately, there have been numerous moments where I've really felt "outside" feminism, as if I'm not a feminist as defined by other feminists). So, far from being obscure or advanced, I think that acknowledging and focusing on intersection is crucial if feminism is going to be viable for people beyond the movement's white, middle-class bastion. I like the term "kyriarchy" because it describes far more accurately the system of power and privilege that I witness in my work in the real world. This (http://myecdysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/accepting-kyriarchy-not-apologies.html) is the blog post that turned me on to the word--I think Lisa explains it better than I did.

And I know it may seem like I'm arguing semantics here, but I believe language is important and shapes our thought. I also think the distinction of kyriarchy v. patriarchy has been the underlying theme in all my comments in this discussion: that it's not that simple and that oppression doesn't always follow gendered lines.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

I'm interested in reading that but the link didn't work.

I know you're right about this, and yet for some reason I'm annoyed. Can't explain why. Either I'm annoyed because you're right and I'm being stubborn, or because I'm trying to explain something that isn't coming through. It's the problem of trying to type responses while a toddler is asking me to read Green Eggs and Ham for the Nth time.

[erinya.livejournal.com]

Tested the link and it works. However, the post also comes up if you Google/Yahoo "kyriarchy"--it's a blog called "My Ecdysis" and the title of the post is "Accepting Kyriarchy, Not Apologies." There's a good discussion of the same post here (http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/04/kyriarchy_not_p).

I hear your annoyance. I think we are using different lenses. It seems to me that you feel I am bringing issues into the discussion that aren't pertinent, and I keep doing it, and I bet that's frustrating. But I can't help it because intersection is my lens. It's not a separate issue for me, it's the context in which I see every issue, and so I can't think about gendered oppression or feminism without using that lens. Especially when the issue is woman-on-woman oppression and women failing to be good allies for each other, which is pretty hard to make sense of through a radfem lens.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

Link worked. You know, I use patriarchy and mean kyriarchy, turns out. I do think that men *in general* hold the patriarchal power, but I think systems of oppression do exist and therefore it's not *just* men, or even all men, who are the oppressors. In some ways, 9 times out of 10, when I buy new clothes I'm probably oppressing some one some where. For a weak example.

I also think to be a radical feminist is to be, by and large, working for post-gendered feminism. I don't equate radical feminism with separatism, or womyn-only space. What's radical about that? Nothing, in my eyes.

The post (which feels like ages ago and lost in the sands of time) was about women hating women, and about rape in general, but I think some where along that way that got very, very lost. I blame Gwydion. ;) (Look at me use an emoticon to indicate humor! See, I learned!) Ultimately, I think you and I do agree. In fact, I know we do. I don't know what's happened with this post, but I'm about ready to render it null and void.

[erinya.livejournal.com]

I don't think it got lost. I think the discussion that's occurring is productive. It just didn't go where you expected.

Maybe because there's not much to say about women hating women. Yeah, that's sad. And it happens a lot. We can all agree on that. Rape is bad. We can all agree on that. Survivor-blaming is terrible and compounds the initial violation of the rape. I don't think anyone here has disagreed with your premise. We can all be angry about that, but for me at least, anger makes me tired. There's just too much for me to be angry about right now, personally and politically. I guess I'd rather talk theory and problematize and challenge existing paradigms with the hope of creating some new ones. Maybe that's my bad, my defense mechanism, and I should have kept it to myself or taken it to my own journal.

It sounds like you're upset about how the discussion proceeded, so I'm sorry if I contributed to that. I know I can be dogmatic and pushy when I get ahold of an idea that interests me. I was told a long time ago that arguing with me was like arguing with a brick wall, and it's probably still true.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

You're awesome.

[erinya.livejournal.com]

No u!

IDK, I think I was kind of faily in this discussion, the more that I think about it. :-P I've been doing that a lot lately. Think it means I should shut up and listen more.