Here’s a thread for readers/lurkers to ask a question about some issue that just really confuses them. If you’re just not “getting” why some event, action or statement is riling feminists, and/or why is it that something which seems trivial to you seems to be a feminist big deal, ask here and I’ll do my best to give a short explanation and then direct you to detailed readings on that subject.
I sometimes might take a while to see comments and then respond. I invite other feminists lurking to respond to questions when I’m not around. Just everybody please keep in mind that this blog is a flamewar-free zone, and trust me to moderate any obnoxious/offensive comments strictly.
UPDATE: due to the arrival of disruptive commentors, I’m sad to be required to point out that asking a question without demonstrating that you’ve at least attempted to find (and read) an appropriate FAQ will not fill others here with goodwill towards such questioners. This site offers a smorgasboard, not spoonfeeding.
Filed under: 101
tigtog
tekanji
shakesville
I’m not sure whether this counts as “Feminism 101″, but I’ve always wondered:
Men’s concern with “masculinity” is all over the media — whole magazine articles, books, movies, etc. get devoted to male agonizing over whether they’re maculine enough, or what is masculine, etc.
I don’t see much space devoted to women agonizing over their “femininity,” and I’m not sure what conclusion to draw from this:
1. Women just aren’t so worried about their femininity, or
2. It’s there, but it’s different enough that I don’t recognize it, or
3. Since such agonizing doesn’t impact Teh Menz, the Media, being a patriarchal institution, don’t consider it worth devoting much space to.
I do notice a lot of the advertising directed at women seems to include some sort of reassurance of femininity in their pitch; I’m not sure where that fits in all this.
AMM: I’m sure there is a media bias and lack of awareness of agonising over femininity but I would say the main reason is the first you’ve guessed at.
Greater agonising over masculinity by men is an inherent consequence of a patriarchal society. In a patriarchal society the traditional traits of masculinity are considered, by definition, to be more desirable than those of femininity. Thus if a man forsakes any of those traditional masculine traits he is seen as weak. In pursuing traditional feminine traits he gives up part of the power gifted him by the patriarchy.
Contrast this to the inverse: Resistance to women taking on masculine traits (among other reasons) comes in the form of men not wanting to share their power, and women who don’t see why other women should exert masculine power.
Thanks to the good work of the feminist movement, when we see a woman in a non-traditional role we are more likely to see her as someone attempting to improve on her ’station’ in life. But reconciling a man displaying a ‘lesser’ trait is harder. So why would they desire femine traits you ask?
Well, because traditionally feminine traits aren’t inherently weaker, that is just the impression that a patriarchy enforces. For instance, women are seen as being more emotional, but being more emotional is not a bad thing! Research suggests that more emotive people form better relationships with those around them, and in doing so create a support structure for themselves. For this reason, men are much more likely to suffer from social/mental illnesses later in life as a result of social isolation. They are detached from their family and friends on an emotional level. To some degree wearing your heart on your sleeve is actually a desirable trait.
Yet, should a man display a heightened emotional state he is seen as weak, his associates by association are also seen as being weak, and so he is ostracised.
Because of this men actually agonise more. It’s not that women don’t agonise just that a patriarchal society by giving a greater status to masculine traits actually makes it less acceptable for men to strive for feminine ones than the other way around.
Of course a patriarchy saves most of the desirable traits/positions for men, but where this is not the case, greater agonising results.
It might also be worth noting that the Victorian idea of ’spheres of influence’ can be seen as a compensatory tool for the patriarchy, used to keep women happy with their station. This tool, while considering the sphere less important gives women more power within that sphere. This helps explain why there may be some positions of value that the patriarchy hasn’t claimed exclusively for men.
A coworker whose wife is a feminist said that “because she’s a feminst there are certain things she won’t do”. I’m not sure if he meant in the bedroom, in general domestic life, work life, or all of the foregoing.
Can someone tell me what he may have meant (i.e., what she likely won’t do)? I don’t know much about feminism, but I’d like to learn, since many of the ideals seem to resonate with me.
I’ve read the FAQs and other materials discussing what feminism is, but none of them boil it down to this level of specifics. I’m an accounant, so perhaps that’s why I have trouble conceptualizing things without examples put in specific terms, but I do, so I’m stuck in my prgression until I can wrap my brain around some specifics like understanding my coworker’s statement. At this point, let set aside any value judgments regarding the apporopriateness of his staement. ( have my own thoughts on that topic, but that’s not the question I’m asking here).
My coworker referred to his wife as “an unreconstructed feminist”. I don’t know what that means. The only things I know she doesn’t do (that may or may not be related to feminism) are: she doesn’t carry a pocketbook, and she avoids attending his family and work social events.
I’m truly not trying to offend anyone, just seeking to understand. Can anyone help?
C’mon. Somebody must have an answer to this question.
Actually, nobody knows what your coworker means except your co-worker.
I’m afraid the lack of answers to your question springs from (hang on, can an absence spring from something, or only a positive presence? Anyway – ) the lack of concrete detail provided. I suspect your coworker was making what he regarded as a humorous throwaway line, probably designed to be puzzling (or am I ascribing him too much wit?).
If we are to address as a serious question: “what things will feminists not do?” we first have to allow for vast variation between individuals based on what they think is important, then factor in the sad truth that we all do things that compromise our principles in order to get by in a patriarchy, and the degree of that compromise will be influenced by how much personal power and agency we are able to accrue to ourselves from other advantages we might have (class, race, education etc.). It might then, broadly speaking, be that a feminist will not defer to a man merely because he is a man, nor value him, his work, his time, his rights, his wants or his opinions, more highly than she would were he a woman.
Orlando, Thanks so much for your response. Sadly, it is likely you do ascribe too much wit to my coworker. I could tell from his tone that he was serious and even annoyed by these perceived “shortcomings” on his wife’s part. The comment was couched as more of a complaint than an observation. And I thought, “how can he love this woman and not respect her values?”
He truly is a nice man, so I was surprised at the venom of his tone when he shared this information. It was out of character. So I thought perhaps I was mis-understanding what it means to be a feminist, or perhaps she takes what are otherwise valid feminist ideals too an extreme? For instance, if she refused to do any domestic chores (cooking, cleaning, etc.) leaving him to do them all, that would be a valid complaint in my estimation. Or if she was selfish in bed, to the exclusion of his pleasure – also a valid complaint.
Am I off base here?
Our guesses are just going to be guesses. You might just have to ask him.
The trouble is that, very often, an adjustement to an equal balance is so far from what people are used to that it is perceived as according the woman ’special’ or ‘greater’ rights. There are posts that go into this in detail on and linked to this blog that you would be as effective as me at digging out, but just as an example: I remember writing a cross letter to a magazine once that had printed an article that said men were ‘disadvantaged’ because they were now making up only 52% of places to study medicine at university. Now, how do you think a man feels if he is asked to go from doing 10% of the housework to, say, 40%? Like that’s only fair? Like he should actually do a bit more if it’s going to be really fair? Or cheated and resentful?
Lauren, here is an article regarding what orlando is talking about, which I found from the “What Is Male Privilege?” article in the FAQ here. The thing about married women who don’t change their name is especially telling, in my opinion.
http://www.trickster.org/symposium/symp181.htm
My new question here is this:
I see many, many feminist websites trying to push the view of “Feminism is good for men, too!” without ever providing a single example.
I see, however, tons of examples of how it DOESN’T benefit men, such as the attempts to eradicate stereotypes that feminists deem harmful to women, while simultaneously upholding stereotypes that are harmful to men. Or, situations where what’s “good for the goose” is NOT “good for the gander”/double standards/etc.
So, my question is, how can one say that feminism has any benefits whatsoever for men?
Feminism isn’t man hating. It’s saying that both sexes can be treated fairly. A woman doesn’t have to be sh*t on in the workplace and called Ilsa of the SS because she wears a skirt to her CEO office. A man doesn’t have to be sh*t on in the kiddie park because he has his kids on a leash and spit up on his shoulder.
Since we live in a patriarchal culture, feminism is like the alternative voice. There’s TONS of stuff in patriarchy that is bad for both goose and gander (e.g. Man strong! Man not man if man not win bread! Man only eat hamburger!), if only cuz it’s so terribly outdated and limiting.
Feminism is more expansive.
Aha! A few lights just wet on. (1) Kandel, you state the obvious that I have overlooked – just ask him.
Lala: I kept my name when I got married and didn’t even realize there were any “feminist” aspects to that choice. The choice simply felt right.
Orlando: You may be right about his perception vs reality. Thanks all for reching out to help me. I think I’ve got a path now.
Aha! A few lights just wet on. (1) Kandel, you state the obvious that I have overlooked – just ask him.
Lala: I kept my name when I got married and didn’t even realize there were any “feminist” aspects to that choice. The choice simply felt right.
Orlando: You may be right about his perception vs reality. Thanks all for reaching out to help me. I think I’ve got a path now.
Lauren, I don’t understand. Why are you telling me that? I don’t see how that’s relevant to the issue?
Why do you talk about gender so much?
OMG this is the bane of my existence when interacting with groups of men or mixed groups. Why do I talk about gender so much? Well, because I see upsetting perpetuation of gender roles so much. The worst is the males talking loudly about things that no one else cares about and the women just sitting an listening, then a reversal happens where the women talk about something of interest to them and are made fun of by the men.
I talk about gender issues a lot because I see them a lot and I see them used to discriminate, denigrate, and otherwise negatively impact women. Can there be an FAQ post that elaborates this and addresses why feminist care about this stuff so much? Ideas from others would be a benefit to me and, I assume, many other women.
I’ve been meaning for a while to ask about making feminism attractive to non-feminsts.
I’ve seen a few times feminist folks saying that they have no obligation to make feminism attractive or to convince other people. And a lot of the time I can see why, that anti-feminist people are using this manipulatively, that it’s very much “I’m not part of your movement so you must do whatever I say in the hope I will join”. But at the same time it seems to me that there *is* a point there, that since feminism is a political movement if you support it there is some kind of an obligation to help it grow, to convince other people that it’s the right thing to do. Maybe no on everyone else’s terms, and maybe not at *every* opportunity, and definitely not if it means watering down the principles you’re arguing for in the first place, but still.
So, am I entirely wrong?
I don’t think you are entirely wrong, but I also don’t think that there’s One True Answer here.
The appropriate response to tone arguments (“but why can’t you be less angry/less scary/less confronting”) is going to vary depending on who is making the argument.
if it’s a disingenuous anti-feminist, often the response that best limits the intended energy-draining of the distraction is simply a raised middle finger.
There’s lots of positive feminist outreach happening all the time. But here we tend to get a preponderance of aggressive accusers, so that’s not going to be our zeitgeist .
Can a feminist also be a patriot? It’s a difficult questions for me to answer. Personally, I feel my feminism excludes any feelings of patriotism, but I’m sure there are others who disagree.
Since many institutes which constitute a nation are inherantly patriarchal, and many of the elements of national identity are the same, it’s very hard for me to imagine how the two, feminism and patriotism, can be reconciled.
I’d appreacite links to further reading on this subject.
I’d have to say… no. Being a patriot requires being proud of your country. I’m certainly not proud of America or it’s infamous history.
Feminism is opposed to all forms of oppression (well, it’s supposed to be, anyhow)… and this country was established by means of oppression.
I’ll say yes. It depends on what country you live in.
I’d like to think that one day the US (my country as well) will be in a place that makes me feel patriotic more of the time. Sure infamous history but good things too: Civil Rights movement, Feminism, Flappers!, old Hollywood … there are lots of things that are good, lots of things that are bad.
I still feel that the heart of feminism is concerned with tolerance and giving others respect to be themselves. It’s not that women and men are exactly the same, it’s that individuals from both sexes have a right to whatever gender identity they like / equal rights / equal treatment, etc.
That fluid nature means that there’s no, “I’m a feminist, therefore I won’t … ” or “I’m a feminist, therefore I ALWAYS …” Every feminist, like every stoner, is different.
So my answer is YES. Yes, a feminist can also be a patriot if s/he wants.
We’re living on stolen land that once belonged to Native Americans. The concept of “American Patriotism” is a joke. What’s to be proud of? Theft? Slaughtering of innocent people? Slavery?
Firstly, the Civil Rights movement would have never been necessary, if the patriarchy had not been abusing minorities to begin with. Much suffering was endured, for many years, before any crumb of justice was realized.
Secondly…. old Hollywood? Isn’t that the same Hollywood that liberally sprinkled their productions with exaggerated stereotypes of African Americans?
It sounds to me as if you are speaking from a position of white privilege. I’m white too, but I do my best to see things from the perspective of other minorities. That’s important, ya know.
Can a feminist be a patriot?
As replies above indicate, opinions vary.
I think it also depends on how you define patriotism. “My country right or wrong” is obviously ethically indefensible, but that doesn’t mean that feminists wouldn’t fight to protect their neighbours from attack. So where does the line fall between repellent jingoism that only furthers the interests of the elite, and pragmatic self-interest and social obligation to one’s own community?
I’m trying to explain to my 64 year old step-father why calling a women on tv (Paula, I think, from Top chef) a slut, is not helpful (or appreciated, tolerable, etc, etc,) even if he’s doing it because, quote, she dresses, talks, and behaves to be sexy and attract viewers, and ‘it’s an insult to women’ since it’s totally unnecessary and unrelated to the show, unquote.
I’m looking for a simple, direct argument to use on a mildly feminist man who doesn’t get the idea PC language. Any suggestions?
1. The word “slut” in this context is like slag / bitch / ho / tramp / whore / skank / girl / chick / woman / wife; it functions as an umbrella term that strips a woman of her unique characteristics and flattens her into nothing more than a ratings-bumping object.
So while television exploits women (well, everyone), what’s happening here imho is that something about Paula’s sexiness is triggering feelings of enticement and guilt in your step-father, causing him to react aggressively. Of course, he could just be casting his net wildly, trying to find his feminist fish. Ain’t nuttin’ wrong w/ dat.
Ergo, he’s buying the idea that Paula’s sexiness gives her value. Why focus on how she is marketed when she’s up there cuz she can hold her own in a kitchen show???? And a KITCHEN which is a hella boys’ club to begin w/ (can vouch, I work in one). And she’s exec sous chef! Damn!
So in calling her “slut”, is he ragging on the network for for exploiting her, on her for allowing herself to be exploited, or on himself for buying the exploitation?
2. The clincher is this. When he calls her a slut, he sends the message to you, his wife, his mothers, sisters, girl friends, and all the males in his life that there are limits to how women can conduct themselves “respectably”. Men, too (and all the genders inbetween), but we’ll stick with women here.
In what arena can a woman be herself without worrying that she is going to be (mis)judged?
If you wear a certain outfit for a night out w/ your ladeez, does it make you a slut? If you come on to a dude (or chick) and use your sex appeal to turn his/her head, does that make you a slut? If you win a television competition and get your own show, make bank, open your own restaurant and get a merch line, does that make you a slut (she hasn’t done all of the above yet but you know)?
Objectification happens on the viewer’s end. Not the object’s end. She’s not a slut.
He makes her one the minute he slaps that label on her fine-cheffin’, last-round makin’, boys’ club infiltratin’, sklilionaire ass.
Also, Gordon Ramsey doesn’t d*ck around though he does slag off when provoked. HA!
To add: Strong women are sexy. Strong women can be intimidating. Strong + Sexy + Skills = Slut? How does that equation work?
I’d like to see a few posts on the main differences of opinion among feminists.
So, I was on some feminist site/blog/whatever, I don’t even recall which now.
There was a discussion going about unwanted touching in bars, and quite a few women (feminists) there remarked that a man grabbing a woman’s ass in a bar = sexual assault, if not outright rape.
I pointed out that the last time I was out in a bar, a woman grabbed my ass, and do they also find that to be sexual assault, if not rape.
Response? Overwhelming “shut up, ‘mra’ “, “it’s not the same”, “you’re showing your fear of empowered women”, “another mra that hates a sexually autonomous woman”, and more in the same vein.
So, I’d like to know why it is, that a man giving unwanted physical contact to a woman = rape, but when a woman does it, it’s “sexual empowerment”.
1. Traditional internet response: cite (link) or it didn’t happen
2. Any unwanted physical touch meets the legal criterion for assault (and also for battery in the UK/Commonwealth). That most uninvited social touching is not the grounds for a police complaint that might lead to prosecution is due to the complicated nature of our social interactions, but the fact remains that potentially slapping a friend on the back could, in certain circumstances, constitute assault. More people should be aware of this.
2a. Physical touch around either the primary or secondary sexual organs or the buttocks is considered sexual touching and if uninvited/unwelcome then that constitutes sexual assault.
3. There are degrees of sexual assault, but rape has always been held to mean penetration of a bodily orifice, so if someone said that grabbing an ass was rape, they were simply wrong. It happens.
4. Most feminists would view grab-ass as minor sexual assault and be more concerned about the sexual harassment aspects of the action. Like many actions which can constitute harassment, it’s not harassment until the perp has been asked to desist and refused to do so, and the same act can possibly be welcomed from a different person who has a different relationship to the subject. So, grabbing an ass can possibly be playful or flirtatious, or it could be a domineering and intimidatory action – it depends upon other factors in the relationships and motivations of the people involved.
5.That the same act can be viewed differently depending upon the implicit relationship between people is not at all unusual under the law – a family member taking money from a wallet is assumed to be borrowing unless the owner of the wallet specifically objects, while a stranger taking money from a wallet is assumed to be prima facie theft.
6. Uninvited, unwanted, unwelcome physical contact is assault no matter who is contacting whom. Flirtatious, welcomed physical contact is not assault no matter who is contacting whom. The difference lies not solely in the intention of the toucher but primarily in the perceptions of the person being touched.
Could I ask more about your point (2)?
Doesn’t this strike you as rather problematic, that the law of assault is so broad that most of us are guilty of it several times a day and just choose to ignore it? It seems to me that one consequence of this is that it means people’s understanding of what’s acceptable needs to be completely divorced from the actual legal position, and then it’s hardly suprising that people don’t understand, or even care about, the legal definition?
1. Traditional internet response: cite (link) or it didn’t happen
I just said I don’t even recall which it was. This is “Ask a Question”, not “Demand 500 pieces of e-vidence for what prompted this question”. I’m not going to dig through a couple weeks of internet history in an attempt to find the exact site, column, and comments thread it occurred on. I’m just not. Sorry.
3. There are degrees of sexual assault, but rape has always been held to mean penetration of a bodily orifice, so if someone said that grabbing an ass was rape, they were simply wrong. It happens.
I have to ask: You don’t find that a problem in any way? The stereotype it generates? That only men can commit rape? Even you putting it into print makes me uncomfortable.
Though, sadly, what I gather you’re saying here:
Man grabs ass, obviously unwanted assault. Woman grabs ass, obviously wanted flirtation?
All that did was put you in agreement with them, not explaining WHY there’s this distinction.
(a) Well, ask a traditional troll question and get a traditional troll response. Perhaps you’re not a troll, but if you haven’t done enough reading around to realise that your question looks typically trollish, perhaps you ought to think about some of your assumptions.
(b) You really do need to rethink some of your assumptions. Penetration does not have to be penile – it can be digital, oral or using an object, so obviously the definition of rape as penetrative does not in fact imply that only men can commit rape. Also, the definition includes all forms of penetrative sexual contact, so unwanted penis-in-vagina (PIV) sex is rape even when the person who doesn’t want the sex is the person possessing the penis. (edited to add – some of the “loaded baggage” around the word rape is what has led to revisions of criminal codes to instead have crimes of various degrees of sexual assault – a very good move in my opinion as more precision in this area is helpful)
(c) Reread what I wrote (emphasis added).
I really didn’t think that I needed to add “therefore unwanted grabbing of a man’s arse by a woman is assault” after writing that. It seemed kinda obvious.
[ Alert: Potentially PTSD-triggering content below]
*
*
*
P.S. more on the loaded language values attached to the word rape – because the word originally meant “theft” and there is a wide range of common usage variations in what the word rape can be taken to mean (for just one modern slang example, defeated gamers talking about having been “raped” when their character is killed or “dude, I totally raped you” when they defeat another player), this is exactly the reason that the term sexual assault is preferable not only in criminal codes but in general discussion.
Some legislation traditionally has defined rape only as penetration of the vagina with a penis, and I agree that not only does this create a pernicious stereotype of only men as rapists but it also allows any rapist in those jurisdictions who chooses anal penetration or rapists who use objects to be charged only with assault occasioning grievous bodily harm which typically does not result in as lengthy a sentence as a rape conviction (and when the defence can plausibly argue that the bodily harm was just part of “rough sex” it might well result in no conviction at all).
I particularly applaud the legislatures who have defined degrees of sexual assault depending upon whether or not penetration occurred and/or whether bodily harm (grievous or not, and including the administration of incapacitating substances) was inflicted. All unwanted sexual contact is a violation of bodily integrity, but the harm done does depend upon exactly how that unwanted contact took place, and the law should take into account both the degree of harm done and the level of premeditation involved.
a) Well, ask a traditional troll question and get a traditional troll response. Perhaps you’re not a troll, but if you haven’t done enough reading around to realise that your question looks typically trollish, perhaps you ought to think about some of your assumptions.
Well, how is it “trollish” to ask a question, about a personal experience?
Also, dumping any male that has a male view, or a question about a male experience, into the “MRA TROLL” pile is pretty damn dehumanizing.
It doesn’t help when one side tells us we’re “unmanly” for finding unwanted sexually-tinged contact to be, in fact, unwanted, and the other side, that should be embracing us for it, also sends us away, just, instead of calling us unmanly, they just call us “troll” or tell us we’re lying, and made it up.
Yet, people wonder why men DON’T want to speak up about being victims of unwanted sexual contact.
Sorry for the tangent, but it bothers me.
(b) You really do need to rethink some of your assumptions. Penetration does not have to be penile – it can be digital, oral or using an object, so obviously the definition of rape as penetrative does not in fact imply that only men can commit rape.
It still says it without directly saying it.
Still, it never really addressed my question. Why a distinction is made? Why is it, that they’re more likely to refer to a woman doing a bit of grabass as “flirting”?
I am really, honestly curious for some kind of insight here.
Hm – thought I replied to this yesterday, but it’s not here.
Strawman. That’s not what was trollish. What is trollish is you expecting that this group of women here explain and justify to you what another group of women somewhere else said/did, as if feminists are some sort of hivemind.
I never called you an MRA, either. Do try and actually interact with me, personally, instead of the hordes of feminazis apparently wandering across your screen.
I agree that you are in a difficult position. You’d get more sympathy for it if you weren’t demanding that we explain someone else’s opinion offered at an occasion where we were not present.
Bullshit. There are other things that can be used to penetrate orifices other than penises, and women can use them just as well as men. You appear to be hooked up on penetration=penis, but not everybody else is, especially not legislators who have carefully included language about digits, mouths and objects in the letter of the law.
I DON’T KNOW BECAUSE I’M NOT THEM AND I WASN’T THERE.
I believe the problem the poster was alluding to was to do specifically with the loaded nature of the word ‘penetrate.’ To the layman penetration implies that the wrong-doing is necessarily on the part of the penetrator rather than the penetrated. While this is true in general, your clarification above, “so unwanted penis-in-vagina (PIV) sex is rape even when the person who doesn’t want the sex is the person possessing the penis,” does indeed indicate that is not always the case.
I think the problem the OP had was that the language encountered in the first instance implied that as far as PIV was concerned only one party could be at fault. The flip-side would have been if the line had read something like, ‘unwanted envelopment of one sexual organ with another.’ Mechanically both things describe the same situation, but the inference as to which party is the aggressor is reversed.
I understand that PIV isn’t the only form of rape, but since it is what is generally thought of in the first instance, I believe that is why the OP found the language problematic.
I am trying to locate information on my rights in the work place and if I have a legal complaint about a boss that continually refers to me as a “girl”. For example “the girls can do it” or “have one of the girls blah blah”. I am 54 years old, I have mothered three children, earned a degree as an adult working full time and raising my children alone. I am not fluff. I am a woman. Does anyone know- do I have legal recourse???
People are only guilty of assault if the physical contact is unwelcome. If your friend welcomes you slapping them on the back, then it’s not assault.
Think about it. Professional boxers have entered into an agreement to hit each other hard and hurt each other to decide a sporting contest. None of the punches thrown in a boxing ring constitute assault because they are welcomed contact under the rules of engagement.
Assault has always been about whether the contact is welcomed by the person being touched by another person. (eta) I certainly haven’t touched anyone today in a way that wasn’t welcomed by them. Have you really done that several times in an average day?
Well, I was thinking more without explicitly asking permission beforehand. I wouldn’t touch someone in a way which I would *expect* to be unwelcome, but I might sometimes tap someone on the shoulder to get their attention, for example. It’s unlikely anyone would object to this enough to consider it assault, but that’s entirely beyond my control.
Hugh, this is around the point where the legal phrase that goes something like “usual expectations of a reasonable person” comes in.
A reasonable person would expect that someone with whom they had an ongoing personal relationship with (relative, friend, neighbour, colleague) would generally not be likely to object to being tapped on the shoulder to get their attention. It is also reasonable to expect that if a stranger dropped something and you picked it up and tapped them on the shoulder to get their attention so that you could hand it back to them, that most reasonable persons would not object to that touch. When that is likely to be the finding of a jury, and is very obviously likely to be the finding of a jury in the eyes of the prosecutors, then it is unlikely that a prosecution would ever go ahead even if the touched person did make a formal complaint and even if that complaint did lead to the initial laying of charges.
By contrast, if the person objects to being touched (whether on the first or a subsequent occasion), and then the other person continues to touch them anyway, that is unambiguously assault (and probably also harassment).
Touch on the parts of the body considered sexual is a special case – it is considered ipso facto offensive/invasive and generally expected to be unwelcome unless the two people have an especially close relationship. Thus a stranger touching someone on a part of the body considered sexual doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt that a stranger touching other parts of another person’s body would get.
Sure, you won’t be prosecuted for assault if you tap someone on the shoulder, but then you’re already employing a very different standard than the one the letter of law is setting. That’s what I have a problem with – because the law is absurdly broad you (and all reasonable people) are forced to make up your own standards of behaviour.
So then, on the one hand, if you point out to someone that their behaviour constitutes assault (or, y’know, something portrayed in a film or on tv) you can’t expect them to accept that this automatically makes it unacceptable.
And on the other hand, if someone *does* greatly take offence at being tapped on the shoulder (by someone they haven’t previously told not to, etc.), what can you tell them other than that they are being ‘unreasonable’? Obviously it’s pretty improbable, but it seems like a very dangerous precedent.
No, I’m not.
* Any unwelcome physical contact is potentially assault.
* Only the person being touched can determine whether they find the touch unwelcome.
* If the person who made the contact immediately backs off when told that the touch is unwelcome, I submit that you wouldn’t find a jury anywhere who would find that person guilty at trial, unless the touch is blatant sexual groping, when even a single contact is considered grossly invasive and unacceptable to many community standards (and would likely be prosecuted as sexual assault rather than general assault).
Sure, what should make it unacceptable is that the touch is unwelcome. That should be enough, but we both know that for some folks it isn’t.
How about a simple apology for making them feel uncomfortable/threatened? Why do you need to tell them that you feel they are being unreasonable? Who are you or anyone to be the arbiter of what sort of touch another person should find acceptable?
Ok, attempting some quote-y mark-ups:
[quote]* If the person who made the contact immediately backs off when told that the touch is unwelcome, I submit that you wouldn’t find a jury anywhere who would find that person guilty at trial,[/quote]
Absolutely, there’s no way this is going to get prosecuted, but again this is a different standard — you can have assaulted someone but not have reasonably expected the contact to be unwelcome, and you might well not face criminal prosecution or conviction over it, but that’s not the same as not having assaulted the person.
[quote]Sure, what should make it unacceptable is that the touch is unwelcome.[/quote]
But also that it could reasonably have been expected to be welcome? Because otherwise we’re just saying “well you’ll know not to do that to that person next time”, but not really expect the shoulder-tapper to modify their behaviour in general — we don’t think they’ve actually done anything *wrong*?
[quote] Why do you need to tell them that you feel they are being unreasonable? Who are you or anyone to be the arbiter of what sort of touch another person should find acceptable? [/quote]
Sorry, I wasn’t very clear there, I meant ’say’ in a more vague nebulous sense. Of course people can find whatever they like unacceptable, but what might be considered unreasonable is their taking offence at other people (who don’t yet know this) making what they, and society generally, considers reasonable judgements of what is likely to cause offence. Isn’t that rather the judgement your hypothetical jury is making?
…is that at all readable? Let me know if it’s not and I’ll try to reword it a bit.
Hugh, this is how lots of laws work, not just the laws on assault. One doesn’t tend to complain to the police if a friend takes your pen to use, and maybe not even if a very close friend “borrows” something far more valuable (money from your wallet taken by your sibling?), but if a stranger does so one yells “Stop Thief!”. The friend and the stranger are doing exactly the same thing, yet one reacts differently. One might also react differently to a friend/sibling at one time of one’s life than one does further down the track (“tough love” for someone stealing from friends and family to support an addiction, for example). People, law enforcement and the courts apply exactly the same class of social filters to assault as they do to theft. What is the alternative?
As to the difference between personal reactions and the “reasonable judgement” of the jury – the jury has been tasked by the court with sober consideration of all the facts laid before them, and have sworn an oath (or affirmed their commitment) to do so. People with a strong emotional reaction to the facts of the case have been subject to challenge by the lawyers for both/either the defence and prosecution before the trial begins. The two situations are hardly comparable.
PS use basic XHTML for text markup