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:

"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 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.

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.

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.

There are other groups of people who think like that about science and academic study and are very good political activists. The Creationist movement in America is one that springs to mind.

I personally think that any political movement has a better chance of bringing about sustainable long term change if it is supported by strong empirical evidence of it's claims.

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.

For now I'll leave you to it.

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Chibi, hope you're OK.

OK - once again - I am not studying feminism or politics, I am studying Discourse Analysis e.g. The Use of Language

Beach: "We are not saying that science and analysis are bollocks."

Really?

"There is very little in academic feminism that has been useful to women"
"The "window for refusal to be heard" is just abstract academic bollocks."
"I don't understand what you are trying to achieve or analyse lenak. Sounds like bollocks to me."
"Which is why I think it sounds like a load of academic bollocks."

Those four statements seem to suggest otherwise, wouldn't you say? I did not say I was leaving the thread because I didn't like what was being said, however, it is almost impossible to have an academic debate with people who declare academic study 'bollocks'.

However, I will try one last time to explain where I am coming from:

The study of the language used in sexual refusal is vitally important for several reasons:

Sex education and rape prevention programmes advocate that where unwanted sexual advances are being made, women should give a clear, unequivocal, unvarnished "No" spoken with a tone and accompanied by the relevant body language that makes it clear that it is not a token refusal. Further they state that it is counter-productive to give a reason. This is therefore what both sexes come to see as the accepted norm, because this is what they are taught.

This idea largely comes from Miscommunication theory which states that men and women communicate so differently that this level of clarity is required. Miscommunication theory came from the study of real life conversations. It is not just about miscommunication when it comes to sex, it is about miscommunication is all aspects of life.

This idea that only a clear unequivocal no will suffice is so ingrained in the cultural thinking around sex and rape that it impacts on whether a man will be found guilty and to what extent he is punished (this is where the victim blaming comes in - e.g. she wasn't clear enough).

The other side of the argument is that refusals are more complex than that and that they rarely contain the word no, yet are still recognised as refusals by both sexes in non-sexual situations. Therefore it is counter-intuitive to expect direct refusals in sexual situations.

Most of you seem to agree with this. I do too. It makes sense.

But

It goes against the perceived wisdom that is currently dominant in our culture that a clear and unequivocal no is the best way for a woman to communicate her unwillingness to have sex.

The likes of Kitzinger and Frith and other social scientists that follow their line of thinking are, through their research, compiling evidence to prove, without a doubt, the complexity of refusals and that saying no is not required for men to understand sexual rejection. They are doing so through the study of language used by men and women using scientifically accepted methods and publishing their research.

Yes, it seems like common sense to those who are engaged with the debates around rape and consent, but for those who aren't, many still have trouble with understanding why many rape victims did not clearly say no to their attacker. These are ordinary people, who may be sat on a Jury in a rape trial. It is not their fault that they think a no should be clearly articulated, it does not make them misogynists - they will simply have not thought about it in any depth and simply be accepting of the dominant idea in society.

Publishing that research and getting it discussed is part of the process of overturning the current dominant school of thought and replacing it with this one. Political activism on it's own won't do it. The evidence offered by Kitzinger and Frith is what will eventually stop people asking when it comes rape "Did she say no clearly enough?" and instead get them asking "Did he deliberately her refusal which was articulated in a culturally 'normal' way".

Here's another article which discusses the subject:

www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/oct/02/gender.familyandrelationships

People who are politically engaged with any cause, whether that be feminism, race relations, gay rights, the labour movement or conservatism often forget that the ordinary person on the street, gets 'turned off' by politics. They see it as a cause that does not affect them or that they have no interest in. However, they will often engage with scientific evidence, particularly when it gets picked up by the press.

But you can continue to debate the issues in your politically engaged bubble and declare evidenced based science academic bollocks if you wish - I just think that by working with the academic and scientific world, rather than dismissing it, the ultimate aim can be achieved much quicker.

I think you are confusing academia with analysis.

I'm all for analysis - I just think it is something that everybody can do. You don't need to be able to read or write to engage in feminist analysis.

I think academic feminism is mostly bollocks. I think feminist analysis (and indeed all sorts of other analysis) is vital.

Academics do not own analysis.

I don't think all academia is bollocks, lots of it is brilliant. My comments are reserved for what academia seems to do to feminism.

I find this interesting. But then, I'm slightly obsessed with communication - which is why I should have known better, above, and used a non-rape-related illustration or at least said "You might be screaming".

stop people asking when it comes rape "Did she say no clearly enough?" and instead get them asking "Did he deliberately [ignore] her refusal which was articulated in a culturally 'normal' way".

There are situations where the recommended communication is different from the everyday. If you see a house on fire, it's better to shout "Fire!" than check with someone else first. You may manhandle a child who's running into moving traffic. The question might be: Is a romantic situation, which has turned aggressive, a sufficient emergency to drop the social norms and shout No?

I would say it is, but that still leaves the burden of responsibility on the weaker party. It's unfair. There's also the complication of an ongoing relationship: I might think no woman "should" harbour any desire to keep a relationship with a man who acts like that, but she very likely might want to keep it ... at that moment. So she'll continue trying polite persuasion where strong defence would serve her better.

Would a jury understand her persuasive efforts? I think they would, actually, and maybe the prosecutors are at fault here. "I was enjoying it until he ... then I said Stop but he just carried on ..." is a common enough story in most people's lives. We say Stop; Pack it in; Don't do that, do this; Not now - etc. We know that to ignore "stop signs" is wrong and rude. Juries know it.

Should there be a requirement for the word No to be used? No!
But I stand firm for increased use of the word No, and for better understanding of boundaries, among both (all) genders.

I'm waffling aren't I

And juries need fewer rape myths. Not more.

They need to take the focus off the women and place it firmly where it belongs - on the rapist.

It is very damaging to women to suggest in any way whatsoever that they can influence whether they are raped or not - by concentrating on how women refuse sex, your argument is doing just that.

You are focusing on a red herring, in fact worse than a red herring - a rape myth. I fail to see how that is going to help women who are raped and I don't see what is scientific about it. Quite the contrary.

So I find the subject flawed. Hence why I think it is bollocks - because I have analysed it and I disagree with it.

Abigail 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.

sigh - It does have credence Abigail - it is not me giving it credence, it is the dominant ideology. It is why women are taught to say No, encouraged to overide normative ways of refusal. It is why Juries find men no guilty of rape because they do not think that the woman articulated her refusal clearly enough.

Nyac 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.

Your views on social science explain a lot about why you are so dismissive.

garlic 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.

Yes, these arguments are relevant specifically to date rape / acquaintance rape. I agree about the need to say no clearly when normal means of refusal have failed.

I think the issue is the pushing of the idea that a No should be the first response and if it isn't given and only 'normal' refusal methods are used then somehow the woman was not clear enough, even though normal methods of refusal are understood perfectly by men in everyday life. The Kitzinger and Frith school of thought is to do with altering these expectations, taking away the excuse of "she didn't say no" or at the very least preventing juries and wider society at large from accepting it as an excuse.

Cross-post. I think juries understand this well enough; prosecutions should perhaps be painting a clearer picture for them. In that respect, I agree with K&F's argument!

But I'd still like to see younger people and women more educated in their right to say No. It's a useful word