Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Let's be clear: I don't think I'm a rapist.
So, first things first: I don't think I'm a rapist, I don't think anyone in my family is, and I'm not claiming statistics apply directly and personally to my family.
In the comments, Anna asked for examples of what I mean when I say that I feel discussions of rape do not exclude me [as a perpetrator]. That's really, really hard to do. I mean, I can (and will, shortly) find some examples of things that demonstrate what I mean, but they're going to be out of context, and like words everywhere, can get read multiple ways, so it's very likely you won't see what I'm seeing. What I'm really referencing is the totality of the actual discussion and culture around rape discussion, and how it is affecting me. So I'm going to crack that egg first, before I try and tackle specific language.
First off, I feel excluded from conversations about rape. I've never been raped. I've never felt the target of unwanted sexual attention1. There is not (in most places) any kind of specific bar to entry on discussions around rape, but there is an overall impression that if it hasn't happened to you (or sometimes, someone close), you can't understand or contribute usefully. This is perfectly normal, social behaviour2 for humans, not specific to rape discussion.
Second, many of the men who do "participate"3 in rape discussions are being asshats, and not attempting to contribute, but attempting to keep the status quo of existing power relationships. This makes me hestitant to step in, because I'm a guy, and benefit all the time from that status quo, without even realizing it. I have a fear that I'll offer something to the conversation, and end up sounding like an asshat4, because there's all kinds of assumptions and givens that I'm not even aware that I'm making. This is absolutely5 my own hangup; I recognize this.
Third, the statistics thing. I personalize statistics. I can't help it; that's how my brain works. That does not mean I take them and literally apply them to my own life. "10% of the population is gay, that means one of the people I work with MUST be gay, I wonder which one it is?" is an example of what I do not do. But "Wow, 10% is really high; is that... really? wow. Well, X and Y are gay, and so is A... how many people do I know about as well as X, Y and A? Hunh, 25 or 30. I guess 10% is born out by my personal experience. Whaddya know." is the sort of thought exercise I might run through. I will still recognize that my experience is totally anecdotal and doesn't necessarily bear out the validity (or lack thereof) of the numbers.
This is getting long, and my lunch break is pretty much over, so more later. Is this making sense so far?
James
1: Uncomprehended sexual attention, on the other hand, totally. "She wants to have sex with me, she's being very direct and clear and patient... uuhhh... uuuhhh...help! nothing in my conservative christian upbringing tells me what to do here, panic, panic panic!" but it wasn't unwanted. Just awkward as hell, because I didn't know the language she was speaking.
2: For example, someone who knows de nada about cars, like me, trying to be involved in a conversation about cars with a bunch of auto mechanics. I flat out don't have the context and knowledge to contribute usefully.
3: Sarcasm quotes.
4: See, for example, Exhibit A, titled "I didn't know I was a rapist..." in which I demonstrate asshattery.
5: I just realized, when I first typed this as ABSOLUTELY that I treat All Caps differently than teh intarweb. I use all caps is a way of bolding when I'm using plain text and don't have formatting tags. To teh intarweb, it's yelling. Sorry, Anna; now I know why you thought I was yelling.
Labels: I think too much
posted by James at 12:05 PM
5 Comments:
Rape is a terribly ambitious topic for anyone to write on. It doesn't matter what you say, someone will get angry and hurt. It's unfortunately doubly so for a man, whether he has been a victim of it or not. So first off, kudos for doing so, James, I admire that you are willing to open a discourse on it. I know that we had quite a discussion following reading your post.
One of the worst things about feminism has been the culture of "what can you possibly know about it?" that has sprung up. I will admit that without being raped, it is impossible to fully understand what it's like to have it happen to you. This does not then invalidate your thoughts and opinions on the topic, though many of the articles that I have come across would have you believe so. The gender bias that is presented also sets my teeth on edge. A woman who has not experienced sexual violence in her life may still be considered more of an authority than a man who has. She has more inate understanding or some such nonsense. Add to this the culture of "every man is a predator in potential" and we have developed a society in which we are closing out and invalidating the opinions of half of society. Somehow I do not think that this is useful or productive behaviour to engage in to solving the underlying problems.
There's so much more I could say, and that I want to say, but I'll refrain from ranting about western society's treatment of sexual violence on someone else's weblog. I may be forced to post to my own, however.
Hi, thanks for reading. Can I quickly head something off at the pass?
I really, really, don't want to turn this into a conversation about the "every man is a predator" crap. The stuff I've been reading has been very good and very clear about debunking that particular load of manure.
thanks! :)
James
I'm not sure how to express the next paragraph nicely and in the spirit of non-confrontation that i try to put into both my comments and my blog posting. I've tried to rewrite it a few times, but it doesn't say what I need it to say if I do. Please understand that sometimes one needs to be blunt to make one's point. I think if we were saying this across a table with something warm to drink, it would work out a bit better what I'm trying to convey in that paragraph, because I could look you in the eye and make sure you know the spirit in which I say it, but this will have to do. It's blunt because I'm at a loss at how else to point it out to you, and not because I think you're not going to get it any other way, or because i think you're clueless.
One of the things that comes across in both this post and your previous post is a sense of entitlement. Put aside that you don't think you're entitled to anything for a moment and read what you've said. "These conversations exclude me" "these conversations aren't about me".
Yes, and?
I read all sorts of conversations every day that aren't about me - I read blogs written about racism by people who experience racism, and I don't take it personally that I can't chime in with something relevant to say. They aren't about me. Same thing with blogs about faith, blogs about gaming, blogs about American/Belgian/New Zealand politics, blogs about infertility, blogs about international adoption... They aren't about me.
You said earlier that Ilyka's essay wasn't really addressing your problem, and you're trying to sort your problem out. All I can see right now is that your problem is "it's not about me", "I can't participate meaningfully because I haven't been raped/no one close to me has", "other men are jerks", and "I have this hangup". (Those are the summaries I have of the paragraphs you've written.)
I appreciate that it's your blog and your space, and it's great that you decided to talk about your issues around this. However, you're also exuding a sense of entitlement that I, or anyone else who has written about Sexual Violence this month, owes it to you to hold your hand and make it a bit better for you, and we have to do it for you in a way you find acceptable. Your demanding that Don has to write things out in a way you find acceptable and reading for exactly what you mean in a discussion where you tell us you're not doing the same thing to what other people are writing... is what? Don has a right to be angry and offended, just like you do. The only difference between here and a conversation in real life is that Don could express how offended your post left him without interruption.
You realise, I hope, that I don't think you're a bad person, or that there's anything wrong with trying to fumble towards a meaning that works for you, or that you're not allowed to express doubts, dismay, distress, or anything else about what you're reading. But either you want my opinions and reactions (the impression I got from your first post), or you don't. If you do, you're going to have to deal with the idea that I'm not going to sugar coat it all for you. ("but Anna!" you may be thinking "I don't want you to sugar coat it for me! That's not what I'm saying at all!" Then please don't get shirty when responses aren't as nice as you could like.)
When I ask you for context, it's not as a homework assignment. It's for two reasons: most of the people reading this will not have a clue what you're responding or reaction to. They don't know about my post about rape and the media, they don't know about Don's post about pornography, they don't know about Gun's assertion that all rapists need to die in a fire, they don't know about the entire Blog Against Sexual Violence Day phenomena that happened last week. All they know is that someone they like and respect has felt attacked by blog posts, but they don't know which ones.
The second reason is that all I know is someone I like and respect has felt attacked by blog posts, and I don't know which ones.
Even if you just link the posts/comments in question and talk about how they made you feel, that's at least telling us what's going on. Right now, I still have no clear idea of what's upset you, and that bothers me because I don't know *how* to discuss it with you without even that context to work with. And I really hate the idea that I've left someone I like and respect feeling like shit by accident.
[There's a secondary aspect of a lot of this that you may not be aware of, but I think you'll understand if pointed out to you. If I bring it up here we'll completely derail the conversation. I don't have your email address anymore, can you email me and I'll be significantly less vague. But probably not for many hours afterwards, given the time difference and that I have to leave for work in 7 minutes.]
Anna,
I'll certainly grant the possibility... entitlement might well be one of the things I'm not aware that I'm bringing to the table.
Context is coming; it's not homework, it's what I owe to the conversation. I've been asked to support my position; I have an obligation to do so. I wish more people would ask for citation and rigeur - the internet would be better for it.
However, Tuesdays are busy for me, as noted previously. Hopefully tomorrow, as I've already started drafting something out. Part of the delay is that I am waiting on permission to quote from conversations that were not public to the internet.
There's an e-mail link in the sidebar of my blog.
So there is! I'm so embarrassed, as I've never noticed it.
Also, for all that I keep insisting on context here, I'm aware that you have that pesky life thing going for you - take all the time you need to sort what you want, James, I'm not thinking you're ignoring me. There is that damned time difference after all - even if you replied immediate after my last post, I wouldn't have gotten it until now because I answered and then went to work. *smile*
Post a Comment
<< Home