Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

119 replies

lenak · 29/03/2012 22:52

or does it actually make it more difficult for women to say no and give men who rape a get out?

Just after some opinions as an essay I am currently writing for uni has piqued my interest in the subject.

I am studying Discourse Analysis and in particular am currently looking at Sociolingusitics.

On the one hand, there is the argument that there are different 'genderlects' and that the genders can hear and mean things differently, thus the need to teach women to 'just say no' as this is clear and prevents any misunderstanding due to differences in genderlect understanding. This has led to the development of Just Say No campaigns. The researcher who argues for the differences in genderlect understanding is a feminist who has been instrumental in the development of some of these Just say No courses.

On the other hand there is the argument that in human communication, rejections and refusals are commonly delayed and indirect and follow a typical pattern which generally includes delay in responding, some kind of prefacing of the refusal?, a palliative remark, and some kind of account aimed at softening, explaining, justifying, excusing, or redefining the rejection. It is important to note that refusals are almost always accompanied by explanations or justifications. This is the usual way that refusals are given and thus are understood by all (with adequate social skills) as refusals. Being direct and 'Just saying No' is unusual and uncomfortable for the person saying no as it doesn't follow the usual route of a refusal.

The promotion of 'Just say No' also provides an excuse for men to say "Well she didn't actually say no" when a woman uses more usual methods of refusal even if he understands these types of refusal perfectly well in his every day life.

The researchers who argue this are also feminists arguing from a feminist perspective.

So who's right? Personally, I think the second view makes more sense, but would be interested in the views of MN.

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 31/03/2012 13:21

Thanks for the clarification but I still think things aren't very clear. I don't mean not clear in the sense that you haven't been asked to examine something specific, you clearly have. You have been asked to consider the language that people use to refuse sex.

What doesn't seem clear to me is the political parameters within which you are working - surely it is impossible to examine something like this in isolation? Women don't refuse sex and then get raped in a vacuum. Surely if you want to examine the 'window' within which a man will go ahead and penetrate a woman who does not want him to, you need to examine entitlement and rape culture? Even if you are just concentrating on the communication aspect, surely an issue like this needs to be placed within a very clearly defined analysis of socialization in general, as it occurs in male supremacist culture?

There may be men who 'misunderstand' a woman's 'no signals/language' and penetrate that woman anyway. I don't really believe that they misunderstand because there is a communication problem though. I think they misread the situation and think that they have a right to have sex with a woman who isn't happily participating because that is what society has taught them about sex. I think the problem is male entitlement and the oppression of women as the sex class. No communication in the world is going to change that.

I just seems a kind of odd thing to study to me. Certainly it strikes me as victim blaming and rape mythy.

Nyac · 31/03/2012 13:13

There isn't another crime that demands the victim say no or she is somehow complicit in the crime being committed against her.

I didn't say "no" to the teenagers who mugged me when they pushed me over and made off with my handbag. Should I have used the "just say no" model then, hoping there would be a window where any miscommunication should have been cleared up. After all how could they have guessed I didn't want to give them my bag?

Nyac · 31/03/2012 13:09

You're in the feminist section Linak. If you're posting stuff that is extremely politically problematic and harmful to women there will be a response.

Rape isn't an abstract academic argument, it's real, it happens to women. It's a crime that some men choose to commit against women. There is very little in academic feminism that has been useful to women and this is just more of the same: people conducting abstract arguments so they can publish papers and up their citation and publication count.

Also I'd say the way you were framing these arguments is a hell of a lot more patronising than anything I said. Mumsnet have just done a big campaign on rape myths, yet here are some being presented as if they were up for debate e.g. that rape is a matter of "miscommunication".

Or for example this is just nonsense:

"But there are cases where rape occurs where it was not the intention in the first instance (and before I get jumped on, I am not suggesting it is any less of a crime than a planned rape) there is going to be a 'window' for a refusal to be heard"

Can I suggest you read the recent consent thread in this section. It will probably help you clarify the real dynamics of rape.

TheCrackFox · 31/03/2012 11:58

I think there is perhaps a window but a rapist knows that what he is doing is wrong he just doesn't care (and knows he will get away with it).

sunshineandbooks · 31/03/2012 11:45

lenak thanks for the clarification. I do see more where you're coming from. Yes, there's a window where a man can make a decision to proceed (and be a rapist) or drawback and not be one. I still think it's a mistake to think that this decision is based on the language used by the woman though.

80% of human communication is non-verbal. I really think that any man with even lowish intelligence or above is capable of working out whether or not he has an enthusiastic, willing participant. If he can't, then he shouldn't be trying to have sex with anyone.

Original poster
lenak · 31/03/2012 11:33

I've finished my essay now, however, upon googling, I've managed to find the original study from where the extracts I had to look at were taken.

Feminism and Psychology: ?You Couldn't Say "No", Could You??: Young Men's Understandings of Sexual Refusal

They cite the feminist argument that the victim precipitation model of rape prevention needs to be overturned in favour of social structural model which focuses on changing societal beliefs about rape.

They give an example of a recent attempt by the Australian government to attempt to do just that:

One recent example of such an attempt, however, is the Australian Government-funded campaign, Violence Against Women: Australia Says No, which aims to provide information on how to build and maintain loving supportive relationships and to send a ?clear message? that violence, including sexual violence, against women will not be tolerated (Commonwealth of Australia, 2004: 1). However, while apparently guided by a social structural account of rape, this campaign is equally influenced by Tannen?s (1990) ?miscommunication? model, as evidenced by the assumed need to say ?no? presented in the campaign slogan.

If the use of the word No in any campaign shows influence of the miscommunication model and thus is part of the prevailing Victim Precipitation model, where does that leave campaign like "Yes means Yes and No means No" - are the contradictory to the aims of the Social Structural Model or a necessary half way house in the fight for change?

It is an interesting thought........ (but not directly related to the study of DA - so off now to start revising for the exam - I hate exams Sad)

OP posts:
Original poster
lenak · 31/03/2012 11:22

OK - I'm going to try and explain this once again.

Thanks for your concern Sunshine but it won't screw up my study because that is not the basis of it. You seem to have only picked up on half of the sentence. The whole sentence was:

But there are cases where rape occurs where it was not the intention in the first instance (and before I get jumped on, I am not suggesting it is any less of a crime than a planned rape) there is going to be a 'window' for a refusal to be heard, understood and respected.

The basis of the study is the language used in that window. How men and women say no to sex and whether there are really such differences in communication between men and women that miscommunication is likely if not inevitable.

I am NOT interested (for the purpose of this study) in the act of Rape itself, why men rape, anti-rape activisim or rape prevention (apart from the type of language women are taught to use in refusal skills training).

I am only interested in the language used in refusing sex

Beach the subject matter is very clear. It is only about the language women (and men) use to refuse sex. I am not mixing it up with rape at all. The only reason rape comes into it is because that is the result where that refusal is not heard / understood or is ignored.

Just for clarification:

The area of study is Discourse Analysis. Discourse Analysis (DA) is complex, but a simplified explanation is that it is the study of language in use or talk-in-interaction.

Specifically for this assignment, I had to choose one of two schools of DA - either Conversation Analysis or Sociolinguistics and apply the methods and debates from one of those schools to a transcript.

I chose to look at Sociolingusitics and used a transcript which contained two group interviews with young men - one of which was based around the question of how they would refuse sex, the other about how they would know that a woman was refusing sex.

The relevant background reading to this was an essay by Deborah Tannen which expands on her theories that that the different genders communicate in very different ways and that this leads to miscommunication. While Tannen's work has been fiercely criticised, it still feeds into the prevailing thinking about rape amongst psychologists, sociologists, law makers etc that if women could only communicate in a way that could be understood then rape (in particular date rape / acquaintance rape) may be more preventable. Hence the word NO being so central to refusal skills training and even anti-rape campaigns.

The opposing view is that of Kitzinger and Frith who argue that the miscommunication model is misguided and that it should not be necessary for a woman to say No for her to be heard as refusing an invitation to have sex. They argue that advice given to women to just say no is simplistic and perhaps even futile because it ignores how refusals are typically performed in every day life. They argue that it is women's knowledge of culturally normative ways of doing refusals that makes it so difficult for them to simply say no and that men share this understanding of cultural rules.

The reason I posted here is because I was interested in people's views of these two models particularly with the prominance given to the word no in anti-rape campaigns.

OP posts:
sunshineandbooks · 31/03/2012 09:58

lenak - I think the basis of your study stems on this sentence: But there are cases where rape occurs where it was not the intention in the first instance.

I'm aware this could screw up your study if we manage to convince you, so I'm sorry for that, but I just don't think that statement is true.

If we use another, less-contentious argument from law, such as theft, I can explain this (even though I normally hate analogies comparing rape to other crimes). In order to prove theft, you have to prove intentionality. However, this does not mean that you have to have the intention to commit theft in a premeditated fashion. For example, you could go into a shop put some things in your basket and pay for them, then leave the shop, get to the car and realise that you haven't paid for the bottle of wine you put in the basket under your child's buggy because the basket was already full. Unless you go back into the shop and pay for that wine, you have committed theft. Your original attention may not have been to commit theft, but the minute you realised you had unpaid-for goods and made the decision not to pay for them, you intention has become to 'dishonestly deprive'. Did you make that 'mistake' in all honesty? Impossible to say. Does it being an 'innocent mistake' make it any less of a crime. No. In the eyes of the law, most definitely not.

The same is true of rape. A man may not go out with the intention to commit rape, and may even find himself alone with a woman where the signals are good and sex seems likely, but once he finds himself in the position where the woman's 'consent' is less than absolutely 100% clear and he proceeds anyway, he is making a decision to commit rape there and then. Therefore, he is a rapist. No ifs, buts or maybes. And, of course, unlike the theft from the shop, you can't go back and offer to put things right and so undo being a thief. Once you've raped someone, you are a rapist.

There is no such thing as mixed signals. If there is any 'mixing' going on the answer is 'No'.

Surely the only sensible solution to this is to ram home the message that unless she's practically ripping your clothes off and begging for it, the answer is no.

I often pass items I would dearly love to possess. Sometimes I am in a position where I could take them and no one would know. I don't do it because that would make me a thief. Do we really believe men are so less capable of controlling themselves?

BasilFoulTea · 31/03/2012 09:28

Yes I think that's the prob here - the idea that rape and sex are the same thing.

Another thing about no - one of the reasons women don't say no, is because when you are just about to be raped, you know that your saying no, will be ignored. And somehow, that is far more frightening and disempowering and horrifying, than just submitting without the no. You can then both pretend that it wasn't rape. Which will then hopefully make it safer - you can get out of there without him doing anything worse than raping you. If you challenge him with no, maybe that will raise the stakes and make the situation even more dangerous than it currently is.

Beachcomber · 31/03/2012 08:51

Lenak from what you have posted here, it sounds to me like the subject matter you have been asked to write about is not very clear.

It sounds as though whoever set the subject is mixing up two situations - being raped and saying no to sex.

Being raped, is something that is done to a woman. The rapist doesn't care if she says no.

Saying no to sex is something a woman does. I think it is interesting to examine the language women use to refuse sex, but I don't think it is useful to mix that up with rape.

AbigailAdams · 31/03/2012 04:56

I think Nyac is right. You are coming at this from an angle that rape is somehow some miscommunication. It isn't, ever. It is about men's entitlement to have sex regardless of what is communicated by the woman. If you start from that position then all this "Just say no" and "No means no" crap is just that, crap. All the onus on the woman to communicate in someway that a man might understand, disappears and the onus is on the man's behaviour, as it should be in rape.

BertieBotts · 31/03/2012 00:45

I disagree - I think that positive consent is natural and everyday. It doesn't mean that the woman has to state the exact phrase "Yes, I consent to sex" - it just means paying attention to body language, is she smiling, happy, touching you, responding, initiating intimate touch e.g. kissing, placing hands in certain places, moving closer to you, doing all of this enthusiastically.

It also means being aware of things like, is she trying subtly to put distance between you, is she lying there still and unresponsive, is she not kissing back, does she seem nervous, etc. All of those things are pretty obvious and natural signs to take a step back and ask if she is okay.

TrophyEyes · 31/03/2012 00:24

Natural is the wrong word; you're right, Kritiq.

Socially conditioned is the phrase that's probably more accurate

KRITIQ · 31/03/2012 00:03

I'm struggling with the idea that the way women communicate differently from men is 'natural.' What you describe as 'genderlect' sounds like the result of a social construct, and refelcts the power imbalance between the sexes.

Similarly, one will find different ways of communicating between working class people and those of more privileged socio-economic classes. I don't think that difference could be described as 'natural.' either.

As the Fugitivus blog linked above illustrates, frankly, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Be deferential and polite and you'll be seen as indecisive and open to coercion. Be forthright and 'more like a man' and possibly be viewed as confrontational and deserving of a 'smack down.'

Even if 'retraining' in a different communication style could reduce risk (and I see no evidence at all that it would,) in a situation where you are under pressure, maybe have had a few drinks, are on your own with the man and probably frightened, all the training could just go out the window. That leaves another thing to blame the victim for - you were too stupid to remember the drill.

Also, I disagree that there is no victim unless a rape has happened. Arguing, humouring, appeasing and cajoling yourself out of a risky situation can be emotionally devastating. Having your night out with friends ruined by a persistant, intrusive man can be deeply upsetting. Maybe they aren't 'victims' in the same way, but it doesn't mean that women in such situations aren't deeply distressed as a result.

I just don't buy the idea that sexual harrassment or assaults an be curbed by better communication. It's not a case of men who rape not being able to understand when a woman doesn't want to have sex with them. They do understand. They just don't care
.

TrophyEyes · 30/03/2012 21:03

I'd say all of these are ways that women communicate refusal in a natural manner I know I've used all of them at some point. Most of the time, whatever I said (or didn't say) got respected. A woman saying a "yes" that she believes in is far more natural than her saying a "no" that she believes in. We're conditioned to make excuses for our "no" responses. What is so wrong with expecting men to make sure they have an explicit yes? I have more respect for the partners I've had that did just that.

Original poster
lenak · 30/03/2012 20:43

If a man is intent on raping, then yes, of course he will ignore the communication - whether it is an emphatic no or a more 'normal' refusal.

But there are cases where rape occurs where it was not the intention in the first instance (and before I get jumped on, I am not suggesting it is any less of a crime than a planned rape) there is going to be a 'window' for a refusal to be heard, understood and respected. Should we be teaching our daughters that the best way to ensure a positive outcome is to communicate in an unnatural manner? Is there really such massive scope for miscommunication between the sexes?

I agree about the message that boys should be given by the way (although it is outside the scope of my current study focus) - but I think that the idea of explicit consent is also problematic because as with explicit refusal, it is often not that direct (although it is more direct than refusals) so is also unnatural in terms of 'normal communication.

Whether you advocate 'Just say No' refusal skills training OR you focus on getting men to ensure they have explicit consent, the onus is still on the woman to communicate in a way that is unnatural in everyday communication whether that is positive consent or negative refusal.

OP posts:
TrophyEyes · 30/03/2012 20:21

But that's the thing. Rapists ignore the communication. "Just saying no" to a potential rapist is unlikely to make any difference to the outcome.

The message should be focused on boys and men, encouraging them to make sure that before intercourse takes place, they have consent which hasn't been reached through coercion, drinks or drugs. Positive, active consent. Why, in the 21st century, are we still needing to drill this message home?

Original poster
lenak · 30/03/2012 20:12

Yes, I agree about the victim blaming, but that comes after the rape has occured - when saying no (or not saying no, but using other, normally accepted methods of refusal) have failed.

I suppose I am looking at this from the perspective of the communication prior to any sexual interaction. At that point there is no victim to blame.

It's the idea that in order to prevent oneself from becoming a victim women must communicate in an unnatural way because otherwise the man might not understand them. But surely that is counter-intuitive - isn't acting in a way that is not natural more difficult and actually leaves things even more open to misinterpretation?

OP posts:
TrophyEyes · 30/03/2012 20:02

No, as I outlined before, "just say no" is the epitome of victim blaming. How many times have we heard the phrase "well, she never said no" to minimise rape? It removes the responsibility of men to make sure they have a "yes".

The biggest problem is not that "just say no" encourages women to act differently. Nor is it that it implies men are somehow stupid. The issue is that it implies that, if she doesn't say no, the victim is somehow to blame.

"Just Say No" is fine for other areas, I feel. Sure, tell your daughter to "just say no" to drugs. Sure, tell your son to "just say no" to alcohol. But you cannot tell people to avoid having something happen to them over which they have no control.

Original poster
lenak · 30/03/2012 19:54

Nyac - many thanks for the patronising replies. Just to provide answers to a couple of your, erm, accusations contributions:

Yes rape isn't a social interaction, it's a crime. I think that's where you need to start lenak. You seem to be including rape within the normal range of interactions between men and women.

I am fully aware that rape is a crime thank you very much. The OP was about two different stances in relation to male / female communication in the area of sexual refusal that have been presented by two different feminist academics in discourse analysis. Neither of these initial ideas are mine, I am however required to examine them as part of my studies. Discourse Analysis is about social interaction. In this particular instance it is about how sex is refused and understood to be refused which is a social interaction that occurs rather frequently rather than about the physical act of rape. However, even if it was about rape, it would still be a social interaction because in DA all human contact would be seen as social interaction including those things we label as criminal.

You seem to be mired down in academic (academented?) thinking and aren't actually engaging with the reality of sex crimes against women and why they happen (because rapists choose too).

Well yes, because as I said in my OP, I am studying Discourse Analysis not Criminology or Psychology, neither was I posting about the issue from an activism point of view. The two ideas I posted come from Academics, so naturally they are academic in nature. That is really the point. If I wish to complete my degree, being mired down in the academic is really a pre-requisite. At this particular moment in time I need to write an essay, not engage with the reality of sex crimes and as such was looking for input on these two particular academic arguments.

Also the phrase like other people have pointed out is "no means no" not "just say no" when it comes to slogans about rape. If you're going to structure your arguments in such an academic way you need to be a lot stronger on your facts.

My facts are perfectly straight thank you - 'Just say no' is not a slogan as such but is something that is taught in refusal skill training, as the link I provided shows. Kitzinger and Frith also refer to this in their study. They are not my arguments, they are the arguments of the academics in question.

May I politely suggest Nyac that if you intend to be so patronising in your replies that you are the one that needs to be a lot stronger on your facts.

OP posts:
Original poster
lenak · 30/03/2012 19:39

Thanks for the helpful replies.

The two arguments are quite strong, but I think on balance, I come down on the side of Kitzinger and Frith, although I do think that Tannen makes some useful points, but more around the genderlect ideas that the miscommunication ones.

Having read a couple of transcripts from interviews with young men and women on the subject of sex refusal, there is obvious differences in the tone, type of language used, humour etc to support the idea of genderlect. If you did not know the gender of the speakers it would be pretty easy to work out. Whether this is conditioned or naturally occuring is a different question and one to be looked at with a psychology or social studies hat on rather than from a Discourse Analysis perspective. From DA point of view, the focus is on what the difference is rather than why it occurs.

I think my issue with Tannen is this idea of miscommunication. Even if there are different genderlects, men and women manage to communicate perfectly well on a daily basis. Yes there are confusions, misunderstandings and bewilderment, but for the most part, men and women can interpret each other. It was also clear from the transcripts that young men in particular did not require a direct 'No' to understand that 'sex was not on the cards' and neither would they use one if they were the ones refusing sex.

I think I have two main problems with 'Just say No' both of which have been mentioned above. It forces women to act 'unnaturally' which, as Beachcomber says is very difficult in a potential rape situation, but it also suggests that men are somehow stupid and socially inept in that they are unable to understand normal methods of refusal. Of course most men can, and those that can't or won't are then given a get out.

'Just say No' does not seem to me, to be consistent with feminism, and yet Tannen has been very influential in this area and she is a feminist. Is it therefore a case that 'Just say No' is not ideal but a necessary blunt weapon in a society that does not treat rape with the seriousness it deserves?

Food for thought........

(Sorry for the rambling post, but just trying to get my thoughts in order) - thanks for the input.

OP posts:
Nyac · 30/03/2012 15:38

This is why you need feminists to work on rape prevention initiatives or campaigns. Because otherwise people go straight back to blaming the victim.

KRITIQ · 30/03/2012 15:34

Well, I have seen folks go into all sorts of contorted rationalisations in the attempt to prove that rape is anything other than rape. That's why it's important to unpick campaigns and initiatives like this. Are they really about reducing risks or about justifying mens' entitlement to sex how, when and with whom they want it?

Nyac · 30/03/2012 15:10

I think women are viewed as so far from human that rape doesn't really seem like a crime for a lot of people.

It's much easier to think of it as a "miscommunication", so as to minimise what rapists do to women.

sunshineandbooks · 30/03/2012 13:34

rape isn't a social interaction, it's a crime.

YY. I love this. Really brings it home.

Rape is not a 'misunderstanding'. It's not a case of 'everyone knows he's a really nice guy and wouldn't hurt a fly, he must have just misread the signals. Poor guy. It seems so unfair.' Hmm

It's a crime. You don't get let off for accidentally killing someone if your reckless disregard resulted in death, so the same should apply to rape. Unless you are 100% positive you both want sex, then assume the answer is 'no' because not doing so and misreading the signals is reckless disregard.