The Reality of Rape Culture (Trigger Warning)

Greetings all, I have not updated for a while, but I am going to be writing for the University paper in the forthcoming year. I will also be posting my articles on here, so expect updates coming more often. Anyway, this is my first one, so while rape culture and victim blaming may not be a new thing for some of you, it will be for the people who will be reading the next issue of LeNurb (that's the name of the paper - don't ask!). Anyway, I hope I've done a good job!

On the 10th of June this year, thousands of women and men marched from Trafalgar Square in the controversial “slut walk”. While the march didn’t make front page news, it was certainly heard about, sparking debates and heated conversation across the country.
My personal view of the march itself is that I find the march's name, "Slut Walk" unappealing, as I do not agree with the concept of "reclaiming" a derogatory word that was never really "ours" to begin with, among other reasons. However, the actual message behind "slut walk" is what I want to talk about. Having had already taken place in the major cities of the UK and all over the United States, as well as future marches planned throughout Europe, the march originated in Toronto, Canada, on the 3rd of April, in response to the comments of Constable Michael Sanguinetti during his talk on crime prevention at a safety forum at York University in Ontario (not to be confused with the University of York in the UK). While Sanguinetti’s “advice” to women that they should avoid “dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized" caused great alarm, they actually reflect an already underlying culture of victim blaming; the idea that society teaches us not to get raped, as opposed to one which teaches people not to rape, and gives an impression that rape can be avoided if potential victims did not dress or act in a certain way. A recent survey by the BBC revealed that a worrying 75% of women and 57% of men believe that some rape victims “should take responsibility for what happened”. These views have been present in the court rooms, and have resulted in rapists being set free on the grounds that the victim was asking for it in some way. Sadly, it is not a new phenomenon.
One model example of victim blaming that I came across while researching for this article was a video entitled “What Guys Think about Modesty – (Modesty Part II), part of a recording of a church sermon regarding women’s dress. The main speaker, CJ Mahaney, read out true life stories of young men who had faced “hardship” during their time at University, struggling to suppress their lust as they found themselves surrounded by provocatively dressed young women. Mahaney’s sermon is reeking in 19th century bigotry, demonising women for how they dress, describing campus as a “loaded minefield”, even going as far as to tell girls to get their fathers to “screen their wardrobes” because “he’s a guy” and knows better than you do on the issue”. Not only does he place responsibility on young women to “protect” men from sexual desire, but it perpetuates a message to them that they should feel guilty and ashamed of their bodies and for having sexual desires themselves (while it may come as a shock to some, women also think about sex).
We also cannot deny that this is a gender issue. Men are never told not to wear shorts or to keep their shirts on in hot weather. They are never made to feel ashamed for being overtly sexual in any way, and are never told that their actions could put them at risk of being victimised. As well as keeping an eye on their clothing, women are told to always be careful when they are out, to watch what they drink, to make sure that they do not travel anywhere alone late at night, and if they are raped, they are criticised for making themselves vulnerable. In May this year, two New York City police officers were acquitted of rape because the victim was drunk at the time of the attack. In Winnipeg, Canada, a rapist was spared jail because the judge claimed that the victim’s “suggestive attire” and “flirtatious conduct” on the night of the attack sent the rapist signals that “sex was in the air”. We also cannot forget that the majority of rapes happen in the home of the victim, and often the rapist is somebody who is known to them. By using the logic of the judges in the cases mentioned above, should we then blame people who dare to allow somebody that they trust into their home?
Of course, we should not ignore the fact that victim blaming can be harmful to men too. To suggest that men are so weak that they are unable to control their sexual urges dehumanises them. It implies that men are so lacking in morals that it is up to women to help them to suppress their “evil” thoughts. It is natural to think about sex, but men know right from wrong, they do not need anybody else to think on their behalf. If somebody is raped, it is because the rapist made the decision to rape them, not because the victim invited them to in some way. If they were “asking for it”, it would not be rape.
I know that I have to be realistic. I am not expecting rape to end overnight, or ever for that matter. It’s a harsh reality that there will always be people who think that they are entitled to do as they please to others in order to feel powerful and controlling, and who will use excuses to try to justify their actions. Nevertheless, as long as we can change the way we educate people on how to treat others, by teaching people not to rape instead of not to get raped, by pointing out that while alcohol, short skirts, and being openly sexual are not illegal, but forcing somebody to have sex against their will is, then maybe less rapists will be allowed to walk free on the streets, giving them the opportunity to attack again. Perhaps more victims will be brave enough to come forward if they are no longer haunted by the fear that they will not be believed. It is time that we changed our attitudes to coincide with the 21st century, and stop allowing this culture that continues to silence rape victims through ignorance and shame.

The 'lock and key' analogy and other lame attempts at justifying the double standards applied to women and sex.

"If a key opens many locks, it is a master key, but if a lock is opened by many keys it is a shitty lock." - A. Douchebag (year unknown)

No doubt you have come across this work of "genius" when a woman points out the unfairness of being called a "slut" or similar if she engages in consensual sex with multiple partners. It is assumed that this will put an end to any objections, that the woman will shut up, and things will be back to the way they should be. Yes, that's right, people actually believe this is a legitimate anti-feminist argument.

I will not only try to explain to the simple minded folk how this fails to justify their hypocrisy, but will also refute the other arguments that people like to use, as well as point out why calling anybody a slut, male or female, is no less closed minded and judgemental than somebody who, for example, is homophobic (if of course you are homophobic, then you might still want to carry on reading, this could help you).

Until very recently, I was guilty of using the word "slut" to refer to women who slept with multiple partners. I now realise how ignorant I was being, and regret it deeply. It fills me with rage whenever I see or hear other people doing it, but what makes me lose faith in humanity even more, is that bloody lock and key analogy. The way how, whenever somebody says it, has such a tone of pride to their voice or in their writing, because they think they are right, that nobody could possibly come up with a better argument. If you are one of those people, I have bad news; your attempt at keeping misogyny alive just got a bit harder.

People who like to use this little comparison seem to forget one fundamental fact: My body is not an object. My sincerest apologies, as I am aware of how disheartened you are to receive such disappointing news, but you cannot compare a part of my living body to an inanimate object - the function of which is completely different. The purpose of a lock is to keep out intruders, to stop somebody from getting inside a particular place. If the purpose of my vagina was identical to that of a lock, the human race would cease to exist. My vagina is not designed to keep out intruders. The comparison is irrelevant. You may as well compare chalk to cheese as a means of establishing a reason not to eat it.

Fortunately, people are finally beginning to see why such a poor excuse for an argument doesn't work. Unfortunately however, this does not mean that they have decided to acknowledge and accept that the name calling is unfair. Now they try to convince us that, because it is apparently so much easier for a woman to get sex than it is a man, a woman therefore deserves the name calling while a man should be praised. Nada. Exactly where is the logic in treating somebody like shit simply because they do something that is supposedly "easier" for them? I can understand why someone would get praise by "achieving" something that is difficult, but I cannot see why somebody should be ridiculed and ostracised because they do not have to make as much effort. Why would you do that? By putting forward this argument, all you have done is made a (rather biased) observation, yet failed to explain the relevancy of it. It doesn't refute any argument whatsoever. Like the lock and key analogy, it is a futile attempt to justify one's misogyny whilst not actually admitting that they are a sexist twat. If there is one thing I despise more than misogyny, it is a closet misogynist.

My final argument, used by both men and women, is the classic "Oh, it's ok, I call men sluts too!"

Now I am willing to bet that out of the people who say that, less than 1% actually do use the word slut to refer to promiscuous men. However, this is not the point I will make. Words like "slut", "slag", "cheap", "easy", "tart", "whore" and the like all have negative connotations. Using this word to describe somebody who sleeps around implies that consensual sex between adults is a bad thing. Something that should be looked down upon, ridiculed, something that is not to be tolerated.

Let me repeat the phrase "consensual sex between adults". Does that sound familiar to you? It is the one and only real defence of homosexuality. No other argument is better, because the idea of imposing laws against what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is an infringement of their civil liberties, and that's the end of it. Any liberal-thinking person would tell you that. If you think homosexuality is wrong, if the thought of having a physical/romantic relationship with a member of the same sex is unthinkable, it doesn't matter, because the actions between consenting adults, has never and will never, ever harm or affect you, or anybody else.

Likewise, if you attach such a negative connotation to anybody, male or female, sleeping with multiple partners by using words like "slut" or "whore", you are no better than a person who calls somebody a "fag" or a "dyke", because you are unfairly judging somebody based on the fact that they, an adult, had consensual sex with other adults. You are treating somebody as a lesser person than yourself because they engage in acts that harm nobody. You have made somebody else's sexual history your business, even though it is not, and that makes you no better than a homophobe, in my opinion. Perhaps what strikes me as the most distressing conclusion to this dilemma is the fact that those friends and acquaintances who refer to promiscuous women as "sluts" are the same people who claim to be open minded and non-judgemental. Yet by calling somebody a slut, in a serious sense, you are doing exactly that.

Misconceptions about Liberals - are people really this stupid? Really? REALLY?

For some reason people seem to have the wrong idea about us liberals and it’s really beginning to piss me off. I am not offended by the words they use, but by the fact that these morons think they know about politics. If you think liberalism is about letting criminals get away with murder, allowing illegal immigrants to live in ‘£1 million palaces’ while they ‘scrounge off the state’ and advocating extremism then you’re an idiot. In fact, idiot is too nice a word. But I won’t waste my time trying to find an appropriate term for your ignorance. So instead I’ll just try to educate you on what liberalism really means in the hopes that it will somehow make its way into your thick little head and you won’t look like such a cretin when you try to be political.
First of all, Liberalism is an ideology, and a very broad one at that. If we were to place it on the political spectrum, it will be in the center. Not the left, which is a common mistake that many of you seem to make all the time. Because the ideology is so broad it is also quite possible to have two people who correctly define themselves as ‘Liberal’ but who share quite different beliefs. From Social Liberalism, to Libertarianism, Anarcho Liberalism to Conservative Liberalism (yes, you read correctly, you can be liberal and conservative at the same time), they all come from the same family. They have the same basic principles, but different ideas on how to achieve them.

Liberalism comes from the Latin term, ‘liberalis’, meaning ‘of freedom’, and freedom is the single most defining feature of liberal belief. Liberals emphasise importance on liberty and equal rights, as well as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade and separation of church and state. These ideas are shared by the majority of people in the free world and are the ingredients for a fully functioning, healthy society. Now explain to me what is wrong with that? What on earth is it about people being seen as equal in the eyes of the law that offends people so much? What is it about letting the people decide who makes the laws that causes some of you to recoil in horror when you hear that dirty word, ‘liberal?’. If you are indeed one of those people, you may want to think, because chances are, if you believe in these principles, you have liberal tendencies yourself.

The media, of course, have indirectly painted a much different picture, and so it has made way for these misconceptions. My very first post to this blog was a quote by the late John F Kennedy, and I will repeat the quote again, as I do not think there is a better definition:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.”
But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

Opinions on JFK may differ but you cannot deny that he hit the nail on the head with this quote.

Another good quote concerning Liberalism comes from the political drama, West Wing, and I have also posted this quite a few times as I feel people need reminding of exactly what liberal ideas have achieved in this country. It is of course, very American but it is still highly relevant.

“Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things…every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.”

As will I.

It is a stupid mistake to assume that we are ‘looney lefties’ who give hard working tax payers money to the lazy. The fact that it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that all ‘poor’ people are lazy is a good point in itself, but the main problem with this argument is that, as I mentioned earlier, liberals advocate a free market, and for many of us, low taxes as well. Some of us prefer money to be spent on education and healthcare to raise the standards of living, rather than given directly to the people. The welfare state is a safety net, not a free money machine for people to exploit. Center-Right economics is the belief adopted by the Adam Smith Institute, named after one of the most famous liberal thinkers in history.

Another mistake, is that we advocate extremism. There are actually people out there who lack the braincells to distinguish belief in freedom of religion from supporting terrorism. This of course only applies to the very few, thankfully, but it’s still an issue I would like to raise. I do not want the laws in this country to be decided by the church, or any other religion. I do not want Sharia law to replace common law, I want a purely secular state. That does not mean, however, that I think Muslim women should be banned from wearing the veil, or that mosques should not be built in this so called ‘Christian country’. Britain is a liberal democracy, and as such, freedom of religion exists. To impose your beliefs on others is wrong, but to prohibit people from worshipping their religion peacefully without bothering anyone else, goes against everything we stand for.

We are not ‘soft’ on criminals. I believe someone who commits murder should be locked away for life, and that life should mean life. I do think it is possible to rehabilitate some criminals in certain circumstances, and I believe that politicians should focus on eliminating the causes of crime rather than trying to squeeze criminals into overcrowded prisons. I also think that, if what I hear about many prisons is indeed true, criminals should be deprived of luxuries such as game consoles and instead positively contribute to society with community service. Another thing is that I am not a huge fan of the death penalty. I think it would be dangerous to go back to it, not to mention it would mean leaving the EU. I do not believe the state has the right to decide who lives and who dies. There are some powers that we cannot let any government have, as to do so would be dangerous.

Finally, the fact that many liberals opposed to the decision made by the UN to allow some countries to continue having the death penalty for gay people does not make us hypocrites. While one of our defining beliefs is democracy, nobody ever said that democracy was a perfect system. The great John Stuart Mill cited Alexis de Toqueville who referred to a ‘tyranny of the majority’, a criticism of the democratic process which indicates that the will of the majority can mean that a dissenting individual would be actively oppressed. In cases such as these it is acceptable to place human rights above democracy.

People who have these false understandings against liberalism really ought to pick up a book, as they may be surprised by what they find out. Whether or not you still agree with these principles after you educate yourselves is up to you, but please do not stand there and insult liberals when clearly you know nothing at all about the word, stop throwing it around willy nilly as if it makes you seem clever to use it against someone in an argument, as all you are doing is making yourself appear utterly ignorant, and tragically thick.