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

[lenak]

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.

Just to add, the genderlect issue is more specifically seen as miscommunication with rape being seen as extreme miscommunication and womens failure to say no being seen as consent.

I have never heard of "Just say no".

I have heard of "no means no".

Just say no strikes me as another victim blaming thing to add to all the rest.

I thought 'just say no' was an anti-drug campaign from the 80s?

Really sorry, because I like your train of thought, but I've never heard of the concept. I would find the idea of having to be told to say no to rape pretty strange, tbh.

Just say No is often used in refusal skills training. Although the detail of the training is a little more complex, the over-riding emphasis is often on the 'broken record technique'

See www.uen.org/Lessonplan/preview.cgi?LPid=28920 and in particular, the 'Just say no worksheet.

The abstract for the argument against is here: das.sagepub.com/content/10/3/293.abstract.

I guess though that whether 'Just say No' is a thing or not is a little bit besides the point, the issue is more about whether it is (or should be) necessary for a woman to actually say no in order to be understood to be refusing sex when refusals are rarely that direct in other situations in everyday life.

Of course not. Enthusiastic and continuous consent should be the benchmark.

Consent isn't a complex issue unless there is a vested interest in it being so.

OK. So the point is made by some writers that, if genders do use language differently in the culture(s) under discussion, it is women who make these refusals less direct and use palliative means to 'soften' the refusal. I'd agree, really, that if a man hears women making these culturally determined refusals in other parts of his life and understands them, there is no reason at all why she should be required to alter her 'femilect' (? no idea where I got that from) when being physically attacked. You could argue that requiring women to alter their communication in only one type of scenario could actually increase miscommunication.

I note that in the Kitzinger/Frith article, the abstract refers to 'weak acceptances' as being culturally understood to be refusals. I agree with that, actually, but how does that sit with 'whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no', which I also passionately agree with?

Tbh I do think the 'just say no' issue matters a bit - refusal skills training doesn't appear to be the same as anti-rape campaigns, and I don't think an anti-rape campaign would use that phrase.

I note that in the Kitzinger/Frith article, the abstract refers to 'weak acceptances' as being culturally understood to be refusals. I agree with that, actually, but how does that sit with 'whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no', which I also passionately agree with?

That's exactly the point. In natural non-sexual communication (as argued by Kitzinger and Frith) it is rarely as simple as 'yes means yes and no means no' (and infact sometimes it is the opposite as with weak acceptance actually being a refusal), that level of directness is often uncomfortable to project and can be viewed as rude by the speaker so they will avoid it.

Therefore, why is it promoted as the norm for sexual communication? Is it simply because of higher stakes? If so, is there a better alternative that is more in line with natural communication methods that would be easier to use and better understood?

Just Say No is problematic for a number of reasons.

Firstly, especially with media portrayals of women, we're sold the image that women are in a constant state of "yes". We're shown that women can, apparently, be easily seduced, that they're rewards or trophies for successful behaviour (the good guy gets the girl, regardless of whether there was any attraction there previously). This, for one, needs challenging.

"Just Say No" also takes the onus off the man, or in the case of rape, off the rapist, and places the blame on the shoulders of the victim. How often do we hear of victims who say they froze, or were raped in their sleep, or after being drugged? Under a culture which encourages "Just Say No", these women would be raped, yet would be told their experience does not equate to rape because they didn't say no. Yet the onus should be on the man to make sure that he gets a resounding "yes". "Just Say No" gives rapists a defence; rape myths give them too many as it is. Do we need to give them another?

There's also the problem that, for so many victims, saying "no" wouldn't have prevented a rape. Or for so many survivors, it didn't... The shift needs to be to encourage men to actively seek consent. Because there are a number of rapes that occur where men just don't care enough to check they have consent.

It's also worth noting that women are typically conditioned, socially, to be more passive than men. I mean, it's not too long ago that the women's wedding vows included "obeying" their husband. We're expected to behave differently to men; meeker, more becoming, more willing to please men. The patriarchy expects us to be in a constant state of "yes". Isn't it time that view changed, and men went out of their way to check?

Sorry, haven't read the articles yet. Will come back to them later.

Marking place. Back later.

Agree with a lot of what's been said here.

The way to stop rape is to end the culture where men think women are in a constant state of 'yes' unless they loudly articulate a 'no'.

We need to get men to accept that a woman in a constant state of 'no' unless she leaves no room for doubt that she means 'yes'.

I know it's been often quoted, but it's always worth having another look at this excellent post fugitivus.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/another-post-about-rape-3/ about the massive contradictions between how women are socialised to behave and how they are expected to chuck all that to "protect themselves" from sexual assault.

I would like to see the onus shift from women being expected to make their "no" emphatic "enough," (assuming that the answer is always "yes" until proven otherwise,) to the expectation that the man will have a clear "yes" (showing that consent should never be assumed.) This http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/27/lay-responsibility-rapists-door?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038 points to the importance of such a shift.

I don't think we can afford yet not to continue efforts to build the confidence, self-esteem and resilience of young women and girls, to give them the best chance of self-preservation within a society that doesn't value them as it does men and boys, that doesn't believe their word over that of men and boys, that sends them the crappiest of mixed messages (as outlined in the blog above) and puts them in an impossible position. But, I'd like to see one day where that isn't needed.

TrophyEyes EXACTLY. Couldn't agree more with all 3 of your points!

Sorry about the formatting mess up above.

The blog Kritiq links to; Sorry Kritiq, looks like you put the brackets in the wrong place, as couldn't get to the blog through your link.

Agree with everything Kritiq said. We do need to do so much to change how young women and girls perceive themselves, but also how those around them perceive them. Have bookmarked that blog, btw. Remember reading the previous post last year.

I think anything to do with rape that is called 'Just Say No' is outrageous.

I agree that in social interactions, people generally rarely shout NO at each other - we are more likey to say 'Mmm, maybe', 'Can I get back to you?', 'I'll have a think about it', 'I'm not sure if that will be possible'. I agree that we are socialised to soften a no and that an outright no can be considered rude.

Also women are socialised to cater to men's wants and needs.

So it is flipping ridiculous to expect women to overcome all this in a moment of stress when they are being sexually assaulted and suddenly behave in a way that is difficult for us to do under normal circumstances.

But all of the above doesn't really matter much because 'Just Say No' is an utterly stupid rape mythy rapey thing to associate with rape. Rape doesn't happen because women don't say no. Rape doesn't happen because women are shit at communication. Rape is not women's fault, rape is not the victim's fault.

Rape happens because some men are rapists and they rape women. Period.

'Just say no' is an utterly stupid thing to say to women - how is a woman meant to say no when she fears angering her rapist and making him more violent? How is a woman in shock supposed to say no? How is a drunk, asleep or unconscious woman supposed to say no? How is a woman supposed to say no to a violent partner or a pestering one? And even if she does say no, she will probably be raped anyway. Are all the women who didn't clearly say no to their rapist somehow to blame for their rape?

'Just say no' places women as the gatekeepers to sexuality and implies that they are sexual prey (it also implies that men are sexual predators). It erases female sexuality and makes it all about hyper-masculinity. It lets men off the hook for any responsibility of behaving like decent human beings and it is the rapist's dream defence.

The worlds is full of rape myths, and steeped in rape culture as it is, we don't need to make it worse.

Rape is not communication gone wrong () is is sexualised violence.

There is one and only one message that is appropriate for rape and that is 'men, stop raping women now or suffer the consequences' (except we know that rapists nearly never suffer any consequences).

Plus we need a massive cultural shift in, well, just about everything related to gender really.

What TrophyEyes said.

Rape is about ignoring someone's no.

You can't say no to criminals who want to harm or steal from you if they can, although if you could the world would be crime free.

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).

Listening to rapists' lies e.g. "she didn't say no" is a mistake. Criminals always lie about their crimes.

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.

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.

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.'

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.