This article by Nina Fennell in the Australian news paper argues that rape is not only a feminist issue, but also a human rights one. Essentially, any sex crime, is a violation of human rights because it is an infringement on the human right of self-determination, as well as some other negative human rights, i.e. freedom from certain things.
Fennell argues that putting rape into a context of human rights rather than leaving it exclusively on the feminist turf will open up the debate and bring in people that feel alienated by the exclusiveness of feminism. In my personal letters to various universities, I argued that this is precisely what I believe is necessary for feminism - an opening up of the nuanced debate that occurs in feminist and academic circles to be brought out into a more accessible arena in order to avoid misconceptions and hostility towards feminists and feminism. I agree with Fennell that, sometimes, feminism is perceived as quite hard to relate to for a lot of people, especially, I think, men. Feminism is often viewed as this pro-female movement, which it in all certainty is. The misconceptions start where people believe that to be pro-female one must also inevitably be anti-male. For me, and a lot of other feminists, this is as far from the truth as can be (more in the above linked post and also here).
Would it be beneficial to view rape as a human rights issue? Yes, it definitely would. Using a more neutral ground for the discussion could possibly lead to a more inclusive debate and that would consequently lead to a more open debate around rape culture, rape myths and rape apologia. Debating these things in a non-feminist light could allow for these concepts to become more neutral, i.e. not seen as a feminist myth evoked to bring down the great evil patriarchy, or rather men. This would be very beneficial to all parts in society as these are prevalent problems and they have the consequence of leading to further misconceptions about rape, sex crimes and the survivors of these crimes.
But, there is a reason why rape and sex crimes lie so close to the heart of women. Most statistics point out that these types of crimes happen mainly to women, with males representing approximately 7-15% of the survivors (USA, Britain - more statistics are usually available through each individual country and are quite easily accessible). Because of this, it is often seen as a big part making up the encompassing subject of violence against women. Power in these situations are often a gendered issue with the dominance of a male being established over a female as a consequence of a sexual crime. Interestingly, UNFPA devotes an entire chapter on 'Gender roles in flux' in their publication at the 10-year anniversary of the publishing of Resolution 1325 which deals exclusively with women in conflict. The chapter shows how in post-conflict societies, where women continue doing 'men's work' of running the productive economy that they took up during conflict, men often resort to domestic violence in order to reclaim their masculinity. Alan Greig also has interesting work on masculinities for anyone who is interested in reading further on the issue.
It has to be noted, however, that these statistics might need a bit wider interpretation of sexual assault for males, as most cultures still do not believe that men can be sexually assaulted in the same way as women. It's a part of the common conception of men as perpetrators, women as victims (see Moser, Victims, Perpetrators or Actors: Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence
for an explanation how this is viewed in conflict); roles which can damage both men and women in the long run. Men are at risk of being largely overlooked as victims of sex crimes, and women are recurrently portrayed as passive victims just standing idly by waiting for someone to sexually assault them or for a man to save them.Gender analysis is needed in issues such as rape and other sex crimes, just because it often contains a lot of gendered violence as a result of perceived or assigned gender roles. Therefore, to take it entirely from the area of feminist analysis could result in the analytical tools needed to understand this sort of violence and coercion being cast aside, and that would be damaging in the long run for all parties involved.
Women's rights are human rights, however, and Fennell makes a very good point. There is a need to bring out these issues to a more neutral ground where people do not feel alienated by the frame work of discussion. Hopefully this can be done in a way that can reconcile both human rights and feminist/gender analysis.
Happy human rights day!
Hi! Just read your post quickly, and have not had the time to check out the links. Absolutely agree that rape, and any sort of violence, is definitely a human rights issue. And I believe rapes/sexual violence against women during war (e.g. what happened in Bosnia and Congo) are classified as war crimes?
ReplyDeleteAnd feminism needs to be inclusive, and this has always not been the case. I was at a feminist website recently where one got the impression that males were not welcome, and certainly not the male point of view because "they (men) just don't get it", especially with anything pertaining to sexual violence against women.
By being exclisive, is it then any wonder why feminism has a bad rap, and why young women run a mile when you mention feminism and deny being feminists, and feminism seem to be equated with "men-haters". Which is a pity because feminism has done so much and brought about rights for women, and one must also not forget the effort of men who joined hands with the women to make this possible.
The concept of feminism needs to be promoted again, but this time against the backdrop of gender equality and human rights values. And how this benefits society as a whole.
Absolutely agreed on this one!
ReplyDeleteRapes/sexual violence during conflict are indeed classified as war crimes. There's a whole bunch on information on it in resolutions 1820, 1888 and 1889, but it originated in the Geneva Convention. The problem is the disconnect between the rhetoric and the implementation which hasn't always (not really at all) worked the way it is supposed to. (And this is incidentally what I'm exploring in my undergrad dissertation :))
I think the majority of feminists (perhaps a misperception, but that's the general feeling I get) wants to include men, but it is quite hard in this climate where feminism has been rubber stamped as anti-male, if not always man-hating, and by simply identifying as a feminist one is often stamped as 'radical' or even 'militant' which is the rhetoric used more recently. Rabid is also another word that seems to be thrown around all too freely.
I think part of the problem with feminism is that it is still associated with radical feminism from the 70s and that because some of the rhetoric inevitably lives on from that time, it is quite hard for people to see that it has changed somewhat. Also, I have noticed a slight 'gender fatigue' as well, with more and more people trying to actively fight feminism through calling themselves 'anti-feminists' etc, which is perhaps not so strange because there has been attempts on the behalf of European governments trying to 'gender mainstream' (i.e. always include a gender outlook/analysis on every policy suggested/implemented) institutions. Unfortunately we have another case of disconnect between rhetoric and implementation here; gender experts are listened to, but not enough, so the consequences are talking about it, but no or little outcome. So there is no doubt to me that there is work yet to be done!
I will try to attempt to explore how one can reconcile the rhetoric of feminism with society as a whole and make it more inclusive if I end up getting into the masters programmes I've applied for. It is an exciting, and perhaps a bit daunting quest, but I think it will be fun!
Good article, rape is definitely a human rights issue.
ReplyDeleteIt is true what you say the problem with feminism the problem is that it is associated with radical feminism (intellectual misandry) and therefore is shunned.
There is another issue with is that it focuses mostly on women's problems (and rightly so there are many problems women face). Gender Studies and women's studies which are offshoots of feminism have been established in various universities. The only sphere where feminists will deal with men lies in "critical man studies" which basically tries to "disentangle" masculinity.
Public consciousness of women's problems is not something that is somehow marginal, there are tons of feminist blogs online and in reputable magazines (e.g. New Statesman), women's associations, the existence of the aforementioned UNFPA.
These are all useful areas, but they all tend to forget mens' perspectives. For example, some feminists proclaim that "marriage is slavery" because women are confined to the home and have to do work for free (chores, etc.) The same is true for men: men have to work and accumulate wealth in order to marry and when they're married they have to work to provide for the family. So if women are confined to the private sphere men are excluded from it (who doesn't want to spend time with their families).
Rape as a method of domination and retribution is abhorrent and a war crime. But then you get into the idea that male combat casualties of war is almost 100 %. And when civilian populations are terrorized women are raped but men get far worse, e.g. the Srebrenica massacre in which boys and men were seperated from their families and shot. In a sense, society values mens' lives are worth less and in a way men are the "disposable sex".
Back to the question of feminism, is that feminists look at the top of society they rightly see a lot of men (e.g. Forbes list f richest people) but they tend to ignore that men are overly represented at the bottom of society (e.g. prisons, homeless, drug abusers, etc.). And when governments implement their equality policy (and spend a lot of money) mens' perspectives are often neglected; in a way it becomes a zero-sum game where if one perspective dominates it is away from the other.
That said, I share the belief with the bloggist that the individual should be able to decide what they do with their lives and I'm against oppressive norms and social structures. Yet I am hesitant to call myself a feminist.
Meh, tried to comment then got this:
ReplyDeleteRequest-URI Too Large
The requested URL /2010/12/rape-human-rights-issue.html... is too large to process.
Alright never mind ;)
ReplyDeleteOk have to edit,
ReplyDeleteWhen I say:
"Rape as a method of domination and retribution is abhorrent and a war crime. But then you get into the idea that male combat casualties of war is almost 100 %"
I mean that out of all combat casualties of war it is almost 100 % men.
KJ,
ReplyDeleteThe error is something I get very often too. It seems if you exceed a certain amount of characters you'll get the error, but it will still be posted. It's confusing, I know.
I disagree with you in that "critical men studies" is the only topic in which feminism and gender studies discuss masculinities and male issues. When dealing with gender roles, it is very hard to ignore male gender roles, so they are often discussed too. I will agree with you that it could be included to a larger degree, but that it is only dealt with critically, I think is a common misconception. In my studies on gender I have encountered plenty of articles/journals/book chapters discussing the male gender. The UNFPA is not a women's organisastion, it stands for the United Nations Population Fund.
Also, the reason why rape is used as a war tactic is because you can kill two birds in one stone - it is an insult to the female as well as the male, who in traditional gender role thinking, sees it as his duty to protect his female family members. When one of them is violated, the man is violated as well indirectly and that is why it's such an effective war tactic. In fact, as women are often seen as 'bearers of culture' (Liz Kelly in Victims, Perpetrators and Actors deals with this, as well as BRIDGE reports on conflict), it is a triple violation and a very effective tool in undermining your enemy.
Interestingly, it is feminist literature that deals with the issues of viewing men as perpetrators and women as victims, arguing that it is both harmful to males and females that it should be seen so, so feminist literature recognises the problem with 'men as a disposable sex.' I have not seen this in any literature that is not feminist or gender analytical.
Having said that, there are a lot of issues in developed countries that are still under the radar when it comes to males being discriminated in certain spheres, such as family. Again, the only literature I have read about this is feminist or gender analytical.
Therefore, if you are interested in male rights within certain areas, it is very counterproductive to write off feminism and gender studies as these are the only ones (that I have found) dealing with the topic.
Linnea, I'm not writing off feminism. I was not saying Feminism isn't useful. What I'm saying that womens' movement has in mind is mostly womens' emancipation. Feminist perspectives are at the forefront of our society.
ReplyDeleteI am glad feminist literature has taken into account men's gender roles. But has there, for example, been a discussion on the benefits of the female gender role and how this shapes society ?
That said, if mainstream feminism would as interested in male problems as it is with female problems: first, it would not be called feminism; second there would be a greater push to abolish institutional sexism.
Examples, there is a programme in Finland where young men in the army are being educated about domestic violence, the idea being that the man is the abuser. This is a part of the government's equality programme. The irony is that there has been no campaigning from womens' organisations to abolish universal male conscription which is essentially forced labour demanded from the state on the basis of sex. The most vocal critics have been masculists (e.g. Panu Horsmalahti and Henry Laasanen)
There is yet no country in the world that that obliges women to take part in front line combat. In other words, a general can command a man to go fight on the front-line and die but he can't command a woman.
One of the reason you don't get to read other literature (masculist texts do exists) is that society does not value mens' problems as much to set up chairs in man studies or male studies.
The masculism should no be regarded as anti-feminism but complementary to it. Both look at society from their respective view-points. Both men and women are victims and power-holders in society.
At first I had wondered - no, "wondered" is probably too strong a word; I had been a bit bemused - why Linnéa would at all bother to underline and expose one thing that I (as well certainly many other jurists, regardless of their gender) would hold and regard as plainly obvious.
ReplyDeleteNamely, that rape and other crimes of sexual aggression (of which "rape" is only one limited section that statutory laws has especially outlined) are a human rights infraction. Of course they are, and the International Criminal Court in The Hague prosecutes politically or militarily motivated rapes as a crime against humanity (and with good reason).
I do not think that there is any Neanderthal left in this century who would regard rape as something else, let's say as a breach of possessory and usufructuarian rights on a human female, or as an infringement of the socially acknowledged male power as pater familias (a power which would then be vested either in the father or in the husband of the raped girl / woman).
But slowly, I might understand Linnéa's point better. The accentuation is (probably so, and please correct me if and where I would have misinterpreted you) that you want to point out that rape (and undue sexual coercion in general) is a HUMAN rights issue rather than a "mere" gender issue or a petty "women's problem".
And that is, of course, fully correct. It has been so obvious for me a long time, that I did not immediately recognize your intent. ;-) Which might be the following:
[Part 2 to follow, have to split the posting]
[Part 2]
ReplyDeleteFirstly, like many offences, they affect negatively both the victim AND the perpetrator.
Secondly, they are not a merely individual transgressions based on autonomous decision for wrongdoing (virtue or vice; good deed or sin), but they grow on a ground, a soil of social power structures, mores and convictions. I dislike the (stupid) term "rape culture" as an expression, but that is what the propaganda term essentially means: That rape, as a sexual crime of aggression, is more often than not based on power imbalances and inequities that are societal in nature. Is rooted in misogyny and patriarchy.
Thirdly, this does not mean that men cannot be victims / survivors of sexual violence (obviously they can be, heterosexually and homosexually), nor that women and womyn could not be offenders and perpetrators as well. Of course they can be, and they are.
Intelligent feminism (alas, this is NOT a pleonasm - I wish it were) is aware that rape is a power issue, albeit a power issue ensconced in sexual acts, and a nonconsensual case of power exchange. This awareness should make it clear for all not totally idologized feminists that rape (and sexual aggression) must be seen in a broader perspective. WE had fought this fight in the 1980s against the orthodox PC crowd (Linnéa will not have actually witnessed this, die to youth), and we have won it. The famous "porn wars" most notably, but also the struggle for the acceptance of BDSM also in feminist and lesbian discourse. It was an important struggle against intolerance, hatred and intra-female oppression, and we won it at the time. Forgive me the little excursion, it still belongs to the topic I felt.
[Part 3 to follow]
[Part 3]
ReplyDeleteNow back to one of Linnéa's main points. Feminism like all gender concerns is a human and humane issue, not just a women's issue, because women are humans. That may souind exceedingly trivial in my wording, but it is the essential point why IMO every true man who is not a complete ape, should also be a feminist by default. Because feminism, to quote an African womyn friend of mine, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
Nuff said? Maybe, maybe not, so I will expound still a bit further. Cherie has hinted in the outset of the commentaries that we increasingly can see young girls and women who sneer at a self-created cartoonish image that they seem to assign to feminism. I admit that some very few of such olden-style PC "feminists" (oppressors of their sisters, and self-righteous busybodies) may still be left, but most are either thankfully dead (like Andrea Dworkin, may she burn in a Hell staffed with all-male devils), or justly faded into near oblivion (Catherine McKinnon). We fought and vanquished them at the time, and we should not awake or recall these spectres by paying undue attention to them; it is only our memory and interest that could keep them alive.
What annoys me more - sign of age, maybe - is the existence of some dumbs tarts who sneer at "feminism" without understanding what it actually means. I have witnessed such reactionary young women or girls at times, and it is only my magnanimity that tells me that even they ;-) are entitled to sympathy and solidarity when they are raped, or otherwise disadvantaged in a still largely male world. And I have sworn that I will not (at least not loudly, and hopefully not at all) rile them or tell them "serves you right!", but will try for bringing forth the same compassion and sympathy that I should have with any victim / survivor of aggression or exploitation, regardless of gender.
Masculism is another issue and one that I have some reserves about. It is correct that any proper study and understanding of gender, necessitates understanding of male as well as of female issues, of straight as well as queer.
And since for very long the (at least occidental) world-view of what constitutes mankind or humanity has projected specific male traits and outlooks into the human kind at large, proper gender analysis will also make men reconsider many previously self-understood and unreflected assumptions. That is the main job of philosophy, after all. So, intelligent feminists definitely see the need to re-examine manhood and maledom (pun intended ;-) ). But the Wikipedia article on "masculism" also shows us that this field is increasingly being occupied by new-age clowns ("Iron John" style), by "save-the-males" dolts, and by not a few resentful, ranting misogynists (these latter notably prevalent in all "fathers' rights" movements, eeeek). Thus my problem in taking it fully serious.
[Part 3]
ReplyDeleteNow back to one of Linnéa's main points. Feminism like all gender concerns is a human and humane issue, not just a women's issue, because women are humans. That may souind exceedingly trivial in my wording, but it is the essential point why IMO every man who is not a complete ape, should also be a feminist by default. Because feminism, to quote an African womyn friend of mine, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
Nuff said? Maybe, maybe not, so I will expound still a bit further. Cherie has hinted in the outset of the commentaries that we increasingly can see young girls and women who sneer at a self-created cartoonish image that they seem to assign to feminism. I admit that some very few of such olden-style PC "feminists" (oppressors of their sisters, and self-righteous busybodies) may still be left, but most are either thankfully dead (like Andrea Dworkin, may she burn in a Hell staffed with all-male devils), or justly faded into near oblivion (Catherine McKinnon). We fought and vanquished them at the time, and we should not awake or recall these spectres by paying undue attention to them; it is only our memory and interest that could keep them alive.
What annoys me more - sign of age, maybe - is the existence of some dumbs tarts who sneer at "feminism" without understanding what it actually means. I have witnessed such reactionary young women or girls at times, and it is only my magnanimity that tells me that even they ;-) are entitled to sympathy and solidarity when they are raped, or otherwise disadvantaged in a still largely male world. And I have sworn that I will not (at least not loudly, and hopefully not at all) rile them or tell them "serves you right!", but will try for bringing forth the same compassion and sympathy that I should have with any victim / survivor of aggression or exploitation, regardless of gender.
Masculism is another issue and one that I have some reserves about. It is correct that any proper study and understanding of gender, necessitates understanding of male as well as of female issues, of straight as well as queer.
And since for very long the (at least occidental) world-view of what constitutes mankind or humanity has projected specific male traits and outlooks into the human kind at large, proper gender analysis will also make men reconsider many previously self-understood and unreflected assumptions. That is the main job of philosophy, after all. So, intelligent feminists definitely see the need to re-examine manhood and maledom (pun intended ;-) ). But the Wikipedia article on "masculism" also shows us that this field is increasingly being occupied by new-age clowns ("Iron John" style), by "save-the-males" dolts, and by not a few resentful, ranting misogynists (these latter notably prevalent in all "fathers' rights" movements, eeeek). Thus my problem in taking it fully serious.
KJ,
ReplyDeleteYes there has been feminist literature that takes into account women's gender roles in a way not trying to eradicate them, but rather bring the roles up to an equal status with males. Some feminist literature on citizenship does this. (For a comprehensive view on female citizenship I recommend Ruth Lister 'Citizenship: A Feminist Perspective - available at the library but currently in my home ;))
I reiterate: Feminism, as you correctly assume, works primarily with women's rights because it recognises that women have been (are) structurally disadvantaged, this does not mean that we do not think that men's rights in the areas where men don't enjoy as much rights are not equally important. It is a matter of focus, and as I've seen other feminists point out we can't do it all, just in the same way that people who work with human rights often specialise too. This does not make us heartless or man haters or anything such like, it just means that we have chosen a focus (and often a focus within feminism too) because we don't want to spread ourselves too thin. Nothing gets done that way.
I don't think that the reason for there not having been any male studies chairs or departments has to do with the fact that men aren't as valued or that men's problems aren't either. I'd say that it has to do with when women were recognised to be the disadvantaged gender, males were seen as the advantaged gender. Therefore, rightly or wrongly depending on whom you ask, not as much resources have been distributed to this area. Besides, the 'male movements' that I have encountered have often focused more on slagging off feminism rather than doing much constructive. Not saying there aren't constructive male movements out there, just that unfortunately they have been a bit quiet.
It's great to have an approach that incorporates both male and female views as long as their struggle for rights does not mean that they advocate a society where one gender will be entitled to more than the other. So on that point we can agree.
Alexa,
ReplyDeleteThis blog, before the whole 'Sex by Surprise' post was a very obscure blog with perhaps 25 readers a day, mostly not self-proclaimed feminists, so the posts are a bit 'simple' in that sense as the aim is to just point out these relations in society.
And yes, you are right, what I meant to point out was that rape is indeed a human rights issue, even though women are over-represented on the victim/survivor side. But I also wanted to point to what framework this debate should take place in. Because moving it into a human rights framework can mean robbing the issue of the expertise that feminists and gender analytics can lend to it and that can be counterproductive as it would essentially be taking steps back in the debate. But keeping it solely in the feminist debate, and I would argue that's where the majority of sexual assault/rape debates take place, albeit perhaps in a interdisciplinary way, can alienate people, because a lot of people unfortunately don't feel they can identify with what they perceive feminism to stand for. So what I essentially wanted to do was just highlight the positives and the negatives with broadening the debate and showing why feminism is so necessary for gender debates.
When you talked about women as a human rights issue, I came to think about the well-known (to those who are interested in human rights and women's rights) question 'Are women human?' (For those of you who don't know it, it's essentially a question if the world views women as human as they often don't have the same access to human rights as men, often because they're not seen to be applicable to women). Just a little musing, but that question still strikes me as putting the finger on something very important in the women's rights debate.
And another memory: I remember reading Catherine McKinnon's book on pornography in my very early university studies and not exactly agreeing with her. This was a long time ago, perhaps I should revisit the book now when I know more and see what I think of it.
Alexa, well put. Maybe I will rethink self-labelling myself as a feminist. Though I also have a keen interest in mens' problems which is the domain of masculism. Then again I can just call myself a liberal individialist;)
ReplyDeleteLinnea, often when mens' problems are discussed in blogosphere, common responses are that hey should "man-up" and stop "whining" essentially reinforcing the idea that men should suck it up. Since, the Feminist Revolution it is alright for women to demand their rights' and deal with issues relating to them. I feel men are still stuck in their old role of 'protectors' where weakness should not be admitted.
We're on the same side. But I feel that we won't reach the emancipation of the individual is the expectations of both genders don't change. Eradication of institutional sexism is a first order priority.
Another one that didn't stick. Blogger is doing my head in at the moment!
ReplyDeleteKJ has left a new comment on your post "Rape A Human Rights Issue?":
Alexa, well put. Maybe I will rethink self-labelling myself as a feminist. Though I also have a keen interest in mens' problems which is the domain of masculism. Then again I can just call myself a liberal individialist;)
Linnea, often when mens' problems are discussed in blogosphere, common responses are that hey should "man-up" and stop "whining" essentially reinforcing the idea that men should suck it up. Since, the Feminist Revolution it is alright for women to demand their rights' and deal with issues relating to them. I feel men are still stuck in their old role of 'protectors' where weakness should not be admitted.
We're on the same side. But I feel that we won't reach the emancipation of the individual is the expectations of both genders don't change. Eradication of institutional sexism is a first order priority.
KJ,
ReplyDeleteReally? I haven't encountered that, perhaps because I tend to keep away from blogs that try to reinforce the traditional gender roles. I've never (at least from what I can remember) encountered a feminist blog that tells men to "stop whining" or "man up," because to anyone who is interested in gender roles, it is quite clear that both this encouragement is nothing but a reversal to gender roles. In fact, I think feminist blogs are quite good at commenting on the attempt to reinforce male gender roles by politicians and the media, often in relation to LGBT-rights, perhaps, but it is nevertheless dealt with in a way criticising traditional gender roles as well.
I agree with you, though, that there is still an expectation on men to be protectors and bread winners, the rational and the less emotional, and as I've said plenty of times before, I think these roles can be just as damaging to men as to women. (And vice versa, obviously, with female gender roles.) Any attempt to fit someone into a role they do not feel they can identify with is going to lead to unhappiness.
And yes, I agree with your assessment that expectations on both genders will have to change in order to reach true equality in society. This is what I've been arguing all along. Unfortunately I think eradication of institutional sexism will only be coming after the eradication, or perhaps equality of status of gender roles, because institutions are made up of humans, and as long as there is a human bias it will be reflected in institutions and their work.
Linnea, when I was talking about the idea that men should stop whining I was referring to masculist blogs, and the commentators are usually other men.
ReplyDeleteBy the way what is your conception for "true equality" of society ?
KJ,
ReplyDeletethat makes a lot more sense and I'm sorry to hear that. To tell someone to 'stop whining' or 'man up' is not going to be anything but counterproductive as it's an encouragement to just ignore the problems, not deal with them.
I would say that a society that is truly equal is a society where people are not judged according to their gender, or according to their perceived gender roles. It is not only about legislation, but also about status and opportunity. Traditional gender roles need to be questioned in order to make sure that it is the individual who makes the decision, not the norm. For instance, if a woman wants to stay home with her children - fine, but the inequality comes from the fact that it makes more economic sense that she stays home because she earns less, or she is expected to because it will make her a bad mother if she doesn't, or that her husband will be emasculated if he wants to be a stay at home dad. Individuals shall decide, not the gender or the attributed roles. Makes sense?
Linnéa,
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing this posting. As a male rape survivor, I appreciate the topic being framed as a human rights issue. Female and male survivors and allies can accomplish so much more together if they feel that they are equally accepted as partners in the struggle against sexual violence, regardless of the movement. Far too often, male survivors are treated as potential perps, or outright described as trivial distractions by some feminists.
So, while it makes sense for sexual violence to be a feminist issue given the large number of female survivors, those of us who don't fit into that particular paradigm can still viewed as worthy of consideration and respect as human beings through the human rights angle.
James,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment!
I agree, this entire problem with sexual violence needs to be tackled from both men and women, because if both are not on board, then it is impossible to solve.
I find that a lot of feminists call for gender analysis to be applied to sexual violence and sex crimes because the current analytical framework is so gendered. As you say, men are the perpetrators and women the victims, at least in the eyes of society. Legally, a lot of men couldn't be raped until around 15-20 years ago. There was just a massive gap defining all rape survivors as female and so completely neglecting the possibility of males even being potential rape survivors. A lot of this thinking is still seen with trans people today. I suppose that as long as gender analysis is mainly called for by feminists, rape will be seen as a feminist issue. While someone needs to point out that gender analysis is needed, it is a shame that we cannot see a more broader call for it.