Does "Just Say No" Rape awareness work......

Chibi, hope you're OK.

If you are still reading this then my issue is that you are giving this misogynistic twaddle credence. It doesn't have credence and its roots aren't in reality.

It isn't scientific, for example, to give any credence to the theory the moon was made of green cheese. It would be more scientific (and useful) to debunk that flawed theory.

That is why I can't understand what you are trying to do or why?

Oh, chibi, I wasn't trying to prescribe a 'correct' response - just attempting a thumbnail to illustrate how emergencies override social conditioning. I've responded in a variety of ways to that exact threat - generally speaking, we have pretty good instincts about which response is more likely to save our lives.

I'm sorry my choice of 'sketch' triggered bad feelings.

Am now wondering what delightful crimes i might get up to today since no one has explicitly pulled me aside and told me 'no'

orrrrrr

not, because i am not an entitled bastard for whom other people only exist insofar as i can use them for my convenience, regardless of how badly it will affect them

If some guy's got you pinned against the wall with his hand down your pants, your socialisation goes out the window. You would be screaming "Get off me, you mad bastard" in your most fishwifey voice!

i didn't. i froze. good thing it has been many many many years, or i might have read that and thought i had responded wrongly, and that i bore some responsibility for what happened to me.

"But if you think placard waving, blog writing, protest marches, petition signing and all of the other political actions will be enough on there own then good luck to you."

This is just offensive.

I suggest you go away and read:

Susan Brownmiller
Andrea Dworkin
Catharine MacKinnon
Mary Daly

and then come back and tell us how what they write is all of the above.

Academia does not have the last word on theorising, particularly with regards to feminism and male supremacy. In fact it has failed miserably in those spheres.

I associate the "Just Say No" phrase with anti-drugs campaigning, and so think of it as saying no to a temptation or weakness of some kind. Therefore I think it's unsuitable for rape awareness.

"OK, so the message I seem to be getting is that scientific study and analysis is bollocks and only political activism is worthy of any respect or debate."

In what world is this scientific? This isn't science, this is social science, they aren't the same thing. And it certainly has no claim on higher knowledge or understanding than feminist theory, quite the opposite.

You keep describing feminist political theorising which is based in women's lived experiences as political activisim - it isn't. Theorising is not the same as activism. It would help if you could get those things clear in your mind.

lenak, isn't the problem here that you're looking at the communication process which leads to a putative rape? If some guy's got you pinned against the wall with his hand down your pants, your socialisation goes out the window. You would be screaming "Get off me, you mad bastard" in your most fishwifey voice!

Of course this genderlect phenomenon exists. And of course that brilliant blog article about women's socialisation is right. That's why every assertiveness course I've ever been on (several) has included one whole session devoted to saying the word No.

But, in an everyday snogging situation - which I think is what you're referring to - that's going too far, the problem is the power imbalance that arises when one party (we're assuming the man) begins to override the other's wishes. This is very much a communication issue.

When the woman's already done the hand-moving, the diversionary tactics and the polite refusals outlined in your second theory - and the man chooses to ignore her - he's then taken an aggressive stance against her. This is when she needs to know it's okay to say No clearly and strongly. What you're looking at is a shift along social norms. Up to that point, the activity's been consensual and continually negotiate, according to the prevailing norms. When the consenusality ends, the normative communication should end also.

Although I'm no fan of "Say No" campaigns, I accept that it does need to be taught. I was under the impression that such teaching incorporates evaluation of the power balance between parties. When the power has shifted against you, and your socially normative communication isn't working, it's time to switch from polite / diffuse / gendered communication to direct / ungendered /assertive styles.

Are we Doing Feminism Wrong again?

We also seem to be failing in our role of being a public service that people can come along and use and expect to always result in a satisfactory outcome for them.

That is what I'm confused about too Josephine. Which is why I think it sounds like a load of academic bollocks. Which I appreciate is not Lenak's fault - she presumably doesn't have a lot of leeway with what is studied.

Academic feminism gets right on my wick.

lenak I'm sorry you feel got at on here. I don't think that was anyone's intention. It's just that by having a discussion about how women phrase their refusal, it automatically implies that what that woman says has an influence.

Most of us believe that it doesn't, and therefore that couching an argument in how women phrase refusal is just an exercise in victim-blaming. Even if that's unintentional and the thought is well-meant (e.g. how can we explain this to men to get them to listen better), it still detracts attention from the real place it needs to go - men's expectation that sex is ok unless the woman says no.

In a world where the answer is always no unless the woman makes it unequivocally clear that she means yes, an exercise in the semantics of refusal just simply wouldn't exist.

Oh, X posts. I see you are off because you don't like what we are saying.

We are not saying that science and analysis are bollocks. We are saying that the subject you have presented here, has taken something very real and concrete that all women have experience of, and turned it into something abstract and isolated that lacks basic feminist analysis, and is alienating to women as it blames them for their own oppression.

I always thought one of the key feautures of feminist theory was that it came out of women's lived experiences so I don't understand how you can have an feminist academic theory that so obviously doesn't do this. Can anyone explain?

Lenak how does one go about discussing how women refuse sex without discussing and analysing rape? Honestly, I think you have been set an impossible task. (And a rather pointless one as far as feminist analysis and politics are concerned.)

Why do we need an evidence based whatnot in order to understand that focusing on how women react to be sexually assaulted as an explanation for how rape happens, is victim blaming and rape mythy?

I'm not shouting that. I'm just pointing out the obvious. Academics might need to write papers on that and gather research, but to the average feminist it is as plain as the nose on her face.

Tannen's argument is extremely misogynistic. Lots of women claim to be feminists and yet spout misogyny. Surely her nasty 'rape is just sex that a woman didn't communicate clearly and precisely in language that her rapist can understand she didn't want' theory, is so clearly anti-feminist bollocks that it shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who has even a basic grounding in feminism?. Why the need to do any-more than just chuck it in the academic bin as being quite obviously a load of outdated misogynistic twaddle.

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve or analyse lenak. Sounds like bollocks to me. If you aren't analysing rape, why is rape mentioned in the title and the OP. If you are just analysing the refusal of sex why did you even bring up rape? I think the answer is as beachcomber said, rape doesn't happen in isolation. It is all about men's entitlement to think they can have sex and nothing to do with women's communication. That's why I personally think all this so called analysis is bollocks.

As Nyac says rape happens to real women perpetrated by real men not some theory in a text book and that is where the answers lie.

Just to add:

"What I also think is important is that it was developed by someone who is widely recognised as a feminist - as such there is some difficulty in simply labelling it as a patriarchal rape myth."

Actually there isn't a difficulty, it's quite easy. Even if it was Andrea Dworkin who had these arguments they'd still be anti-feminist and anti-woman. Being a well known feminist doens't actually give someone a free pass to make pronouncements like that. Feminism isn't a hierarchy, where over time you earn the right to be more misogynistic and have those views taken seriously.

I prefer to focus on feminist politics. Feminism is a political movement, not an academic exercise for people to get careers and degrees and publication records.

Perhaps you should ask for an academic feminism section.

"You might not like academics"

I don't like academia hijacking feminism for their own anti-feminist agendas, and claiming it's feminism. I think that's a fairly reasonable position. I don't have a problem with academics, providing what they are doing is intellectually honest and not perpetuating misogyny.

Interesting that both the quoted studies concentrate on the way that women communicate, ie the onus is on the refuser to make her wishes clear in a way the requester cannot misunderstand. So they both consider it the woman's job to repel boarders, as it were, rather than the man's responsibility to obtain consent. The only difference in their viewpoints is whether she needs to say it louder and clearer, or whether less direct communication should be accepted as legitimate refusal.

I wonder whether the OP would stand a chance of passing if she were (after due discussion of both, of course) to introduce a third viewpoint, the one where the onus is on the one who wants sex to obtain unequivocal consent. Communication, after all, consists of both talking and listening. The most eloquent discourse in the world will not persuade someone who just is not interested in what the speaker has to say.

here OP here's the consent thread it may be helpful

I agree with Nyac, that you may find reading the thread about the concept of consent, relevant to your subject.

The upshot really is that women shouldn't have to say no. They should just never be forced into the position where it is necessary (either by society or by individual men).

That isn't very helpful for your essay though - sorry I too think it all sounds like academic bollocks. (The subject, not you obviously)

The "window for refusal to be heard" is just abstract academic bollocks.

The refusal is heard. It's just ignored if the man is a rapist. If he's not, the refusal is heard and he stops. Nothing the victim says or how she says it, is relevant. Only the beliefs and attitudes of the man matters. If he doesn't believe that he has the right to penetrate a woman who doesn't 100% want him to penetrate her, then he won't penetrate her. If he does, he will. With or without the window.