I don't have to tell you that Steubenville is all over the news.
I don't have to tell you that the fact that Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond, the two teenagers convicted of raping a sixteen year old girl, were only sentenced to a combined three years in juvenile prison, is a fucking joke. Each will serve a year for the rape itself; Mays will serve an additional year for "illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material."
I probably don't even have to tell you that the media treatment of this trial has been a perfect, if utterly sickening, example of rape culture, with its focus on how difficult and painful this event has been for the rapists who raped a sixteen year old girl then bragged about it on social media.
And I almost certainly don't have to tell you that the world is full of seemingly nice, normal people who want to go to bat for the convicted rapists. I'm quite sure that you already know about the victim-blaming that's been happening since this case first came to light. You know about the fact that people have actually come out and said that the real lesson to be learned here is that we need to be more careful with social media (i.e. go ahead and rape but make sure you don't get caught). You already know that people seem to think that being a sports star and having a good academic record should somehow make up for the fact that you are a rapist.
I don't have to tell you any of that because it's all par for the course.
What I do want to tell you is that you need to stop using the "wives, sisters, daughters" argument when you are talking to people defending the Steubenville rapists. Or any rapists. Or anyone who commits any kind of crime, violent or otherwise, against a woman.
In case you're unfamiliar with this line of rhetoric, it's the one that goes like this:
You should stop defending the rapists and start caring about the victim. Imagine if she was your sister, or your daughter, or your wife. Imagine how badly you would feel if this happened to a woman that you cared about.
Framing the issue this way for rape apologists can seem useful. I totally get that. It feels like you're humanizing the victim and making the event more relatable, more sympathetic to the person you're arguing with.
You know what, though? Saying these things is not helpful; in fact, it's not even helping to humanize the victim. What you are actually doing is perpetuating rape culture by advancing the idea that a woman is only valuable in so much as she is loved or valued by a man.
The Steubenville rape victim was certainly someone's daughter. She may have been someone's sister. Someday she might even be someone's wife. But these are not the reasons why raping her was wrong. This rape, and any rape, was wrong because women are people. Women are people, rape is wrong, and no one should ever be raped. End of story.
The "wives, sisters, daughters" line of argument comes up all the fucking time. President Obama even used it in his State of the Union address this year, saying,
"We know our economy is stronger when our wives, mothers, and daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace, and free from the fear of domestic violence."
This device, which Obama has used on more than one occasion, is reductive as hell. It defines women by their relationships to other people, rather than as people themselves. It says that women are only important when they are married to, have given birth to, or have been fathered by other people. It says that women are only important because of who they belong to.
Women are not possessions.
Women are people.
I seriously cannot believe that I have to say this in 2013.
On top of all of this, I want you to think of a few other implications this rhetorical device has. For one thing, what does it say about the women who aren't anyone's wife, mother or daughter? What does it say about the kids who are stuck in the foster system, the kids who are shuffled from one set of foster parents to another or else living in a group home? What does it say about the little girls whose mothers surrender them, willingly or not, to the state? What does it say about the people who turn their back on their biological families for one reason or another?
That they deserve to be raped? That they are not worthy of protection? That they are not deserving of sympathy, empathy or love?
And when we frame all women as being someone's wife, mother or daughter, what are we teaching young girls?
We are teaching them that in order to have the law on their side, they need to be loved by men. That they need to make themselves attractive and appealing to men in order to be worthy of protection. That their lives and their bodily integrity are valueless except for how they relate to the men they know.
The truth is that I am someone's wife. I am also someone's mother. I am someone's daughter, and someone's sister. But those are not the things that define me, or make me valuable in this world. Those are not the reasons that I should be able to live a life free from rape, sexual assault or any kind of violent crime.
I have value because I am a person. Full stop. End of argument. This isn't even a discussion that we should be having.
So please, let's start teaching that fact to the young women in our lives. Teach them that you love, honour and value them because of who they are. Teach them that they should expect to be treated with integrity because it's a basic human right. Teach them that they do not deserve to be raped because no one ever, ever, ever deserves to be raped.
Above all, teach them that they are people, too.
Follow Anne Theriault on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@anne_theriault
Soraya Chemaly: What Rehtaeh Parsons' Death Teaches Us About Rape as a Conformity
Carl Gibson: Patriarchy Dominates Media's Steubenville Coverage
Previewing Your Comment.
This comment has not yet been postedThank you for this post, and raising the consciousness to another level.
"It says that women are only important when they are married to, have given birth to, or have been fathered by other people."
No! That is completely, 100% incorrect. That is not what it is saying at all. The key word there is "imagine". It's not saying anything whatsoever about the importance of women, it's about trying to get guys to imagine, to relate, to feel, to empathize. For most guys, that sort of thing is difficult enough to begin with, and regarding the experience of rape, it is doubly so. What response do you think you would get if you asked a guy, "how would you feel if you were raped?" You generally wouldn't get an analysis of his feelings, you'd get a flat out denial that such a thing was even possible, that he was too strong for that too happen, too capable of defending himself, etc. etc. end of conversation. If you asked a guy, "how would you feel if someone close to you, your sister, daughter, wife, etc. were raped?" You'd get an actual answer. He would likely think about it, and feel something, I know I would, and then you could move on and have a constructive discussion of the issue. It has nothing to do with a woman's importance as an individual.
When we process these things, we should speak freely and openly about our feelings, without worrying about political correctness.
I do not believe the "sister, daughter, mother" argument says that a woman has no value unless she is loved by a man. I believe that the "sister, daughter, mother" argument humanizes an unknown woman, and puts a face on her that illicits a response of empathy.
And while this article is incredibly well-written, I disagree wholly with its prickly and kneejerk content. In its totality.
"This rape, and any rape, was wrong because women are people. Women are people, rape is wrong, and no one should ever be raped. End of story."
preach on - please maam - PREACH ON UNTIL THEY GET IT!!!!
Unhelpful. Because we already teach that. The author seems to ignore that we dont. Because its not like folks go around teaching the opposite.
People are good. They are inherently good. Empathy is good. In what ever form it takes. Empathy is good because it provides motivation for us to vouch for the weak and victimized, but also, against the victimizer, restrain our desire for revenge and retribution.
That is a good thing.
Empathy is the basic bedrock of our contract of society with each other.
That you would place a political goal (ea: feminism) ahead of the basic, foundational pillars of empathic human conduct betrays a dangerous lack of respect and appreciation for the luxury of peace in our times.
Human experience is greater then some exceedingly narrow myopic political ideology, you will find great difficulty in progressing your cause from such a position.
Your position on women is right and important, and I'm glad you shared it. Shouting the honest truth is a call from the end point of where we need to be. But please reconsider poking holes in the efforts of folks who believe as you do, but are trying to coax others away from the back of the cave. We still have to start where they are if we want them to end up where you are.
Um...no.
Women are sisters to other women, they are daughters to other women and they are wives to other women. Your argument is weak at best and promotes heteronormativity at worst.
Good one.
I disagree.
The premise of this article is overstated. No one is thinking a woman has worth only because of some relation to a male. That accusation is only true in the mind of the author, I think.
It is one thing to ride a hobby horse. It is quite another to let it lead you to a ridiculous destination.
People often have a tendency to pass over the sufferings of others because we do not understand or feel its immediate impact. The message tries to lift someone from the mass of humanity too vast for our comprehension to a closer relationship. We should be as incensed about the rape of one human out there as we would be if our own children were victims as well. That is a good message. It is not sexist. It is legitimate and needed.
The author, as a feminist, should actually rejoice in such comparisons. We want the best for our children, our families, our loved ones. So we should want the best for everyone's children, regardless of sex, race, orientation, etc. We are not just "human." We belong, we connect. It is the single best reason to wipe out racism, sexism, and prejudice of any sort. Whatever you would that someone do to you, do the same to them.
When you are trying to get someone to empathize with a person they do not know, what better way is there than to describe the situation in terms of people they do know? It's just more effective than relating the story in a completely impersonal manner.
A young girl was raped, so what's the obvious comparison you'd make if you are addressing fathers AND mothers in order to gain their mutual condemnation of this act? Would it not be something like, "Imagine if this were your daughter."?
I fail to see how this is marginalizing women. If some young boy was being viciously bullied, I wouldn't cry foul if someone reporting on it said, "Imagine if this were your son." The author argues that such characterizations even go as far as to make orphans and the like seem worthless. Eh? You could use such comparisons to get people to relate to that group as well.
No one is saying, "unless you are in these categories, you are worthless."
Rape is terrible, and these kids deserved worse than they got--but imagining problems where there aren't any isn't going to do our society any favors. Calm down and pay attention to what people are actually saying instead of calling for arms over imagined slights.
And yes, if I were raped I would do what the rape victim in the movie does without a second thought. Yeah, chew on that a little. I highly recommend this movie to women whether they have been victims of rape or not.
It marginalizes women because it makes it seem as if women ONLY HAVE VALUE IN RELATION TO MEN. Or in relation to their parents. Guess what? Women are human beings and are intrinsically valuable on their own.