Today was the in-class discussion about rape culture that was led by one of the groups in class. Although they only had a handout to show us, the discussion was fantastic and very valuable.
This topic really hits home for me for a number of reasons in which I will not get too far into at the moment. I always get nervous about class discussions on this topic, because I will either say absolutely nothing and be detached and stoic or be extremely passionate about the subject and say whatever comes to mind, which can be harsh at people who are less knowledgable about the topic. I was very pleased with how the discussion went, though, and how well the group answered people's questions to the best of their abilities.
Also, I feel obliged to mention that the reading that this group picked for this topic was the best of the best, for it was--yep, you guessed it--dear ol' Valenti, from chapter four of her book entitled Full Frontal Feminism. I really love everything she says or talks about--it's always so dang interesting to me. For example, when she talks about volunteering as an emergency room advocate for survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, I kind of get jealous--I've thought about doing this for a while now, just for a short amount of time to learn how to work with people in many different trauma situations. I must say, though, that hearing Valenti say she could only take ABOUT A YEAR of that kind of work absolutely terrifies me. Was it really....that bad? I mean, I understand what people go through when assaulted in this way. I guess it would get bad after see so many people, even in just a day, be so traumatized. Still, I like the challenge of the work. One day.
***Did you know that there is now a new term for domestic violence? It is "intimate partner violence." I don't know how I feel about this yet. I just felt like if there's someone reading this out there, they should know this.***
None of the rape statistics from the handout and the Valenti chapter surprised me. I've read them all before, mostly on my own time, but also they've been repeated a lot in the class I've taken, especially here, because of how relevant the problem of rape culture is in our society. I know all of the different excuses people use when they rape someone. I despise them all equally, but the one that always annoys me the most is the "no hymen, no rape" excuse. This just shows how little people know about ourselves and our bodies. First off, a hymen DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE. When you have sex for the first time, it can hurt because the hymen is stretching from the penetration. It stops hurting if you have sex pretty consistently. However, if it has been years since the person last had sex, it could hurt again, because the hymen starts to go back to its original place. Therefore, THERE'S NO SUCH THING HAS "NO HYMEN." Along with this, hymens can be torn by other activities, like riding a bicycle or inserting a tampon. This excuse is just plain bull and infuriates me.
The discussion in class kind of made me a bit heated inside (I think it showed a bit, too. Whoops). Of course, it was towards the end of the class, so I didn't get to say something to the discussion like I wanted to. To sum it up quickly, some people in the class were talking about whether or not survivors of sexual assault must have evidence in order to convict his/her rapist. It was kind of a mixed topic, with most believing that someone does not need to be required to have evidence, which is the side I would have taken.
I mean, let's think about it logically. Rape is definitely NOT an easy thing to process, especially with how fast everything happens, how you feel, and how usually survivors know who did this to them. It's not an easy thing to report, and many, unfortunately, don't. And, of course, basically no one really wants to go through the process of prosecuting someone. It's grueling and very long and not fun at all. Therefore, many of times, survivors don't think about reporting rape until a while after the actual event happened. This means that you have no evidence from a rape kit, no physical markings, not a lot of clear-cut evidence that is usually looked for in these cases, hence the problem.
One person really stressed at how it is unfair to prosecute someone without that kind of evidence, because she could be making it up. This person also said that psychological evidence from the survivor cannot be considered proof because the person could be a pathological liar or have some other mental disorder that is causing he/she to lie. Okay, there are a few problems with that argument.
First off, don't get me wrong: I think the judicial system here is pretty messed up and doomed--but here's where statistics need to be checked. There is a very, VERY small percentage of people who claim to be sexually assaulted and are lying--but, once again, compared to the people who are telling the truth, is a very small number, practically irrelevant, actually. Also, psychological damage should be (and can be) used as evidence of this trauma. Not many people lie about this kind of damage (or can lie) to someone else, especially when asked about details of the event. A good psychiatrist should also be able to tell if the person is lying.
That is just a short part of my rebuttal back to the person. I do not mean any disrespect to my colleagues; I'm just offering a different way to look at things. I like the challenge.
This topic really hits home for me for a number of reasons in which I will not get too far into at the moment. I always get nervous about class discussions on this topic, because I will either say absolutely nothing and be detached and stoic or be extremely passionate about the subject and say whatever comes to mind, which can be harsh at people who are less knowledgable about the topic. I was very pleased with how the discussion went, though, and how well the group answered people's questions to the best of their abilities.
Also, I feel obliged to mention that the reading that this group picked for this topic was the best of the best, for it was--yep, you guessed it--dear ol' Valenti, from chapter four of her book entitled Full Frontal Feminism. I really love everything she says or talks about--it's always so dang interesting to me. For example, when she talks about volunteering as an emergency room advocate for survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, I kind of get jealous--I've thought about doing this for a while now, just for a short amount of time to learn how to work with people in many different trauma situations. I must say, though, that hearing Valenti say she could only take ABOUT A YEAR of that kind of work absolutely terrifies me. Was it really....that bad? I mean, I understand what people go through when assaulted in this way. I guess it would get bad after see so many people, even in just a day, be so traumatized. Still, I like the challenge of the work. One day.
***Did you know that there is now a new term for domestic violence? It is "intimate partner violence." I don't know how I feel about this yet. I just felt like if there's someone reading this out there, they should know this.***
None of the rape statistics from the handout and the Valenti chapter surprised me. I've read them all before, mostly on my own time, but also they've been repeated a lot in the class I've taken, especially here, because of how relevant the problem of rape culture is in our society. I know all of the different excuses people use when they rape someone. I despise them all equally, but the one that always annoys me the most is the "no hymen, no rape" excuse. This just shows how little people know about ourselves and our bodies. First off, a hymen DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE. When you have sex for the first time, it can hurt because the hymen is stretching from the penetration. It stops hurting if you have sex pretty consistently. However, if it has been years since the person last had sex, it could hurt again, because the hymen starts to go back to its original place. Therefore, THERE'S NO SUCH THING HAS "NO HYMEN." Along with this, hymens can be torn by other activities, like riding a bicycle or inserting a tampon. This excuse is just plain bull and infuriates me.
The discussion in class kind of made me a bit heated inside (I think it showed a bit, too. Whoops). Of course, it was towards the end of the class, so I didn't get to say something to the discussion like I wanted to. To sum it up quickly, some people in the class were talking about whether or not survivors of sexual assault must have evidence in order to convict his/her rapist. It was kind of a mixed topic, with most believing that someone does not need to be required to have evidence, which is the side I would have taken.
I mean, let's think about it logically. Rape is definitely NOT an easy thing to process, especially with how fast everything happens, how you feel, and how usually survivors know who did this to them. It's not an easy thing to report, and many, unfortunately, don't. And, of course, basically no one really wants to go through the process of prosecuting someone. It's grueling and very long and not fun at all. Therefore, many of times, survivors don't think about reporting rape until a while after the actual event happened. This means that you have no evidence from a rape kit, no physical markings, not a lot of clear-cut evidence that is usually looked for in these cases, hence the problem.
One person really stressed at how it is unfair to prosecute someone without that kind of evidence, because she could be making it up. This person also said that psychological evidence from the survivor cannot be considered proof because the person could be a pathological liar or have some other mental disorder that is causing he/she to lie. Okay, there are a few problems with that argument.
First off, don't get me wrong: I think the judicial system here is pretty messed up and doomed--but here's where statistics need to be checked. There is a very, VERY small percentage of people who claim to be sexually assaulted and are lying--but, once again, compared to the people who are telling the truth, is a very small number, practically irrelevant, actually. Also, psychological damage should be (and can be) used as evidence of this trauma. Not many people lie about this kind of damage (or can lie) to someone else, especially when asked about details of the event. A good psychiatrist should also be able to tell if the person is lying.
That is just a short part of my rebuttal back to the person. I do not mean any disrespect to my colleagues; I'm just offering a different way to look at things. I like the challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment