Post by Jolly Holly on Apr 3, 2016 13:57:11 GMT
Hey there, I'm writing here to respond to Idrissa's arguments she made in class as well the research summary she distributed via email.
If I were to take away two major points from Slutwalk, it would be these:
1. We live in a global rape culture. It's structural. It's systemic. It's embedded in our institutions and even in our own psyches.
2. Putting the onus on women and girls to protect themselves does not solve the problem because it does not change the structures that violate, oppress, subjugate, rape, torture, enslave, and kill women.
Research that places its focus on changing the behavior of the victim is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. Subjugated populations are those that are studied, "saved" and "remedied" most often. When Idrissa opened her argument in class, she said we have a responsibility to "educate" women. I think her point was that women needed to be educated about how to live in this world to avoid getting raped. Well, yes. Of course we'd like to live in this world and not be raped. However, the problem is that believing we need to "educate" victims feeds into the notion that if women and girls knew better, then they wouldn't be raped. It places the responsibility for the violence directly on women's shoulders. Even when a girl does things where she should be safe, she can be assaulted and blamed for not being careful enough. Mendes also provides numerous examples of these situations and identifies the impact and epidemic proportions of the phenomena. Women and girls need to be empowered more than we need to be educated. That is the point of the activism in Mendes' book.
I haven't perused the study summaries sent—I've only skimmed them. Rest assured, I will look at the original studies and pay careful attention to their methods as well as their implied ontologies, ideologies, and objectives. I have a feeling I'm going to find some good material for a critical feminist paper.
At first glance, this "revictimization" research reminds me of the research on under-performing school districts. Researchers study, test, poke and prod marginalized populations and ask "What's wrong with you? Why can't you learn? What program can I put in place so that you can learn?" Of course, I believe most of these folks have good intentions. They want to help. However, all of the awesome educational programs in the world won't change the overall performance of schools until we address the structural violence that dehumanizes and disempowers kids attending them. You could look at test scores and believe that kids who attend inner-city schools need to be "helped," "educated," "saved," or worse. You could say, that the civil rights movement is over, and now, they have a responsibility to educate themselves or their parents have a responsibility to move them to a better school district. If parents were better, if they taught their kids to protect themselves from society, then they wouldn't suffer the results of systemic oppression and structural violence. If kids just knew better, then they could avoid being hurt. It's an argument that I just can't support.
Back to the "revictimization" studies... As we all know, empirical research shows correlations—not causations. Both the area the researcher analyzes as well as the conclusions drawn from the data reveals the researcher's ideological lens. Consider the following question: Do women and girls who experienced repeated sexual assaults live in geographical environments where rape culture is heightened and/or more prevalent (i.e. war zones, abusive families, sex-subjugating societies, societies with rigid gender roles)? If so, that information might seem to be a greater determinant for predicting likelihood of revictimization than a personal weakness that instills itself within the victim after they have been raped. Do any revictimization studies take these factors into account? If so, how does one isolate these variables? How are these researchers analyzing "risky" behaviors of folks who have not been victimized?
I find it interesting that there is so much research about how victims end up "getting themselves raped" again. I use this phrase because it rings out sharply in my memory from my experience at the age of 15. My neighbors called the house to see why there were police cars in our driveway. My little brother answered the phone, and I heard him say, "My sister went out and got herself raped." The blame from my own family was evident and mirrors the attitudes of well-meaning researchers who want educate victims so that they can stop "getting themselves raped."
I think critical examinations of "revictimization" studies are long overdue. I might try to pull together a critique of this sort of research to accompany additional research I'm conducting on violence against women over the summer months. Thanks for sharing it.
If I were to take away two major points from Slutwalk, it would be these:
1. We live in a global rape culture. It's structural. It's systemic. It's embedded in our institutions and even in our own psyches.
2. Putting the onus on women and girls to protect themselves does not solve the problem because it does not change the structures that violate, oppress, subjugate, rape, torture, enslave, and kill women.
Research that places its focus on changing the behavior of the victim is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. Subjugated populations are those that are studied, "saved" and "remedied" most often. When Idrissa opened her argument in class, she said we have a responsibility to "educate" women. I think her point was that women needed to be educated about how to live in this world to avoid getting raped. Well, yes. Of course we'd like to live in this world and not be raped. However, the problem is that believing we need to "educate" victims feeds into the notion that if women and girls knew better, then they wouldn't be raped. It places the responsibility for the violence directly on women's shoulders. Even when a girl does things where she should be safe, she can be assaulted and blamed for not being careful enough. Mendes also provides numerous examples of these situations and identifies the impact and epidemic proportions of the phenomena. Women and girls need to be empowered more than we need to be educated. That is the point of the activism in Mendes' book.
I haven't perused the study summaries sent—I've only skimmed them. Rest assured, I will look at the original studies and pay careful attention to their methods as well as their implied ontologies, ideologies, and objectives. I have a feeling I'm going to find some good material for a critical feminist paper.
At first glance, this "revictimization" research reminds me of the research on under-performing school districts. Researchers study, test, poke and prod marginalized populations and ask "What's wrong with you? Why can't you learn? What program can I put in place so that you can learn?" Of course, I believe most of these folks have good intentions. They want to help. However, all of the awesome educational programs in the world won't change the overall performance of schools until we address the structural violence that dehumanizes and disempowers kids attending them. You could look at test scores and believe that kids who attend inner-city schools need to be "helped," "educated," "saved," or worse. You could say, that the civil rights movement is over, and now, they have a responsibility to educate themselves or their parents have a responsibility to move them to a better school district. If parents were better, if they taught their kids to protect themselves from society, then they wouldn't suffer the results of systemic oppression and structural violence. If kids just knew better, then they could avoid being hurt. It's an argument that I just can't support.
Back to the "revictimization" studies... As we all know, empirical research shows correlations—not causations. Both the area the researcher analyzes as well as the conclusions drawn from the data reveals the researcher's ideological lens. Consider the following question: Do women and girls who experienced repeated sexual assaults live in geographical environments where rape culture is heightened and/or more prevalent (i.e. war zones, abusive families, sex-subjugating societies, societies with rigid gender roles)? If so, that information might seem to be a greater determinant for predicting likelihood of revictimization than a personal weakness that instills itself within the victim after they have been raped. Do any revictimization studies take these factors into account? If so, how does one isolate these variables? How are these researchers analyzing "risky" behaviors of folks who have not been victimized?
I find it interesting that there is so much research about how victims end up "getting themselves raped" again. I use this phrase because it rings out sharply in my memory from my experience at the age of 15. My neighbors called the house to see why there were police cars in our driveway. My little brother answered the phone, and I heard him say, "My sister went out and got herself raped." The blame from my own family was evident and mirrors the attitudes of well-meaning researchers who want educate victims so that they can stop "getting themselves raped."
I think critical examinations of "revictimization" studies are long overdue. I might try to pull together a critique of this sort of research to accompany additional research I'm conducting on violence against women over the summer months. Thanks for sharing it.