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.