Rape: A Scarier Reality Than You'd Imagine (and probably without the dark alley & woods)

I recently tweeted about the Canadian's Women's Foundation PSA below that is circulating around Canadian TV networks at the moment. I don’t subscribe to cable (or own a TV for that matter), so I had yet to hear about and/or see it outside of the Internet. However, it was recently brought up in conversation by a male friend of mine, who had seen it on TV.

His first reaction was that it was “messed-up” (that 1 in 2 Canadian women are sexually assaulted or raped in their lifetime), and quickly shifted to what seemed to be a, “but that can’t be true-!” which came from the part of his soul that wished it wasn’t — Because rape and sexual assault is violent, horrific, degrading — and in many ways considered –the worst– thing that can happen to someone.

But I am a female. From my own personal research and discussions with other women, the ½ statistic seems not only real, but perhaps even underestimated. Unfortunately, what we don’t seem to grasp quite yet, is that sexual assault and rape is not (always, or usually) that movie-TV-America’s-Most-Wanted violence that we see commonly depicted, and ultimately lambasted for its inhumanly existence. That image wrong, and we can agree on the devastation and violence of its depiction and the act that it attempts to represent.

What is still contested, however, is the less clear-cut forms of rape and assault that exist far more frequently than those media-representations of movie-TV-America’s-Most-Wanted rape and sexual violence.

As women, our gendered experiences (those that we experience in a large part because we are identified as female by others/self) sometimes hurt us.

As females, daily sexual harassment is a condition of our realities. And as females, we similarly have a 1-in-2 chance of being sexually assaulted or raped. These are realities most women are aware of. To us, this statement is more than a horrific statistic. It is consistent with women’s day-to-day experiences of what it means to not be a man. It means that at some point, you will be hurt by a man, simply because you are not one. This translates into our sexual realities as well.

When I have made the conscious effort to have my female sisters discuss situations where they felt passive, pressured, unenthusiastic, coerced, guilted, scared, or threatened to have sex, the conversations are astounding. I have yet to find one person unable to tell me at least one of their own terrifying tales. These are situations that are happening beyond the dark corners of alleys and the shady backwoods.  But these acts cause pain regardless. They are acts of sexual violence and often, rape.

And these acts of violence happen to us. And we feel terrible, and violated, and wronged in some strange way that isn’t exactly the America’s-Most-Wanted form of rape – but there is no doubt in our hearts about who was heard and hurt in the situation. 

The media’s depiction of rape is far too limited to capture the real, frightening realities of women who experience rape and sexual assault outside of the dominant rape-narrative. Our limited understandings of rape therefore create doubts about where the lines are drawn, and what exactly constitutes this false notion of “real rape”. Thinking there is a closed-box of “real rape” definitions cause us to see rape in a dangerously limited way, which ultimately results in more cases of rape and sexual assault. (ie: "It wasn't rape, she was just playing hard to get", "It wasn't rape, she really wanted it", "It wasn't rape she was asking for it, she's the one who made out with me all night", "It wasn't rape, I just didn't want to use a condom", etc. etc. etc).

In order to locate our sensibilities so that these experiences happen less, we need to accept rape and sexual assault as any instance where there is not enthusiastic consent. If enthusiastic consent is new to you, consult this powerful piece.

____ 

In the end, although the other ladies who were present when my male friend brought up the PSA weren’t outright in supporting the statistical claims, (women can also understand rape in dangerously limited terms), neither did they reject the idea with the same terror that my male friend did. And I hate to admit it male friends and family (just as I hate to live it), but your female friends, girlfriends, wives, sisters, cousins, mothers, grandmothers, and daughters exist in a reality where being raped, or sexually assaulted is the norm. We must do our part to ensure that our to-be daughters are part of a safer and more loving reality.

Do not support rape culture.

Listen to the women in your life. We have some pretty crazy stories.

The Not-So-Wonderful World of Disney

It was in my undergrad that I started thinking about Disney and its ideological implications. Encouraged by an English degree that promoted critical readings, all of a sudden I was re-thinking my reasons for never enjoying The Little Mermaid as a small child. Was it because it had such an archaic underlying message for young girls? I mean – gain supposed “freedom” (in the arms of a man), by merely sacrificing one’s voice (who needs it)? Reflecting as an undergrad, this storyline hardly seemed to mirror the overarching “innocence” narrative that Disney would have most adults buying into. Pair this alongside my new reading of Beauty and the Beast wherein Belle is housed-up with a (literal) beast who beats the crap out of her, (but don’t worry, she stays), continues to love him, and *voila!* he becomes a romantic prince (blond-haired, blue-eyed to boot), and it was finished, it was done. I had officially written Disney into my exponentially growing accumulation of poisonous things to inflict on children.

The Beast: abusive, manipulative and controlling.

And so it is no surprise to me to read Giroux’s critical reading of the expansive Disney empire and find that the larger empire too, is full of inherent contradictions which all serve to benefit the few. And I don’t have to think very far to realize just how effective Disney has been in really duping people into thinking that it really is all good fun, innocence, and magic. I have made no friends at dinner parties offering my readings of Beauty and the Beast. In fact, it would probably be conservative to suggest I’ve only made a few enemies. Grown women don’t want their little girl dreams ruined, I mean, there is nothing feel-good about realizing that your childhood “hero” was really a battered woman. And Ariel’s voice? “But she loved him!” they cry to me, or, “But she was leaving her father! That’s feminist in itself!” Depending on how many drinks I’ve had I either leave it alone, or I hash it out further, and by the end of the party most people have called me a buzzkill, or a conspiracist, or if I’ve done really well, I leave with most of the room hoping to dear god that I never teach their children. After all, imagine how negative it must be to be in my classroom!

And perhaps it is. Or perhaps it is this bogus idea of childhood innocence that I want to give my students the ability to question. Childhood innocence? You mean the childhood innocence that means that children can’t think? You mean the childhood innocence that suggests that children are better off watching and reading uncritically, absorbing every bit of conformist, commercialized, problematically ideologized crap that is designed with their “innocent” (and buying) minds in mind? Ah yes, that one. And it is not a “buzzkill” of a teacher who has her classroom question Disney, rather, it is a classroom that empowers students to make their own decisions – and to have the option that maybe, just maybe, there are better role models than Belle or Ariel. And maybe, just maybe, they want to be “A Part of THAT World”.

Q&A: Why can't I say retard?

Recently, a friend of mine sent me a very honest question. I responded in length to him, and figured it could be of use to others who have ever wondered about using those words.

Dear DJ Beef,

I am having a conversation with a friend of mine about the useage of language with respect to victimization of various demographics. We are talking about reclamation of words... and it's a concept I don't really understand, likely on account of me being a straight white male. On the one hand, the argument is that using a word like 'faggot' carries with it all the terrible ways that word has been used to spread hatred and pain, but on the other hand, somehow it stops doing that when it's the people using it within that community.... 

You are smart, I and I know you've spent a decent amount of energy thinking on things like this. Help me out here.. I like saying "bitch" and "slut" and "retard".... but I don't want to be knowingly victimizing people either... This is confusing for me.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

You rock,

Anonymous.

Dear anonymous,

Well, to be honest you don't seem that confused, other than perhaps in disagreement how reclamation of a word can really do any good. And that is a point of contention among groups in various communities as well -- not all LGBTQ people agree with the reclamation of the word queer, and not all black people are in support of use of the n-word within their communities. Personally, the only words I have much reclamation over are those such as bitch and slut, and to be honest I don't think women are at a point where using those words to describe people serves any purpose other than ostracizing others in the community we are supposedly trying to reach solidarity with. So I can understand your disagreement with this idea.

That being said, unfortunately Mr. Straight White Male, you don't really put yourself in a great position using any of these contentious-type words. Although many people understand the "I don't mean it that way", the reality is that language and power are very much caught up in each other. Whether you "mean it" or not, you are always using those words from a position of privilege. Speaking from a position of privilege, and using words that have been used to victimize and oppress certain groups of people in the past, ultimately lumps you into the category of someone who is using those words in a way that continues to marginalize people as "other" or different from you -- whether it's the context you intend or not.

There are certain words that are more acceptable than others. Consider, "bitch" for instance. That word gets thrown around like it's nobody's business and some may argue that for this reason it isn't really offensive. I disagree. I think the more acceptable terms are positively correlated with how oppressed certain groups continue to be. Why is it that bitch is so acceptable? Consider it against the use of "retard". Is there any doubt in your mind that people with disabilities are even close to having the same access and rights as those who are able bodied or minded? Perhaps our language and acceptability of certain offensive terms reflects this inequity.

The truth is this: when I walk into a group of people, let's say they are male (although women are similarly guilty of this), and there is a discussion going on where the term "slut" is being thrown around. I never feel good about it. In fact, it feels unsafe to me, as if somehow these men are able to project moral superiority over people they have no experience of, or being. What gives them a right to use a word that is used to degrade people more like me, than them? Does this mean I write these people off and would never be friends with them? No. But it does mean I may consider their values, and ultimately what prejudices they hold under the immediate surface. I definitely am going to be suspicious, and I wouldn't want to date someone who went around calling women sluts, that is for sure.

As a result, I try not to use any of those contentious words. Of course they slip. Sometimes it would feel so nice calling the woman who just wronged me a "dumbass bitch cunt slut". But I think sometimes it feels good just because there is so much power behind those words. Why don't other words suffice? And in the end, as someone who does have a lot of privilege myself, I think being required to give up usage of a few words is the least I can do from a position where pretty much everything else is nicely handed to me. Perhaps it is one of the few things that are "not allowed" for someone in my position. I think in the end, that's okay with me.