Rape in literature (warning may be triggering)

[careyjones]

Hi there, first off I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Carey and I'm 21 and just getting into feminism and found these wonderful boards.

I'm hoping to get some feedback from some of the more seasoned feminists on here, (but any opinion is helpful!)

My friend is writing a book...and in the book he includes a section about rape. The basic premise of the book is set in a futuristic world, where people get 'scored' for how well they play by the systems rules, how attractive they are, how many girls they can get. Its supposed to be a dystopian novel and he writes it very well and its funny and intelligent. In the section that I am talking about, he is introducing a character who 'one day realised he was a rapist'.

Now, he writes in quite a surreal way, and he is clearly not painting this rapist character as a sympathetic character at all. But there is something about it that just doesnt sit right with me. And i'm not sure what it is. I have tried to talk to him about it, but I really am quite new to these topics and can't quite seem to articulate what exactly I find uncomfortable about it.

He is a feminist. His mum and his sister were both raped...so he is not some sort of rape apologist.

He said his motivation for writing the rape scene was because he wanted to delve deeper into the MIND of the rapist, as even if we see them as 'evil' people (they do indeed to evil things) they are still people. He wanted to humanise them. Not excuse what they did but understand. And also to show how messed up the society had become, that things like this could happen.

I think my main problems in the scene were

1. the absence of any female voice. I think its very important to have the voice of the rapist to understand them...but having nothing from the girl...seems oppressive and not constructive. Unless he is deliberately trying to prove this point. In which case he needs to be more obvious.
   

1. The idea of 'stranger rape' in an alley way....whereas actually women are raped more often than not by friends or people who know them.
   

But there may be more. I don't know.


I want to be able to give him constructive criticisms on it...because i think it is so so so important to deal with these issues in the best way possible. We live in a society where rape joke are rife and politicians talk ridiculously about 'good rape and bad rape' so if we have the smallest chance to make a difference through literature/art/politics I think we should do our best to take it.

I'd like to post the excerpt (my friend wont mind, he has told me I can show it to as many people as I want to discuss it...he wants to make it good) I will post it in the next post and I would love,love,love to hear peoples opinions on it.

Beware it is quite descriptive of the rape, so if you are upset by thing like this you may not want to read on.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Isn't the point that people are not innately misogynistic?

I am a bit lost here, but that is what I would say. Yes, society is such that misogyny is normalised. Yes, we're socialized to be misogynyistic. But it is not natural. Every man has a choice. Some people would like to believe that this isn't true, that all men are caught in a web they can't be expected to get out of, that the patriarchy is so strong, men can't challenge it and are forced to be misogynists.

I do not believe this is true.

I also do not believe misogyny is just about what you do. It is feeling hatred for women. I don't think anyone should be able to pretend it's ok not to examine their attitudes just because they think they are 'doing' nothing wrong. If you can entertain the thought that it's ok to write a piece in order to humanize a rapist, you need to examine what you are thinking and feeling. It's not enough to say you were ignorant of misogyny, or you were socialized into it. You have to take responsibility here.

We don't often talk about what men could and should do but I very strongly believe this is what they should do.

[Beachcomber]

To add on to what I said earlier, because there is a very large part missing.

I started out by saying; I think all men, by the very nature of living in a patriarchy, are misogynistic..

So what is patriarchy? Patriarchy is not abstract.

Patriarchy is the systematic oppression and exploitation of women by men through the means of male violence. In other words, patriarchy is misogyny and misogyny is patriarchy.

And that is a bit awkward because there is no escaping the fact that there is no mysterious entity which is responsible for male privilege, male dominance, male violence and misogyny.

Men are responsible for these things. And the buck stops there really.

[thunderboltsandlightning]

Kritiq, is there a reason why you keep referring to misogyny as a "prejudice"? It's a form of oppression.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Kri, what strikes me here is:

'Can a person have prejudiced views and engage in prejudiced behaviour without recognising that is prejudiced and harmful to others?'

• Does it always have to matter? We put so much energy into trying to understand, and trying to rationalize why people don't see the misogyny that seems so obvious to us. Sometimes this is useful and necessary. Most of us have been in the situation where we didn't know how prejudiced we were being.
  

But at 21 there is so much more the OP could be doing, for herself, than putting her obviously substantial energy and passion into understanding this bloke.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

'So what is patriarchy? Patriarchy is not abstract.

Patriarchy is the systematic oppression and exploitation of women by men through the means of male violence. In other words, patriarchy is misogyny and misogyny is patriarchy.'

Yes. This.

[KRITIQ]

In my view, misogyny is a function of prejudice. It IS the actions and behaviours that manifest from a set of beliefs. Like racism, which is racial prejudice + power, it is sexist prejudice + power.

I think we agree that there is institutionalised sexism, as there is institutionalised racism. Perhaps where we differ (and I may be misinterpreting of course - that's the problem with the written word!) is that I believe that both those who hold sexist views, who hold misogynistic views and act in misogynistic ways (and are supported in this by wider societal messages and structures,) can change. Not all want to or will change. Not all will make giant leaps. Some will take baby steps. Some will only gradually move along the continuum.

But I believe people DO have the capacity to change and some ARE willing to give up their unearned privileges and stop colluding with the mechanisms of oppression. They may not always get it right, but if they are open to "taking it on the chin," and not getting defensive, then they can shift, can start being part of the solution rather than the problem.

(maybe more later - gotta go.)

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I think prejudice is a bit of a weak word here. IMO they are different -hatred is not the same as negative bias, it's stronger and nastier and doesn't carry the same connotations of a rational thought process (prejudice means someone's made a judgement before hearing all teh facts, and hatred is more than that IMO).

I'm sure people do change - I'm not saying they don't. But we're not talking directly to this bloke, but to a women who (to me it seems this way, carey, I hope I don't offend you) seems to place very little importance on her own feelings of discomfort.

[thunderboltsandlightning]

Misogyny isn't sexist prejudice though, KRITIQ, it is woman-hatred. It is a hatred of women's beings and our bodies. Prejudice doesn't lead people to commit horrendous acts of violence and oppress a group of people for millenia, you need something stronger than that.

Do you think you're confusing the classic feminist forumulation, which is sexism = prejudice plus power?

[Beachcomber]

For me;

sexism = prejudice + power

misogyny = male violence = male dominance = oppression = patriarchy/male supremacy

[KRITIQ]

I think language is letting us down. In my mind, we are talking about the same thing.

Sexist prejudice is manifest in de-valuation, hatred and harmful acts towards women, endorsed by social, economic and political structures and practices.

Racist prejudice is manifest in de-valuation, hatred and harmful acts towards people of colour, endorsed by social, economic and political structures and practices.

I don't see prejudice as a weak or soft word, but I understand if others do.

Thunder, there is also the classic anti-racist formulation of racism = prejudice plus power, which I actually encountered before meeting it's counterpart in feminism! :)

[KRITIQ]

Soz, just a quicky Beachcomber. Again, this may be just a language issue, but what term would be the equivalent of "misogyny" when describing racism? Thanks!

[Beachcomber]

BOF I think white supremacy and heteronormativity, etc. differ from misogyny.

Patriarchy is often described, by feminists, as the only system of oppression where the oppressed systematically live with, love and tend to their oppressors.

I think this makes a big difference.

[Beachcomber]

The equivalent to misogyny would be racial violence or white supremacy or racial oppression.

[SantaIsAnAnagramOfSatan]

the racial equivalent would be slavery? misogynist - slave trader/owner/user in a sense? sorry crashing in and out again.

[KRITIQ]

Back at last and thanks for those replies. I find it all really interesting stuff as well and a great opportunity for piecing ideas together.

I can go for the idea that all white people are racist because this is part of their conditioning within a society that values white people over non-white and because they benefit from white privilege, even when they may not be aware of it or want it.

Similarly, it could be said that all men are sexist because that is part of their conditioning within a society that values men over women and because they benefit form male privilege, even when they may not be aware of it or want it.

It would seem then that the difference between sexism and misogyny and between racism and white supremacy is intent - the choice to translate attitudes and privilege into action that harms others? Ergo, all white supremacists are racists but not all racists are not white supremacists, and all misogynists are sexist but not all sexist men are misogynists.

And, there can be racist people of colour and sexist women who support rather than challenge the mechanisms of their own oppression for what they see as their own individual gain, right? But would they respectively be white supremacists and misogynists if they used the "reflected privilege" (if that's a term!) they gain from "collusion" with their oppressors to harm other people of colour and women?

Now to bring it back in a way to the OP, are there points in which a misogynist or white supremacist can change, can reject their prejudiced, hate-filled attitudes and actions, and while remaining inherently sexist and racist, actively reject their respective privileges and consciously strive to stop or even atone for the harm they have caused others?

[KRITIQ]

Beachcomber, I just read back to your post said, "Patriarchy is often described, by feminists, as the only system of oppression where the oppressed systematically live with, love and tend to their oppressors. I think this makes a big difference."

I agree that it does make a big difference. But, I am also reminded of suggestions from Black feminists like Audre Lorde, bell hooks and Kimberle Crenshaw that the proximity of some women (e.g. white, middle class, straight, etc.) to privileged men can also offer them a level of "reflected privilege" that other women (e.g. women of colour, working class women, Lesbians, etc.) cannot enjoy.

For example, a wealthy father might pay for a good education for his daughter, perhaps help her set up in business or open a few doors in her chosen field. A well-off husband could pay for domestic help or childcare to enable the woman to continue her studies or develop her career. Of course, she could still be abused by either of them, or other men in her life.

Other women won't have the opportunity to gain any social, economic or political advantage from association with the (less privileged in terms of race, class, wealth, etc.) men in their lives and will also be vulnerable to abuse from them. That's two blows instead of one.

That kind of links to my post above perhaps about both our prejudices (or whatever stronger word it is that isn't coming to mind for me just now) and our privileges being points on a continuum. The same person can be advantaged in some ways but disadvantaged in others. That's where "intersectionality of oppression," comes in I think.

I went back and read Lorde, hooks and others after catching an incidental article by Crenshaw about 15 years ago, looking at intersectionality of race and gender in violence against women. Black feminists get the pressure from feminists (mostly white women) to view patriarchy as the greatest threat and from Black rights activists (mostly Black men) to view institutionalised racism as the greatest thread. The problem is that neither position and neither movement fully reflects the position, perspective and experience of those who are both Black and women.

Anyhoo, apologies again to the OP for drifting waaaaay off the original topic, but I'm certainly finding the direction the thread has taken mighty interesting and thought provoking. Night all.

[SantaIsAnAnagramOfSatan]

i don't think it's that all white people are racist tbh - i think it's that all people are racist/zenophobic etc. though obviously racism takes on a more political and powerful tone when it's directed at a minority or disempowered group than vice versa.

much as a manhater wouldn't be the same politically as a misogynist because of the power dynamic.

a misogynist though - i think for me it comes back to misogyny/sexism/exploitation of women being the first othering and the foundation of all discrimination. from that comes all the rest - if you even hate the other half of your own group just because they have different genitals to you and wish to oppress and hurt them then you are very fundamentally filled with hate imo and utter self centredness, your 'in group' is miniscule and you are likely to hate all others. also look at the fact that a misogynist hates women of all groups, colours, ethnicities, religions etc - it is a totally generalised hatred that knows no racial or belief boundaries you know?

also a racist could be racist through ignorance - not having spent time with that group, not understanding that they share basic humanity etc they can be reformed potentially by being exposed to people of the group they are prejudiced against.

the misogynist came out of the womb of a woman, was 99% of the time raised by a woman/women and has gone to school with women, worked with women, shared every area of their life with women yet hate them and want to abuse them.

there is a distinct difference - not sure i've explained either point well though.

[SantaIsAnAnagramOfSatan]

another bit - a racist may be prejudiced because of ignorance, misinformed beliefs, lack of exposure etc but unless a white extremist will not use that to oppress and hurt and try to exploit the subject of their prejudice.

a misogynist knows bettter, he's not ignorant etc as i already said but he wants to directly exploit and abuse and oppress women, often IN THEIR OWN HOME in a sexual, domestic relationship. by watching pornography, perhaps by using prostitutes, etc etc.

a misogynist generally doesn't just distance his subject as a racist might but actively abuses them and profits from their subjugation domestically, sexually, financially etc etc.

[SantaIsAnAnagramOfSatan]

yep - need to think about it but i think one is directly about exploitation and personal gain and exerting power over. the other (nowadays) may be about fear, ignorance, distaste, prejudice etc and maybe a sense of feeling superior but it does not confer the same direct advantages and gains to the individual. it's not based in profit and exploitation for the modern individual. women can still be kept as slaves in a way and always have been able to be. slavery when it existed was to me, just an extension, of the enslaving of women. it passed but women are still there.

[SantaIsAnAnagramOfSatan]

(note how slaves were feminised, not seen as men but boys etc)

[Beachcomber]

I was just coming on to post pretty much what SIAAOS just said.

Will re-read and see if I have anything to add.

[SantaIsAnAnagramOfSatan]

feel free to call me satan btw it's an mn christmas pleasure of mine!

[Beachcomber]

Hope nobody minds if I quote - makes things easier as a lot has been said.

KRITIQ you said; It would seem then that the difference between sexism and misogyny and between racism and white supremacy is intent - the choice to translate attitudes and privilege into action that harms others? Ergo, all white supremacists are racists but not all racists are not white supremacists, and all misogynists are sexist but not all sexist men are misogynists.

I would disagree with this. I don't think all racists are white supremacists (although they do benefit from white supremacy). However, as I said before, I think all men participate in misogyny, all men are in a culture of male domination. For those familiar with the term, there are no bones to the 'not my Nigel' argument, there is only cognitive dissonance.

I also disagree with the notion of intent/choice as used above. People are not stupid, they know when an action is an entitled or a dominating one or a violent one. The difference is that men as a group believe that they are entitled to behave this way and they have institutionalised and 'socialized' such behaviour to an extent that they believe their own hype and;

a) choose to be blithely oblivious to their subjugating behaviour through a convenient lack of awareness.
b) choose to think it is the natural order.
c) are used to their privilege, and choose to be so unquestioning of their entitlement to exploit women, to an extent that they perceive threats to or questioning of their privilege as oppressive

Patriarchy is a biggie. It is everywhere in everything.

Radical feminists believe that patriarchy is the original system of oppression and that all oppressions are patriarchal.

Intersectionality is patriarchy (in action).

Collusion and 'reflected privilege' are interesting to examine. I have to do a bit of work now though!

[Beachcomber]

Gotcha Satan