Two of my favorite right-wing bloggers, Jane Galt and Cathy Young, have commented – in a rather unkind fashion – on Nicks’ recent posts about rape. Jane, responding to Nick’s fantasy of what Nick’s “ideal world” would be like, wrote:
…it’s stupid. Not only are we not in this utopia, we are never, ever going to be in that utopia. Even if we achieved a marvelously gender-blind society, there would still be some people who want to have sex with people who do not want to have sex with them. So, to summarize: Nick made it clear she was talking about an “ideal world,” not the real world; Jane responds by saying, in essence, “but your ideal world won’t ever be real.” Well, duh, Jane. That’s why Nick used the phrase “my ideal world,” to distinguish it from the real one. Meanwhile, Cathy wrote: But alongside it, another type of double standard has developed as well: one that views unconstrained, selfish, hedonistic female sexuality as “liberated” while condemning similar male behavior as sleazy and exploitative. In this new double standard, the promiscuous or adulterous male is a pig, while the promiscuous or adulterous female is a rebel against the patriarchy. This kind of feminism is not about equality and not about female empowerment. It’s about female entitlement. “This kind of feminism” is not one that Cathy has actually shown exists – say, by quoting a single example of such a feminist. Let alone quoting enough examples to provide evidence of some sort of widespread trend within feminism. The prime example – indeed, the only example – of a feminist in Cathy’s post is Nick. Under that circumstance, most readers would naturally assume that Nick is an example of the double-standard Cathy’s railing against. But that’s not the case, and Cathy doesn’t bother to clarify this point for her readers who don’t click through. Cathy’s argument seems to boil down to this: Nick says one thing; some feminists Cathy doesn’t name have said something different; therefore feminism has developed a double standard. I shouldn’t have to explain why Cathy’s argument doesn’t hold water. Feminism is large and varied, and – as any regular “Alas” reader knows – feminists often disagree. (If you ever want to start an endless argument in a room full of feminists, just say “I think prostitution ought be legalized” or “must never be legalized” – either one will do the trick). Nick is under no obligation to agree with Cathy’s unnamed feminists; and the fact that not all feminists agree on everything doesn’t establish some large strain of feminist hypocrisy. Are there some feminists out there – out of millions – who actually hold such a double standard? I’m sure there are a few. But in general, the feminists I know are pretty consistent – the ones who favor women fucking around a lot (consensually) are also the ones who don’t see anything wrong with men fucking around a lot (consensually). (For example, you’ll never find Amanda of Pandagon criticizing men merely for wanting to have frequent, consensual, casual sex.) Cathy also says: In fact, let’s take this a step further. Suppose things didn’t end quite so well for our male Nick. Suppose he actually does get drugged and robbed by the two female strangers he picked up in a bar for sex. Do you think Nick is going to encounter a lot of sympathy for his plight, from men or from women? I seriously doubt it. In fact, I suspect that the response is going to be mainly along the lines of, “he had it coming.” (A male friend to whom I outlined this scenario said, “The word ‘dumbass’ comes to mind.”) Really? If Cathy says her friends have that reaction, I’ll take her word for it. But I’m glad I don’t have her friends. I can’t imagine any of my friends saying “you had it coming” to a robbery victim in the situation Cathy describes, let alone to a rape victim (male or female). Someone who said that sincerely (rather than in an ironic, dark-humored way) would be considered appalling among my friends. Cathy’s argument supports my theory that many conservatives are far more anti-male than the typical feminist is. It’s not feminists, after all, arguing that men are incapable of controlling themselves and need to be civilized through marriage to women; that sort of argument is reserved for conservatives like Maggie Gallagher. It’s not feminists who say that men, once in the sex act, are incapable of stopping, like dogs; but it’s a pretty common belief among conservatives (just read the comments following Jane’s post and you’ll find a couple of examples). Not all conservatives are like that; I’ve never noticed such anti-male nonsense coming from Cathy or Jane, for example. And for all I know, the friend Cathy quoted was a flaming liberal. But anti-male attitudes such as what Cathy’s friend said, certainly seem more accepted among conservatives than among any of the feminists I hang with.
Major Trump donors who complained of immigrant ‘invasion’ used Mexican workers illegally https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/20/uline-mexican-workers-trump
But lets not pretend that its exactly as low risk as going out with a well known and trrusted family friend.
Nobody is saying that. Have you read the several hundred comments on the subject. I suggest you start with comment # 89 on this thread first.
To AndiF:
Er, no. Similar evaluation is also done about mugging and burglary.by the way there is no perfect risk avoidance strategy. What I am saying is that I seriously doubt educating someone about female autonomy and waiting for the day when there are no more rapists is going to help much. In your case, you may want to invest in self defense or a weapon or call for security guards at parking lots.
TO L.A. lubu:
Now its clear. why didn’t you say so all along? :-)
And what do you mean by changing the script?
Does anyone here believe this, that if a female co-worker accused a male co-worker of rape, everyone would automatically believe him and not her?
Yes. I absolutely believe this, because I’ve seen this in action. Unless a woman has been beaten up badly (eyes swollen shut from bruising, broken nose, stitches, etc) it is generally assumed that no rape has taken place. The old “why didn’t she fight back, if it was a real rape” canard. Now, if she showed up the next day at work looking as if she’d been hit by a truck, and the police had arrested her coworker, and he was given a rather high bail because of the extent of her injuries, it would be a different story. But….that’s not the typical acquaintance rape. And part of the reason for that is the way women are conditioned by our society.
See RonF, women are conditioned in this society to base their “spidey sense” (or, was I the only person who watched Spiderman cartoons as a kid?) danger level on the status of the man, not the behavior of a man. We are encouraged to believe that if a “nice guy” date or “nice guy” coworker is getting pushy, overly aggressive, and starting to play grab-ass that he is “just kidding”. That he wouldn’t really cross those boundaries because of his status to the woman in question. That only strangers do that. That’s part of why there are more husband/boyfriend/acquaintance rapes—besides the obvious factor being around those men rather than strangers, it’s also the conditioned reluctance to fight back against those men, and the conditioned response to tolerate behavior from those men that would never be tolerated from a stranger.
That’s another parallel I see between our society’s attitude toward rape and attitude toward domestic violence. For all the hoo-rah, women are still encouraged to tolerate behavior in those we know that we are strongly encouraged to resist or fight back from if encountered in a stranger.
Remember what I said about the when and the how of resisting that behavior. I can’t “beat up” a man, the way a man would. I can only seriously injure/maim, or kill. The average guy in the we-make-’em-big-here Midwest outweighs me by 100 pounds or more. There’s not much wiggle room for self-defense. I have to come correct from the very beginning or I’m dead. The commonly-taught trope of “let him screw around for a little while to make sure he doesn’t mean it” is not serving women, and it won’t serve your daughters. Even if you and your wife are not teaching this message at home, it is a message they will receive from outside as they are growing up.
Our society gives contradictory messages to women about rape, just as Sheelzebub said. No matter what we do, we’re wrong. I encourage you to think about what I’ve said regarding the typical acquaintance rape scenario. How do you plan on teaching your daughters to avoid acquaintance rape? How do you plan on countering the societal message that the status, rather than the behavior, of the man is what makes that man “safe”?
carib, what are the rules for a woman to avoid acquaintance rape? I know no set of guidelines is perfect, but surely you believe that a common-sense set of rules can be created; one that, if a woman follows them, no reasonable person will say that she acted foolishly or recklessly. Go to it.
And what do you mean by changing the script?
Read the very next comment! Women are at risk from acquaintance rapes because we’ve been conditioned to tolerate behavior from men that we know that we have been conditioned to fight back—with extreme measures, if necessary—from men that we don’t. No one here is saying that the majority of men behave in this manner, just that our societal tropes are making it easier for those who do to get away with it.
One of the advantages to my line of work is that it takes me into many different jobsites, and I get windows on worlds that I would otherwise not have access to. On just about every jobsite, there’s at least one guy that is regarded as a “masher”—some dude that plays grab-ass, or makes inappropriate commentary, and crosses boundaries all the damn time. I know in the popular imagination that sexual harassment laws are supposed to have rid the jobsite of these types, but it’s just not true. There’s always at least one guy that even brings the men to talking about what a pervert he is. And everybody figures that’s the way he behaves himself off the job too. Yet…..that figure tends to be regarded as a comic figure, rather than a real danger. And within the confines of the worksite, he probably isn’t a real danger. But offsite, it’s safe to assume that he is going to be a real danger to someone. Why don’t we ostracize this character? Why do we allow him to be the jobsite “joke”. That’s one difference between our attitude toward rape and our attitude toward domestic violence—I have yet to be on anyone’s jobsite where a wife beater is regarded as a joke.
We do generally prepare our daughters to resist violent attackers, one way or another. But in general, we aren’t encouraging them to resist the date-rape tactics they are far more likely to encounter. That has to change. Instead of self-defense seminars on stranger attack, we need more self-defense seminars on what to do when a date scene turns ugly. Self defense moves that focus on what to do when you’re sitting, or what to do when he has his arm around you. Upwards of eighty percent of people are natural “strikers” when we fight; we tend to use our arms and legs for striking. Fewer people are natural “grapplers”, and those are the techniques more necessary to defend yourself against rape from an intimate.
Now, on to the men. Why are we still socializing our young men to think that their ability to “pull chicks” is an indication of their manhood? Why are we still reinforcing the myth to men that when a woman says “no”, that she really means “but I want to say yes, I just don’t want you to think I’m a slut.” Why do we still have a societal trope that says men are free to take more liberties with the “slutty” woman than with the “good” woman (translation: “good” women can then be termed as “sluts” and then the rapist is home free). That’s why we’re up in arms about the “slut” factor on these threads; it plays into the path well-trodden by rapists! Why do you think Rohypnol was a rapist’s best friend? Because one shot in a woman’s drink, and she could then be the “slut” who tied one on, thus free to be abused in any manner the rapist(s) wished, with no more than the cluck-clucking of the public. Remove the “slut” stigma, and not only more women will come forward (thus, improving the rape arrest record), without that baggage, it improves the prosecution record (if it doesn’t matter if she was a “slut” or not, then the focus can remain on the rapist’s behavior). Why aren’t rapes taken as seriously as other crimes? Why the scanty penalties for rape convictions? Probation shouldn’t even be an option. Why are we still giving the green light to certain techniques used by young men in their quest to “pull chicks”, from unbuttoning a woman’s shirt or jeans after she said “no” to using their bigger, heavier bodies as a deadweight after they’ve already got the woman on the couch or bed? Wrestling matches are not foreplay, got-damn-it. Why aren’t we calling it what it is—rapist behavior? If the woman said no, she meant no, dammit—get off of her! We still teach that if he hasn’t hit her, it isn’t really rape. Why do we still give the green light to the idea that if a rape took place within the context of a party atmosphere (from spring break to houseparty), it couldn’t have really been rape? Why do we still teach that women who put up enough of a fight within the context of a date or other informal solitary contact with a man she knows, that the woman in question is a “prick tease” (or hardass, or frigid, or some-kinda-dyke, or whatever)? Did she say she was going to fuck you? No? She isn’t a pricktease, or any other stereotype. Just because you go out with a woman you aren’t entitled to sex. Why do we still teach that if a woman goes somewhere alone with a man, that she must necessarily want sex with him? And what about the “three date rule”, that there’ll be some fucking going on after the third date. That plays into the hands of rapists too, because juries are likely to think that a woman “should have known” he would turn out to be a rapist after the third date, and thus must have really wanted the sex.
Those are some of the cultural scripts I’d like to see changed.
Similar evaluation is also done about mugging and burglary
Actually, it doesn’t — no one has ever said anything to me about my travel “risks’ in terms of burglary or mugging but I hear all the time about how it isn’t safe for a woman to travel alone, get in a cab alone, ride the subway and so on because I might be raped. No matter what the circumstances, I’ve been hearing all my life what I should or shouldn’t do to avoid rape but I haven’t got similar advice on any other crimes. The only time I hear about those other crimes is during discussions like this when they are used as analogies or comparisons.
In fact, every time there is a discussion on rape at any blog– regardless of what the frame of the discussion is — people show up to make those same kinds pronouncements. People just can’t seem to resist getting to tell women how to behave.
“I think I’d rather be raped than spend the rest of my life turning aside from what I wanted and settling for something less. I know I’d rather take risks than allow fear of rape to control my expression of my sexuality.”
This is what Nick said in one of her posts. She says it would still be a rape, even if she was willing to have sex before. And I totally agree with her, of course. Like, duh. This is obvious.
But hey, guys, why bother to discuss all that? We’re talking about someone who thinks the expression of her sexuality is way above her own safety.
Why bother, I ask?
Are you making a moral judgment or a practical one, Audrey?
I have to admit that my first reaction on reading Nick’s story was “OMG, how foolhardy can you be? I would never do that!” Well, I wouldn’t, but that doesn’t mean I’m safe from being raped, just that I’m safe from being raped or otherwise assaulted in that circumstance, because I picked up a stranger (or two) for sex.
However, I once gave two guys I met on the subway a ride to their hotel. They looked to be about 18 and said they were from out of state and on their way to a wedding and were trying to figure out how to get to the hotel by subway or by shortest possible cab ride from the subway to save money. Even as I offered I could hear myself thinking, “What are you doing? Can you imagine what could happen here?!” In fact what happened was that I drove them to their hotel, about 7 minutes out of my way, they left after thanking me profusely and I went home.
This was unquestionably risky behavior; I made a snap judgment that these two young men were what they seemed, but I could have been wrong. The more often I do something like that, the more likely that it will be the one time in a thousand that I end up raped or worse. (Remember Ted Bundy? He got his victims to help him carry something to his car.) But I’d rather take risks than allow the fear of rape or violence to prevent me from helping a stranger in need.
My point here is that no one can live a risk-free life; we all do risky things from different motivations. It’s been noted in this thread that wanting to be nice puts a lot more women in a lot more danger than picking up strangers in bars. If you want to condemn Nick for taking risks, you’ll have to condemn me too, and anyone who ever helped or accepted help from a stranger, and anyone who ever let their kids play outside. If you want to condemn her for breaking some moral code, don’t pretend you’re just concerned for her safety.
Because women’s safety has always been dependent on how she expresses her sexuality. At some point you just have to tell the fuckers that they are the ones that have to shape up. Nothing wrong with expecting guys to be decent. And nothing wrong with a woman making choices for herself, rather than ones that are made for her through threats and intimidations.
Lu, it’s a practical judgement. I’m just wondering why discuss that since she’s saying her safety is not as important as the expression of her sexuality. SHE says, not me, that she WOULD RATHER BE RAPED than (I suppose, in the case under scrutiny) not giving in to her impulses if they might imply in danger (and we all know it MAY or MAY NOT). SHE is the one saying that if her impulses MAY lead her to a dangerous situation like the one she described, she would rather give in to them and MAYBE suffer the bad consequences than not expressing her sexuality in that circumstance. SHE is the one who says “my sexuality” versus “my safety”, not me. She seems to ACKNOWLEDGE that the situation she chose to express her sexuality may bring harm – otherwise she wouldn’t point out that she knows the “fear of rape” could hinder her sexuality. But she still chooses to do it.
That was my question. Why bother to tell, as many people here have tried to, that her CHOICE is one that may imply harm to herself if she herself KNOWS SO and still wants to give it a try? She seems to acknowledge there is danger, but she’s willing to try anyway. It just seems a little bit contradictory with all that’s been said here to undermine the view that “one should avoid what one knows is dangerous”.
Q Grrl,
I point out that Nick says her safety IS NOT AS IMPORTANT as the expression of her sexuality. I ask why bother discuss her safety or choices since she hersefl doesn’t mind about that that much. You say that “because women’s safety has always been dependent on how she expresses her sexuality”.
Wait a second. What you’re trying to say is that (correct me if I’m wrong) the more she expresses her sexuality, the safer she will be. I won’t say it doesn’t make sense (unless you prove it to me), but that doesn’t answer my question.
Yes, I’m saying the more agency/autonomy that women express, the safer they will be. Buying into the dominant paradigm certainly hasn’t kept women safe. Not if you look around.
Audrey, I’d rather be raped than live in perpetual fear and artificial, infantilizing restrictions, too. I think it has to do with having self-respect and deciding to live like a free human, not a trapped animal. I’m not going to judge any woman who’s been conditioned by her culture or traumatized by an assault, but I’m not going to let paralyzed, self-conscious anxiety stand as the default female state, either.
Second guessers will be with us always. It happens for men who get mugged too.
As for Nick, she can do what she wants. But lets not pretend that its exactly as low risk as going out with a well known and trrusted family friend.
Carib, have you even READ this thread? Or anything at all about rape? Becuase it’s looking like you haven’t read a damned thing, here or anywhere else. Why do you bother?
In post 75, Jane says “Amp, I am sure that men don’t act the same way around me as they do around other men. But the men I have known in various contexts have expressed rather explosively their belief that 1) if she says no, you stop and 2) you don’t have sex with a woman who has passed out.”
The person who raped me was explosive in his belief that rapists are the scum of the earth. However, he convinced himself that what he did to me was not rape. That’s how it works. It’s always the other guy.
What guy is going to say publicly that he thinks rape is neato? Or say to his co-workers, ‘yeah the wife didn’t want it last night but I took it anyway”?
You know, I’ve struggled with whether or not to post on this topic for a while. I’ve had to do a lot of pondering to really get a good feel for what ultimately is the right way to view this issue. You’d think I would have come up with a lot more to say than what I’ve been able to surmise, but really it’s pretty short and simple.
Bottom line – different people are willing to accept different risks and that’s OKAY. Just because Nick finds her threshold to be a bit broader than many Alas readers by no means makes her responsible for any potential victimization she occurs any more than someone who takes next to no risks and is victimized. Someone accepting risks does not mean they bear the burden of accepting responsiblity for anything bad that may occur to them. Squeam all you want at Nick’s decisions, but she’s right in her assertion that 100% of the responsibility of what could have ended up a rape would have been owned by the man she was negotiating with.
different people are willing to accept different risks and that’s OKAY
Welcome to classical liberalism/Burkean conservatism. I’ll get your membership card out to you in the mail right away; the lapel pin takes longer because we custom engrave them. Do you want the “dead white man” figure or the “liberated sex worker” theme?
Audrey H: Wait a second. What you’re trying to say is that (correct me if I’m wrong) the more she expresses her sexuality, the safer she will be. I won’t say it doesn’t make sense (unless you prove it to me), but that doesn’t answer my question.
Q Grrl’s right, and it can be generalized: the more agency/autonomy people have, the safer they are. Children are safest not if they’re rigidly kept away from strangers, but if they’re taught they have the right to disobey adults who are telling them to do things the child really, fundamentally feels are bad. Children are abused in religious schools in part because in those schools rigid hierarchies are set up – the children are taught to obey, not to argue back, not to decide for themselves.
When I was a kid – and I mean, young: on one occasion I was eight, on the other, eleven – I was approached by an adult male. Classic “stranger danger” situation in both cases – well, in one case the man was apparently an approved acquaitance of my parents, as far as an eight-year-old could tell. Both times I cannot say for sure that the man intended me harm, because both times my spidey-sense went off like mad and I decided I was not obliged to be polite or considerate or nice: I was just going to rudely get up and go somewhere else. When I was eight I remember actually feeling mildly guilty about this – when I was eleven, and had a little more knowledge about why you don’t go off with strangers, I just felt rather smug. Both times I was in a public space with plenty of other adults around, and safe enough in practical terms so long as I wasn’t obedient enough to go somewhere with somone whom my instincts told me was someone to be wary of.
My parents brought me up – at considerable inconvenience and annoyance to themselves, now I look back – to believe that I had the right to think for myself, to demand explanations, to act autonomously, to decide what I wanted to do. To perform my own risk assessments, effectively. And one result of that was that I think I very probably avoided getting molested, maybe raped, maybe worse, twice.
Similar evaluation is also done about mugging and burglary
I’m with AndiF on this one. When I went traveling abroad alone, I got lots of advice on what to do in terms of protecting my property and protecting myself. The advice on protecting my property was much more likely to include the non-restrictive “carry travelers checks, have copies of made of your ID, and carry it all in a security pocket (not your bag or pockets)” while the advice on protecting myself was more along the lines of “Don’t do this alone, don’t go there at all and don’t go out at night” and occasionaly just “are you crazy?”
Q Grrl’s right, and it can be generalized: the more agency/autonomy people have, the safer they are. Children are safest not if they’re rigidly kept away from strangers, but if they’re taught they have the right to disobey adults who are telling them to do things the child really, fundamentally feels are bad.
I have to second this as well. As I’ve written before on previous threads, part of the problem with the situation I was in was that the adults made it clear after I told them the first time that everything was taken care of. However, I was never a part of the “taking care of” process – even to the point that to this day I pretty much have no idea what they did to “take care” of it. So when it became obvious that everything was not taken care of, I was even less sure of what I should do the second time around than the first. Were relapses to be expected? Did the “taking care of” simply take time? Would I simply get the other kid in more trouble – but again nothing would happen to fix the problem? Despite this, for some reason the adults sort of assumed that, having gone to them the first time, I would immediately do the same the second time.
My two cents is that I don’t buy the argument that only women are put down because of their sexuality. The number of time I’ve heard women denigrate men that sleep around is staggering. Men that sleep around are subject to similar badgering from women. If we keep things equal on this point,the average men should look at women that sleep around in the same way the average women look at men that sleep around (all men are pigs, ring a bell anyone).
I have my own story on the subject and yes I am male and yes this is another dreaded anecdotal story.
I once went for dinner with a co-worker, the next day she called it a date, it was not for me. For me the experience ended up as what some guys would vulgarly refer to as a coyote ugly experience. For those not familiar with the expression, it usually means you wake up next to someone the next morning with whom under a sober mind, you would not have slept with (often because of their looks). Indeed, after bringing her home, I passed out (but there was evidence to the contrary, I somehow must have been awake at some level since it appears that we had sex). Well being a big boy, not the 1st time I’ve drank and not remembered (but less then 1/2 dozen time I would say 15 yrs, OK maybe I should end that habit). I actually went for breakfast with her the next morning and from her account she had a good time. In the course of the conversation, I did explain to her that I was drunk and did not remember much past making it home to which she replied she knew, because I had drank most of the wine bottles during dinner and drank more at a second pub. I told her this could not be true since we were sharing the bottle, but she told me no, she only had one glass and she should know because she was the one pouring the wine. At that point, it did occurred to me that I had been had, but there was really nothing for me to do, but I did try to distance myself from her. After 3 months of phone calls, pleading, and crying from her part I finally was able to get it through her head that I did not want to have relationship with her. The harassment had gotten so bad, that I even started to talk about the experience to friends both men and women and I was starting to think that I might have to formally make a complaint at work (it never got to that). In all case where I told my story, and more strongly so from women, I was the one to blame for everything. The fact that I got drunk, entirely my fault (no was willing to buy the she got me drunk and took advantage of me story), the fact that she was stalking me my fault because I slept with her (Even if physically I am much stronger, I was no longer sure I was dealing with a sane person so I was nervous, but she took no for an answer just in the nick of time).
It’s definitely hard for me to accept the idea of the patriarchal rape culture because as a men I seem to have somewhat missed the memo. My experience as well does not support it and from what I can see people that believe in this hypothesis will disregard any evidence that does not support their it. Even the evidence that most men are not rapist is not enough evidence for them to prove them wrong. Even the punishments and the presumption of guiltiness for the accused is not enough to convince them. In the end, I actually think that a lot of the people that try to say what rapist are thinking when committing a crime, are the worst qualified people to do so.
In the first passage, you describe an experience that is not rape. At least, you don’t claim that you were raped. Am I missing something ?
In the second passage, you talk about who is qualified to define the thought processes that lead to rape and who is not. I advise a good look in the mirror, Mister.