Friday, January 07, 2011

Sexual Assault Survivor? Suck it up, or go public.

Tonight I listened to the BBC World Have Your Say where Naomi Wolf was a guest talking about her recent article in the Guardian arguing that rape survivors should take a moral responsibility when they accuse someone for sexual assault and therefore be outed in the media - voluntarily or involuntarily. (See yesterday's blog post for commentary on the Guardian article.)

First of all, I want to say that World Have Your Say had chosen a brilliant person to argue against Wolf - Helen from Belfast but currently in London (that's how the host kept on talking about her), twice rape survivor and a brilliant debater. She refused to be patronised when Wolf started with her condescending and belittling way as described in this blog post by a blogger who went to a lecture with Wolf when she was at Oxford the other day. Wolf even at one point said "Bear with me, I know there are many new thoughts here" to Helen from Belfast but currently in London, upon which she retorted "I have been thinking about this for many years now," a brilliant answer from someone who refused to be patronised and talked down to the way Wolf tried with everyone who put her on the spot, including the host of the show.

There was much said by Wolf in the show that probably will give me nightmares for days to come and much that made me lose whatever respect I might possibly have had for Wolf as a feminist, at least concerning this subject, but perhaps everything as I have a hard time taking people with such an attitude seriously. It was quite obvious that Wolf argued the way she did because she wanted to get to the perpetrators. The argument went as such that if the perpetrators were outed in media, they would not be so keen on sexually assaulting another person. It would also lead to the the forced realisation of the assaulted people that it is not ever their fault that they are sexually assaulted, that the perpetrators always bear the full responsibility for a sexual assault. Also, the open talking about sexual assault by survivors would, according to Wolf, decrease the stigma and victim blaming attached to being a sexual assault survivor.

The problem is that Wolf is going about it backwards. I, too, wish that one day men and women alike could speak about sexual assault, consent and boundaries in an open and productive way, much as was attempted with the Swedish Talk about it campaign where men and women were encouraged to discuss both crossing boundaries and having boundaries crossed by another person. Men and women talked about being the (sometimes unintended or unknowing) perpetrator and about being sexually assaulted, but also about how threat of sexual assault sometimes is used as a tool of coercion or power. Although there were some (as always) who were trying to make the campaign out to be ridiculous, it lead to a lot of productive discussion and media in Sweden wrote about it quite a lot.

Encouraging people to speak about sexual assault, both as perpetrators and survivors is a great way to eradicate stigma and victim blaming and also define boundaries and consent. Talking about it encourages a respectful ever ongoing discourse in a relationship to make sure that both (or more) parties are comfortable at all times. Boundaries and consent may change at any time and therefore it is important to continue discussing them. What Wolf wants to do, however, is not to encourage people to talk about it, which would be productive, but to force people to come forward as sexual assault survivors, which can be downright destructive. At one point in the show she even said that, according to her, there were two options: press charges and come forward as a sexual assault survivor willing to talk to the press about it or to keep silent about it and live with it. In other words, the options Wolf gives survivors of sexual assault is to put oneself at the risk of victim blaming, threats, force and psychological hardship or to suck it up.

Not only is this suggestion ridiculous and very offensive, it also brings with it a series of problems. As Helen pointed out, because of the appallingly low conviction rates for sexual crimes (that Wolf claims to want to battle through forcibly outing sexual assault survivors), there is an infinitesimal chance that the perpetrator will actually be convicted for the crime he or she has committed. If then, one were to be sexually assaulted twice, as happened with Helen, and the previous case had been dismissed or ruled in favour of the perpetrator, and this was at the same time discussed ad nauseam in media, she (in Helen's case) would forever be "the girl who cried rape." Tell me how this would not do more harm to a sexual assault survivor than it would do good.

Wolf's faith in the media as the almighty defender of sexual assault survivors is also ridiculous. She stated at one point in the show that because institutions have failed in the past to protect sexual assault survivors, media would take on that role. As it has in the past, she means? Media - the defender of women who accuse powerful men of sexual assault. Sounds just about right, doesn't it? Or not.

What is more is that Wolf bases her argument on public trials for sexual assault crimes on her notion that if one wants to bring a case into the public sphere, one should be prepared to defend themselves publicly. Well excuse me, but where was the public when the crime was committed? Bringing someone into court is the only (legal) retribution that a sexual assault survivor may receive. Is she proposing going back to the olden days when brothers and fathers handled situations where a woman's honour had been violated? Perhaps she would think it more appropriate to settle the dispute with fists rather than going through the legal system which actually has the mandate and power to punish people who break the law. Or perhaps she thinks that media should be holding the public trials? Perhaps in an entertainment show kind of way? Yes, perhaps we could bring in Ricki Lake!? That sexual assault survivors are anonymous to the public does not mean that they are anonymous to the police and the judicial system, where these matters should be handled. That media, through publishing information on sexual assault cases, should be able to keep police and the judiciary in check is doubtful. Media are not exactly known to be without their own political agendas, not to mention that most media are funded through earnings, which means that they will publish what sells, and often in ways that make things sound more scandalous than what they might be.

Media does not need to know every little thing about individual sexual assault survivors, neither do we, the public. If women and men who have been on either end of sexual assault wants to come forward and talk about it, they should get the opportunity to. They should be encouraged by all means to do so, but they should not be forced to talk about it. Furthermore, if a wrong has been committed, the person whom it has been committed on should have the means to receive some kind of retribution, they should not - never ever - be told to suck it up. And just because it helped you, Naomi Wolf, and possibly lots of other women and men, to come forward and talk about being sexually assaulted, just because it made you stronger, does not mean it will to everyone at any time. You had twenty years to prepare what to say and think about it before you talked about it. Allow other sexual assault survivors the same courtesy. Forcing them to talk about it prematurely might only do more damage than good. Please, please, Naomi Wolf, stop patronising every woman and man who has ever been sexually assaulted.


10 comments:

  1. Absolutely brilliantly state. Can the world have you publishing book and making media talks instead of Naomi Wolf?

    I especially love this part:

    "As Helen pointed out, because of the appallingly low conviction rates for sexual crimes (that Wolf claims to want to battle through forcibly outing sexual assault survivors), there is an infinitesimal chance that the perpetrator will actually be convicted for the crime he or she has committed. If then, one were to be sexually assaulted twice, as happened with Helen, and the previous case had been dismissed or ruled in favour of the perpetrator, and this was at the same time discussed ad nauseam in media, she (in Helen's case) would forever be "the girl who cried rape." Tell me how this would not do more harm to a sexual assault survivor than it would do good."

    Just perfectly stated, I'd love to hear Naomi Wolf try and rebut that. She'd probably just dismiss you and skirt around the statement though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you! I don't know about me doing all that, but I'd rather have someone else but NW as well. She is really getting on my nerves now. Although, I have to admit, she gives me great material to blog about ;)

    I can't take credit for that paragraph. It's just a paraphrase of what Helen, the awesome, brave contributor to World Have Your Say yesterday said. She was brilliant though! I can't remember what NW said to it, but it was something along the lines of "I'm going to avoid answering your question directly and say 'bear with me' and patronise you a lot."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi there, I am the fabled Helen from Belfast, but now in London (in case you might mix up with the other Helens from Dublin but now in Manchester...)

    I'm embarrassed to hear your praise, but I just had to say that I think this is a brilliant piece. Says everything I wish she'd let me and everyone else actually have the chance to say.

    And because she riled me so much, I'll let you in the fact she didn't even say thank you to the presenter when off air, she just slammed the phone down immediately. Her bad manners killed the last crumb of respect I had for her.

    I also loved her assumption that I hadn't read her work. I'm a make up artist for godsake. Of course I've read The Beauty Myth!

    Love from London (via Belfast!)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Helen!

    Glad you found your way here! I really, really enjoyed you speaking to NW at BBC WHYS. I thought you were really clever and I loved how you didn't let her patronise you although she tried - several times. You deserve every bit of praise that you get and some more too!

    I'm not surprised she didn't thank the presenter - she probably thought he was too harsh on her just because he asked her questions that she couldn't answer and pointed to some contradictions in what she said. Ironically, I don't think he was harsh enough. There was plenty more to be asked her and loads of the really obvious contradictions in her argument didn't come up like, if she claims to want to eradicate rape myths, why is she feeding into them herself through framing who can and cannot be a sexual assaulter as she's doing with Julian Assange? At points I was wondering if she kept on her monologues just to avoid being asked questions she wouldn't know how to answer.

    Thank you for your kind words! It's always easier to print something down as you can revise what you've said later on. Unfortunately, from what I've heard, NW doesn't read things on the internet. She's apparently not a very frequent user of social media. I think that's how she manages to avoid all the criticism. Perhaps she's afraid of what is being said? Looking at the evidence, she probably should be.

    I have to admit, I'm one of those people that haven't read her books. I will in the future, though, because she must have done something good in the past. No one can fall this far without having somewhere to fall from to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A friend pointed me here and I'm so glad she did! I am so impressed right now with the amazing online community around feminism. It has helped me rebuild my life after becoming severely agoraphobic after my attacks, it has given me support and it teaches me new things every day.

    It also shows how out of touch people like Naomi Wolf are these days. By ignoring the internet and social media except for the odd pissy article for the HuffPo, she doesn't realise she isn't a spokesperson for this generation anymore. Third wave has a teenage sister and she's full of sass.

    I really wanted to point out to her that things like Facebook have changed the world and in the case of victims whose identities we know, not for the better. Think about poor Ashleigh Hall who became the poster girl for FB grooming, or Joanna Yeates who is having her FB life slapped all over the press daily. All it takes now is for the press to find one FB fancy dress shot of you in a sexy cowgirl outfit, drinking a shot or with your arm round a man and you're victim roadkill. They'll paint a Scarlet Letter on you as fast as look at you. How will that help the average rape victim?

    I would have loved to put that point, but Ros stopped me saying anything that looked like I was being rude to her rather than criticising her argument. I see his point. He has to be impartial and I thought at one point he might send me out of the studio if I passed him one more question to ask her. It also would have meant none of the other guests would have got a look in which wouldn't have been very fair!

    You might not be shocked to hear this, but a lot of her work has valid points put entirely from her rarefied view of the world in a fairly immature way (understandable as she was her in 20s when she wrote the Beauty Myth) and written in a spiky 'don't criticise me' fashion. Cracks in the theory are bulldozed over in a not disimiliar style to now.

    Like a lot of old school feminists, she found her furrow and she's not going to stop plowing it. I can admire her consistency...and enjoy annoying her!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know that a lot of people (outside the feminist sphere, perhaps) are hesitant to use the word 'rape culture', but I think there is little sense in denying that there is a lot of victim blaming and rape myths going around out there, not only in social media, but in traditional media as well. It is as you point out, as soon as someone is identified as a rape survivor, the first thing media and other people do is to find excuses for the behaviour, even if it is something as stupid as "but, he is a male after all" (which, by the by, is a very offensive thing to say to all males out there).

    To ignore this information the way NW does (just look in a newspaper for pete's sake) to further a point that one wants to make is silly and ignorant. Also, to ignore social media in this day and age is nothing but being wilfully ignorant. I still find it really ironic the way she uses media like the Huffington Post which is internet based to convey her message and state her opinions and then ignore the entire blogosphere and dismiss social media. She is aiming at a public which she then ignores. I suppose that it shouldn't really make me surprised considering the way she answered you and other contributors to the show.

    I suppose in the end she's picking off any credibility that might (or not) still be attached to her name, and she is digging her own grave. It's a shame that she has to provoke and offend so many people on the way, though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Rape culture" doesn't exist. Not outside the planet Gor, and Gor simply is a bit below my own level of BDSM.

    That said, it is a facile abuse of language, not unlike the fundamentalist-Christian blabber of "abortion culture"; and it's created by the same kind of molassed craniums (errr, crania), only at the other side of the divide.

    (You missed me a bit over the Christmas / New Year's break, just admit it. :-P )

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think 'rape culture' is actually a useful term for describing things that help feed into the victim blaming, encouraging of sexual violence etc., in other words - rhetoric that condones or encourages rape, even if indirectly. I do understand the hesitance in using the term, though, but until a better term comes along that is just as inclusive and cover the same things, it can be useful.

    The same goes for 'abortion culture', because even though I strongly disagree with the anti-abortion groups, I do think there is a tendency to view abortion as an alternative contraception, which it isn't and therefore shouldn't be viewed as one. I suppose what I would probably disagree on is exactly to what extent this 'abortion culture' stretches. The problem with 'abortion culture', though, is that everybody doesn't agree on it being wrong to have an abortion, while the vast majority believes that it is wrong to rape. In the latter case, it's more about definitions of rape, consent and boundaries.

    Yes, I did wonder if you had forgotten about me! Glad you're back ;)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, there is some sadly striking commonality of self-confident heterosexism (resp. heteronormativity), patriarchy, victim-blaming; transcending beyond the borders of very different (albeit increasingly globalised) cultures, nations, traditions. I see what you mean thus. The word however is still wrong. ;-)

    However, I have not yet encountered in my life any social (!), id est societal setting where abortion is widely seen and taken in stride as a simple and convenient means of rectification of laziness. I do admit that dunces and dolts of the female gender exist too, and that my tolerance and understanding wear thin after repeated abortions for the same bad reason. But then I feel that the word "abortion culture" is still much less fitting than - simply and honestly - "dumb cunt". Here, I said it. :D

    ReplyDelete
  10. No, I definitely see what you mean and I see why people have issue with the terms being used, but as I said - lack of a better term... I think it could be worse not having a collective term for all the problems surrounding rape and the rhetoric around it. 'Rape culture' in a sense points to how these problems permeate every part of society; local, national and international. It's an umbrella term for the interconnectedness of the implications and consequences of not being aware of how one speaks about rape and sexual assault. It goes from victim blaming to Liz Kelly's call for using the term 'survivor' rather than 'victim' to give someone who has been sexually assaulted agency; it's about the history of legal ownership of women to the double-standards of female sexual liberation.

    I'd welcome any suggestions for an alternative, although I think I don't have enough power to completely change the rhetoric ;)

    ReplyDelete