Feminism Friday: two posts from Jill at Feministe on rape myths vs statistics

Both of these were written in response to an op-ed in the LA Times by Heather MacDonald.

Post 1: It’s Only A Myth If You Believe That Those Sluts Were Asking For It

This op/ed is one of the most ridiculous I’ve read in a long, long time (and that’s pretty impressive). Heather MacDonald argues that high rates of sexual assault on campus don’t exist because women don’t always define their experiences as rape; she then goes on to say that women who say they were raped are lying sluts who exaggerate the truth and were probably asking for it.

Jill’s evisceration of this op-ed is a joy to read, and then she gets on to the larger feminist points:

At first glance, it seems strange that MacDonald would simultaneously attack what she thinks is a hyped campus rape crisis and sex education on campuses. But it’s quite deliberate, and very telling. Anti-rape activism and sex-positive sexual health education are two sides to the same coin: They both challenge the dominant narrative that women’s bodies aren’t our own; they insist that sex is about consent and enjoyment, not violence and harm; and they attack a power structure that sees women as victims and men as predators. Anti-rape activists and sex-positive educators insist that men are not animals. Instead, men are rational human beings fully capable of listening to their partners and understanding that sex isn’t about pushing someone to do something they don’t want to; plenty of men are able to grasp the idea that sex should be entered into joyfully and enthusiastically by both partners, and that an absence of “no” isn’t enough — “yes” should be the baseline requirement.

Obviously, moving from the traditional “consent” standard of non-dissent to a new standard of affirmative assent still won’t end rape altogether:

FAQ: But don’t all these DNA exonerations mean that women lie about being raped?

A: No, what it means is that some prosecutors in the past proceeded to court solely on the basis of identifications without corroborating physical evidence, mostly in cases of stranger-rape, and that they convinced the juries in those cases that the identification was valid, when later evidence shows that the identification was mistaken. New procedures whereby DNA exclusion takes place in the investigative phase mean that such convictions will be far fewer in the future, especially as prosecutors, judges and juries have become more aware of the prevalence of wrongful convictions in the prosecution of all crimes and are more guarded against the possibility.

The most common cause of wrongful convictions is eyewitness misidentification.

Gross, Jacob, Matheson, Montgomery and Patel, Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003, published 2004: p18, Section V Part 1: Rapes and Murders: Mistakes versus Lies (pdf)

In nearly all DNA exonerations there is NO evidence that the victims lied about being raped, just that later evidence has shown that the man originally convicted was not actually the perpetrator of the rape. Exonerations on evidence other than DNA in the USA account for only 14/120 rape exonerations in the period 1989-2003, 13 of those complaining witnesses were determined to have lied. (In the same time period regarding 199 murder exonerations, 43 eyewitnesses were found to have lied, 5 police officers to have committed perjury, 24 forensic scientists to have committed perjury, 94 civilian witnesses claiming knowledge of the crime were found to have lied, and 17 actual murderers lied to secure the defendant’s conviction.)

High rates of exoneration cases tend to cluster around particular prosecutors, and thus should not be extrapolated to apply generally.

Feminism Friday: Safety vs. Patriarchal Overprotection

Reader Justin wrote and asked me for advice on an ethical balance problem, and with his permission I quote his email:

I have a question which has been bothering me for some time, and which may/may not be worth addressing on the site. In any case, its something I don’t feel precisely comfortable asking my close friends, but it does bother me. Not that you have any obligation to spend time assuaging my liberal guilt, but worth a try.
. .
I’m a male college student from the Midwest and I’ve been self-identifying as feminist (or feminist ally) for quite awhile. Through activism and academia, I’m pretty familiar and comfortable with feminist thought. About a year ago, my best friend–who attends another Midwestern college–was raped at knifepoint by two strangers who attacked her as she walked to her dorm one night. As I’ve attempted to help her work through the fallout of that experience, I’ve grown very protective (read paranoid) of my female friends. Particularly, I feel like I should refuse to let them walk home by themselves at night, and do my best to convince them to let me accompany them after parties, etc., which usually isn’t a problem.

Still, sometimes I feel a bit patriarchal and condescending, and I recognize that discouraging women from walking at night is a sort of variation on the whole “asking for it” theme, shifting the blame [on to] the victim [and away from] the victimizer. My question is, how do I find an ethical balance between protecting my friends from often underestimated dangers, and avoiding stereotype reinforcing paternalism. Obviously, in a sense my personal stake in this issue is minor compared to the actual threat of sexual violence, but I would still like to know how best to handle these situations. . .

Thanks for listening to my ramblings; any thoughts you have would be appreciated, though certainly not demanded. . .

Now, as I mailed back to Justin, I had two immediate responses come to mind.

1. although your protectiveness is noble, as I’m sure you’re aware most sexual assaults are date/acquaintance/partner rape, and you can’t be there for that. So the utility of your protectiveness is, through no fault of your own, limited.

2. the greater work to be done is challenging sexist attitudes in men around you when women aren’t there. It’s a long term effort, with no short term fanfares of triumph, but as more and more profeminist men undertake to challenge misogyny it’s more likely to make a difference in the end.

Now, while I was waiting for Friday to roll around, Kate Harding posted her terrific essay that I quoted in the FAQ: What Can I Do For Feminism?, which addressed my #2 above.

As to #1, I certainly wouldn’t want to minimise the fear, pain and distress of stranger rape, and I don’t have the personal experience to back it up, but I’m sure from what I’ve read of others’ experiences that the fear, pain and distress can only be multiplied when the rapist is someone known and trusted, and there’s sadly little the Justins of our world can do about untrustworthy deceitful men.

EXCEPT: as said above, don’t reinforce their casual misogyny about crazy bitches who are asking for it.

You might not know which of the men around you are untrustworthy deceitful misogynists, but guaranteed that some of them are, and if blokes who would never bully or harm a woman play along with the crazy-bitch jokes just for a laugh, some of those men laughing are getting their misogynistic violence fantasies reinforced by what they perceive as acceptance from other men.

Justin, thanks so much for writing.