I do not want my rapist to be raped.
Congress appointed a commission to study how to reduce prison rape. In 2007, there were an estimated 60,500 rapes in federal and state prisons. See NYT article here. There are about 1.6 million people incarcerated. A Bureau of Justice report on sexual violence says there were around 3 reported rapes for every 1000 inmates. If you do the math, the Justice Department gave the Congressional committee an estimate that is around 10 times the number of reported assaults. Most will not report the attacks. Not only are there more juveniles in with adults than ever before, but about 5% of the prison population are non-citizens who are afraid of being deported if they file charges. Just as rape victims in the ordinary world outside prison are unlikely to report rape; prisoners must be even less likely, seeing as they have to face their attackers in their cell every day (most assaults are committed in cells at night by fellow prisoners); and because they will likely get laughed out of the water.
We think it's funny that prisoners are subjected to rape. Think about it. How many jokes have you heard about it? We're starting to realize those who joke about rape in general are Neanderthals. But even the well-educated and good among us still joke about prison rape.
But I don't want my rapist to be raped.
When I was at court, waiting for my rapist to take a plea deal, the victim's advocate (whom I admired, and who gave me great comfort and strength) said, "don't worry, he'll be someone's bitch as soon as he's locked away." He's pretty and he's short. He won't stand a chance.
I was raped. Why would I want the same for my rapist?
People want revenge. An eye for an eye. But that would be legitimizing the violence that was done me. I am here to say rape is wrong. Under all circumstances. On moral grounds, rape is never OK. For practical reasons, tolerating rape in prison makes post-incarceration life even more precarious and unproductive. We are creating thousands of victims who will face the reality of PTSD and all that does to make employment and healthy participation in society difficult. PTSD is difficult enough for the general population. Add PTSD to a criminal past and you've got yourself thousands of very broken people. And they are walking amongst us.
So for pete's sake, if you can't muster up the moral courage to say rape is a crime even against rapists, then simply act with self-interest: say prison rape is wrong because you don't want your own neighborhoods wracked with the consequences of trauma perpetuated in prison, and let loose to the world outside. I know what rape and PTSD does to a girl who basically had it all. I fear for what it does to those who started out with so little.
Rape is wrong. Even against my rapist.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Traumatized Men: School Shooting and Male Rape
The swine flu lunacy has reached a peak: a parent in my school district pulled a gun on the Superintendent at a school my daughter will attend in a few years. Why? Because the district isn't closing the schools in spite of there being a few cases of the swine flu. see article
Reasonable people disagree about whether or not to close the schools. And even if most arguing in favor of keeping the schools open were considered UNreasonable, it is not reasonable to pull a gun on a school official and threaten his life.
The school went into lockdown, the kids were on the floor for an hour, they were crying and frantically texting their parents . . . and the Superintendent was skilled enough to get the gun away from the parent and pin him to the ground until the SWAT team shot the door hinges apart so they could rescue him. The children have forever had their sense of safety and trust compromised. And the Superintendent, in facing death, is being hailed as a hero -- but how is he really feeling? How is he going to feel in a few weeks when the adrenaline has stopped rushing, and people have quieted their praise?
We expect men to be tough, to fight and defend us when necessary, and to not be cowed by frightening situations. That's a lot to live up to when you see your life flash before your eyes. If I were the Superintendent's wife, I'd be worried that he doesn't have much in the way of a socially acceptable "safe space" in which to grieve his vulnerability and the violation of his safety.
As a female, I have to admit that the grieving process regarding my own trauma has been considerably eased by my gender. It's my gender that pretty much made me vulnerable in the first place, so I'm not going to expound much further on the benefits of being female in a misogynistic world. But I am allowed to grieve. Men who are traumatized . . . it's not so easily done.
I am reminded at times like these of an old love. When I was 19 I met him on a Greyhound. He was traveling the country with his backpack, and I was returning home after a solo camping trip in Eastern Washington. He stayed with me and my mom and sister for a while. The next time I saw him was a few months later, after he had returned to his home in Maine. He was changed. He told me after a few days something he hadn't revealed to anyone else: on his way through Chicago he stayed at the home of a man who raped him.
I can still feel how shocked and humiliated and scared he was. And I feel shame now, especially after having been raped myself, for how inadequate I was in helping him. I was of course horrified and tried to be a comfort. But I didn't understand how deeply such trauma flows into all aspects of a person's personality and actions. I got mad at him because he took us on a road trip to Boston in a van with all his friends and I just sort of faded into the background. I got mad that everyone was doing shrooms and acid, including him. Now I know he wanted the distraction, the escape, the protection of a crowd, the laughter, the obliteration of reality. Now I know he didn't have a whole lot of options for dealing with his fear and grief.
And so we talk and write and blog about it. It makes people uncomfortable. It brings up ugly stuff that I know my husband for one sometimes wishes I would let lie. But being quiet doesn't actually bring any peace. Not talking is what gets us into the dark hole in the first place. We have to talk . . . so that at some point in the future we will all -- including men -- have a safer space in which to grieve and heal.
Reasonable people disagree about whether or not to close the schools. And even if most arguing in favor of keeping the schools open were considered UNreasonable, it is not reasonable to pull a gun on a school official and threaten his life.
The school went into lockdown, the kids were on the floor for an hour, they were crying and frantically texting their parents . . . and the Superintendent was skilled enough to get the gun away from the parent and pin him to the ground until the SWAT team shot the door hinges apart so they could rescue him. The children have forever had their sense of safety and trust compromised. And the Superintendent, in facing death, is being hailed as a hero -- but how is he really feeling? How is he going to feel in a few weeks when the adrenaline has stopped rushing, and people have quieted their praise?
We expect men to be tough, to fight and defend us when necessary, and to not be cowed by frightening situations. That's a lot to live up to when you see your life flash before your eyes. If I were the Superintendent's wife, I'd be worried that he doesn't have much in the way of a socially acceptable "safe space" in which to grieve his vulnerability and the violation of his safety.
As a female, I have to admit that the grieving process regarding my own trauma has been considerably eased by my gender. It's my gender that pretty much made me vulnerable in the first place, so I'm not going to expound much further on the benefits of being female in a misogynistic world. But I am allowed to grieve. Men who are traumatized . . . it's not so easily done.
I am reminded at times like these of an old love. When I was 19 I met him on a Greyhound. He was traveling the country with his backpack, and I was returning home after a solo camping trip in Eastern Washington. He stayed with me and my mom and sister for a while. The next time I saw him was a few months later, after he had returned to his home in Maine. He was changed. He told me after a few days something he hadn't revealed to anyone else: on his way through Chicago he stayed at the home of a man who raped him.
I can still feel how shocked and humiliated and scared he was. And I feel shame now, especially after having been raped myself, for how inadequate I was in helping him. I was of course horrified and tried to be a comfort. But I didn't understand how deeply such trauma flows into all aspects of a person's personality and actions. I got mad at him because he took us on a road trip to Boston in a van with all his friends and I just sort of faded into the background. I got mad that everyone was doing shrooms and acid, including him. Now I know he wanted the distraction, the escape, the protection of a crowd, the laughter, the obliteration of reality. Now I know he didn't have a whole lot of options for dealing with his fear and grief.
And so we talk and write and blog about it. It makes people uncomfortable. It brings up ugly stuff that I know my husband for one sometimes wishes I would let lie. But being quiet doesn't actually bring any peace. Not talking is what gets us into the dark hole in the first place. We have to talk . . . so that at some point in the future we will all -- including men -- have a safer space in which to grieve and heal.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Watch your Language
A 15-year-old Black girl was raped in Florida recently, by six men, at gun point (the Whataboutourdaughters.com blog brought this to my attention). Watch this video and listen to the interviewer. Listen to every word.
Did you hear what I heard?
The interviewer asked the perp: "Did you guys take advantage of that girl?"
Take advantage?! To take advantage is to take the upper hand, seize opportunity in an unequal competition, exploit a weakness or mistake someone else has made. It's that last part that has me seeing red . . . that these six men "took advantage" of the young girl focuses on the contributions of all parties, including the girl, to her rape -- instead of linguistically focusing entirely on the violent crime that is 100% the responsibility of the perpetrators.
But it's more than that. I have to rely on my sense of language as a native speaker of English. How do you, YOU, use the phrase "to take advantage of"? This is how I use it: my husband and I recently bought over a hundred dollars worth of stuff, plants and such, from Home Depot. We got to the car and in scrutinizing the receipt, realized many of the items hadn't been charged to us. Now, 98% of the time, I march right back in, albeit reluctantly, point out their mistake, and cough up more money. I don't want the teller to get in trouble; I don't want the business to lose money; I don't want to have a big black puddle of a stain on my conscience. But this time . . . well . . .? It was Home Depot. We've spent thousands there. My anti-corporate prejudice (in spite of my knowing I depend heavily on corporations) won out, and my normally intact conscience took a holiday. We considered it our lucky day.
That is taking advantage. We exploited someone else's mistake. Things turned our way, we had the upper hand because we had knowledge of a mistake that someone else did not, and we rolled with it. We did the wrong thing. Unfortunately, humans are very susceptible to this sort of moral justification and sneakiness. We often take advantage when we think our conscience won't be too marred. We put the situation in the scales, weighing the amount of harm done others against the amount of gain for ourselves, and if it's not too terribly awful for the other party, we justify giving ourselves the bonus.
Or is that just MY morality shtick? Am I the only one who thinks "taking advantage" is something that ranges from a little bit creepy to pretty darn disgusting -- but not generally completely devoid of any moral reasoning?
I'll tell you what the first rapist in this case did that was "taking advantage" of the 15-year-old victim: when she went to his apartment (she apparently knew him) and the door was closed, the perp asked her for sex. That asking is taking advantage -- of a closed door, of his age, of her innocence and immaturity, of her physical weakness in comparison to him, of her perhaps unwise decision to enter an man's house, even though she may have considered him friendly and a friend. His even ASKING for sex was taking advantage.
If that's where the story ended, the reporter would have been entirely appropriate in asking the perp, "did you take advantage of that girl?"
But that's not where it ended. He pulled out a gun, and forced her to have sex with him, and then five others.
Is that taking advantage? Let me ask you something different, to clarify my point. If burglars use crowbars and an ax to break through your locked front door, do we say they took advantage of your failure to have a metal door? If a sniper kills seven people in the street, do we say he took advantage of their not constantly looking up for potential killers? In both cases, yes, the criminals took the advantage. But do we SAY they took advantage?
No. We don't use those words. Because when people have overwhelming and complete power over other people, we focus on the force they use -- not on what the victims did to allow the scales to tip in the direction of the perpetrators. When force is overwhelming, there are no scales, there is no weighing in the balances. And there is no detectable moral reasoning -- that fudging we do with our justifications. There is no possible explanation except brute force.
When that young woman had a gun pointed at her, she was confronted with overwhelming criminal force. When she alone was pitted against six men, she faced overwhelming criminal force. There was no competition. There was nothing she could do. She had no way of getting a so-called advantage back. She was tortured and terrorized. And the criminals were not pursuing an opportunity for themselves. They were destroying an innocent life.
So please. Can we watch what comes out of our mouths? And if something pops out -- hold it out in front of your nose and stare at it a while. Does it betray some assumptions you didn't realize you were making?
We all have a role to play in reducing the incidence of rape. Watching our language is something all of us can do. Because how we talk about rape is how we think about rape. And those beliefs make it either rather easy, or very difficult, for rapists to do what they do.
P.S. Did you hear, in that video interview, the neighborhood parent say that what was so terrible was that the rapists "took away her privacy"? I've been trying to wrap my mind around that one. I just don't have the energy right now. Maybe you can help us out? What do you think of his choice of words?
Did you hear what I heard?
The interviewer asked the perp: "Did you guys take advantage of that girl?"
Take advantage?! To take advantage is to take the upper hand, seize opportunity in an unequal competition, exploit a weakness or mistake someone else has made. It's that last part that has me seeing red . . . that these six men "took advantage" of the young girl focuses on the contributions of all parties, including the girl, to her rape -- instead of linguistically focusing entirely on the violent crime that is 100% the responsibility of the perpetrators.
But it's more than that. I have to rely on my sense of language as a native speaker of English. How do you, YOU, use the phrase "to take advantage of"? This is how I use it: my husband and I recently bought over a hundred dollars worth of stuff, plants and such, from Home Depot. We got to the car and in scrutinizing the receipt, realized many of the items hadn't been charged to us. Now, 98% of the time, I march right back in, albeit reluctantly, point out their mistake, and cough up more money. I don't want the teller to get in trouble; I don't want the business to lose money; I don't want to have a big black puddle of a stain on my conscience. But this time . . . well . . .? It was Home Depot. We've spent thousands there. My anti-corporate prejudice (in spite of my knowing I depend heavily on corporations) won out, and my normally intact conscience took a holiday. We considered it our lucky day.
That is taking advantage. We exploited someone else's mistake. Things turned our way, we had the upper hand because we had knowledge of a mistake that someone else did not, and we rolled with it. We did the wrong thing. Unfortunately, humans are very susceptible to this sort of moral justification and sneakiness. We often take advantage when we think our conscience won't be too marred. We put the situation in the scales, weighing the amount of harm done others against the amount of gain for ourselves, and if it's not too terribly awful for the other party, we justify giving ourselves the bonus.
Or is that just MY morality shtick? Am I the only one who thinks "taking advantage" is something that ranges from a little bit creepy to pretty darn disgusting -- but not generally completely devoid of any moral reasoning?
I'll tell you what the first rapist in this case did that was "taking advantage" of the 15-year-old victim: when she went to his apartment (she apparently knew him) and the door was closed, the perp asked her for sex. That asking is taking advantage -- of a closed door, of his age, of her innocence and immaturity, of her physical weakness in comparison to him, of her perhaps unwise decision to enter an man's house, even though she may have considered him friendly and a friend. His even ASKING for sex was taking advantage.
If that's where the story ended, the reporter would have been entirely appropriate in asking the perp, "did you take advantage of that girl?"
But that's not where it ended. He pulled out a gun, and forced her to have sex with him, and then five others.
Is that taking advantage? Let me ask you something different, to clarify my point. If burglars use crowbars and an ax to break through your locked front door, do we say they took advantage of your failure to have a metal door? If a sniper kills seven people in the street, do we say he took advantage of their not constantly looking up for potential killers? In both cases, yes, the criminals took the advantage. But do we SAY they took advantage?
No. We don't use those words. Because when people have overwhelming and complete power over other people, we focus on the force they use -- not on what the victims did to allow the scales to tip in the direction of the perpetrators. When force is overwhelming, there are no scales, there is no weighing in the balances. And there is no detectable moral reasoning -- that fudging we do with our justifications. There is no possible explanation except brute force.
When that young woman had a gun pointed at her, she was confronted with overwhelming criminal force. When she alone was pitted against six men, she faced overwhelming criminal force. There was no competition. There was nothing she could do. She had no way of getting a so-called advantage back. She was tortured and terrorized. And the criminals were not pursuing an opportunity for themselves. They were destroying an innocent life.
So please. Can we watch what comes out of our mouths? And if something pops out -- hold it out in front of your nose and stare at it a while. Does it betray some assumptions you didn't realize you were making?
We all have a role to play in reducing the incidence of rape. Watching our language is something all of us can do. Because how we talk about rape is how we think about rape. And those beliefs make it either rather easy, or very difficult, for rapists to do what they do.
P.S. Did you hear, in that video interview, the neighborhood parent say that what was so terrible was that the rapists "took away her privacy"? I've been trying to wrap my mind around that one. I just don't have the energy right now. Maybe you can help us out? What do you think of his choice of words?
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Blinder than Bats
I want to talk about incest. About the family members, the perpetrators and their wives and mothers, who almost invariably deny that anything has happened.
Fathers, step-fathers, and boyfriends are usually the perpetrators. I guess I can understand when they don’t come out and admit their crimes. They don’t want to go to jail.
But what sort of mental gymnastics are the women doing, the women defending these men, when they deny their daughters and granddaughters were molested?
Over and over again, I hear it: my mom said I was lying; my grandmother told my mom it was a bunch of lies.
What in God’s name is wrong with these women? I guess they’re afraid of jail, too. The problem is, they seem to believe their self-deception.
Is there anything more dangerous than when blunder around this earth with our eyes shut tight? Is there anything more harmful than ignorance, especially of the willful variety? The Buddha had it right: the root of suffering is ignorance.
I don't know how a victim of incest deals with it. The brick wall is formidable. How is a person supposed to feel any justice has been achieved, or any resolution obtained? Unfortunately, it seems in sexual abuse cases oftentimes the only justice is gotten by a belief that people get their just deserts somehow -- what goes around comes around, or at the least, the lives they lead are ones of darkness. Or maybe they'll be reincarnated as dung beetles.
I have my own ignorance to deal with: One of the greatest problems I seem to have right now because of the rape is one that simultaneously developed out of my divorce around the same time: I haven't accepted the aspect of human nature that is completely self-absorbed, blind to the pain caused others, and capable of such enormous self-deception without remorse or sense of shame. I haven't accepted how people are duplicitous and can change from one thing into a person who appears totally different. I haven't accepted how or why I could be so trusting, and then betrayed – it is so totally contrary to what I grew up believing I deserved. It came as a shock. And then I look back and think, "did I REALLY know I deserved better, or is there something about me that drew these betrayers into my life?" And then I think, I no longer know what is real, who I am, and who other people are. It's very troubling.
I'm turning to Buddhism and meditation to cultivate an open-eyed acceptance of life as it is. And I'm also returning to my Christian roots and looking for a church that welcomes people with diverse beliefs. I can’t seem to get around Jesus as the cultural lens through which my limited eyes are most able to see a very big God. I've spent several decades being an agnostic and sometime-militant atheist. But I'm finding that despair is far worse than just about anything that can happen. Hope is the only thing that makes it worth it to look for goodness in the midst of outrage. And I'm finding that faith is the way I am able, now, to find hope. It may seem ridiculous to people of greater faith, pathetic . . . but a part of me feels defeated in turning to religion, like I have failed to find sufficient meaning and be satisfied with the privilege of simply being alive on a beautiful and fascinating planet. Perhaps I'll look back on this reluctant experiment differently in a few years.
I don't know how to accept that a man could rape me. I don't know how to accept that my first husband, an intelligent, well-educated and well-liked man, can boldly and without remorse refuse to follow the divorce agreement and treat the mother of his child with carelessness and disrespect. I don't know how to accept that families of childhood sexual abuse are so often blind to the pain they cause, and can live with their deceptions.
The only thing I know is that I can't let myself ever be so self-deceiving. I have to look at my intentions clearly, no matter how uncomfortable. And I have to restrain my actions, even where they seem perfectly natural and justified, if it means treating others in ways I don't want to be treated. I continue to believe human beings have that capacity for introspection and restraint. I want to hold onto that belief.
But I’m afraid. I am afraid that in opening my eyes, in allowing my blind idealism to transform into clear-eyed acceptance of reality, I will lose it.
And I guess there lies the tipping point, the murky edge between despair and hope: faith.
Fathers, step-fathers, and boyfriends are usually the perpetrators. I guess I can understand when they don’t come out and admit their crimes. They don’t want to go to jail.
But what sort of mental gymnastics are the women doing, the women defending these men, when they deny their daughters and granddaughters were molested?
Over and over again, I hear it: my mom said I was lying; my grandmother told my mom it was a bunch of lies.
What in God’s name is wrong with these women? I guess they’re afraid of jail, too. The problem is, they seem to believe their self-deception.
Is there anything more dangerous than when blunder around this earth with our eyes shut tight? Is there anything more harmful than ignorance, especially of the willful variety? The Buddha had it right: the root of suffering is ignorance.
I don't know how a victim of incest deals with it. The brick wall is formidable. How is a person supposed to feel any justice has been achieved, or any resolution obtained? Unfortunately, it seems in sexual abuse cases oftentimes the only justice is gotten by a belief that people get their just deserts somehow -- what goes around comes around, or at the least, the lives they lead are ones of darkness. Or maybe they'll be reincarnated as dung beetles.
I have my own ignorance to deal with: One of the greatest problems I seem to have right now because of the rape is one that simultaneously developed out of my divorce around the same time: I haven't accepted the aspect of human nature that is completely self-absorbed, blind to the pain caused others, and capable of such enormous self-deception without remorse or sense of shame. I haven't accepted how people are duplicitous and can change from one thing into a person who appears totally different. I haven't accepted how or why I could be so trusting, and then betrayed – it is so totally contrary to what I grew up believing I deserved. It came as a shock. And then I look back and think, "did I REALLY know I deserved better, or is there something about me that drew these betrayers into my life?" And then I think, I no longer know what is real, who I am, and who other people are. It's very troubling.
I'm turning to Buddhism and meditation to cultivate an open-eyed acceptance of life as it is. And I'm also returning to my Christian roots and looking for a church that welcomes people with diverse beliefs. I can’t seem to get around Jesus as the cultural lens through which my limited eyes are most able to see a very big God. I've spent several decades being an agnostic and sometime-militant atheist. But I'm finding that despair is far worse than just about anything that can happen. Hope is the only thing that makes it worth it to look for goodness in the midst of outrage. And I'm finding that faith is the way I am able, now, to find hope. It may seem ridiculous to people of greater faith, pathetic . . . but a part of me feels defeated in turning to religion, like I have failed to find sufficient meaning and be satisfied with the privilege of simply being alive on a beautiful and fascinating planet. Perhaps I'll look back on this reluctant experiment differently in a few years.
I don't know how to accept that a man could rape me. I don't know how to accept that my first husband, an intelligent, well-educated and well-liked man, can boldly and without remorse refuse to follow the divorce agreement and treat the mother of his child with carelessness and disrespect. I don't know how to accept that families of childhood sexual abuse are so often blind to the pain they cause, and can live with their deceptions.
The only thing I know is that I can't let myself ever be so self-deceiving. I have to look at my intentions clearly, no matter how uncomfortable. And I have to restrain my actions, even where they seem perfectly natural and justified, if it means treating others in ways I don't want to be treated. I continue to believe human beings have that capacity for introspection and restraint. I want to hold onto that belief.
But I’m afraid. I am afraid that in opening my eyes, in allowing my blind idealism to transform into clear-eyed acceptance of reality, I will lose it.
And I guess there lies the tipping point, the murky edge between despair and hope: faith.
Lucky
There is a perplexing thing I do. The victim’s advocate four years ago said I was doing it, and the moderator for a support group I attend says I still do it. I minimize the crime committed against me.
You may say, right, uhuh, you have a blog totally devoted to trauma, you write about it ad nauseum, and you think you minimize it?
This is how I (along with so many trauma victims) do it:
I feel lucky that the rapist didn't cut me with the knife. He didn't use physical force except to originally subdue me -- he didn't seem to use violence gratuitously.
I feel lucky my daughter wasn't there to witness the attack.
I feel lucky I got a condom on him so I didn't have as much fear of AIDS or pregnancy afterwards, which is fortunate because I was allergic to the HIV prophylactic drugs.
I feel lucky that the cops caught him in my bed after I'd escaped to the neighbor's.
I feel lucky to be one of 2% of rape cases that are successfully prosecuted.
I read about women in the Congo gang-raped by soldiers at the wells, their genitals so severely mutilated that if they don’t die, they live with constant pain, incontinence, and an inability to farm for their families -- and then on top of everything, they are ostracized from their communities as though they are now worthless and, basically, left to die.
I feel lucky I wasn't them.
Although I'm very open about talking about the rape, and almost militant in my activism in some ways -- I still minimize what happened to me, because there are people who have had it so much worse.
I'm trying to figure out exactly why I minimize. I know intellectually it must make it easier for my mind to embrace what has happened, a sort of denial that facilitates recovery in some ways, a self-protection. I think it also is an attempt to temper what feels -- and I fear looks like to others -- like self-absorption in victimhood. It's furthermore probably a manifestation of low self-esteem that comes from having someone so completely disregard one's own will and wishes, which is what rape is -- a very clear message from the rapist that your voice means nothing.
I know this in my head. But it still doesn't FEEL right to completely embrace the full horror of my experience, without qualification. Sometimes I manage it, like in what I write at times in this blog. But then I feel simultaneously satisfied and yucky afterward, like I've done something not quite accepted. All the gender programming mixed in there reminds me the not-at-all demure female is threatening, not least to my own self-image.
The support group moderator said I minimize the crime committed against me. She said, "every person's story has it's own particular kind of damage and repercussions". I keep looking at those words, trying to soak them up through my skin, digest them, make them a part of how I feel, and not just what I know to be true. But I don’t feel it yet.
I still feel lucky.
You may say, right, uhuh, you have a blog totally devoted to trauma, you write about it ad nauseum, and you think you minimize it?
This is how I (along with so many trauma victims) do it:
I feel lucky that the rapist didn't cut me with the knife. He didn't use physical force except to originally subdue me -- he didn't seem to use violence gratuitously.
I feel lucky my daughter wasn't there to witness the attack.
I feel lucky I got a condom on him so I didn't have as much fear of AIDS or pregnancy afterwards, which is fortunate because I was allergic to the HIV prophylactic drugs.
I feel lucky that the cops caught him in my bed after I'd escaped to the neighbor's.
I feel lucky to be one of 2% of rape cases that are successfully prosecuted.
I read about women in the Congo gang-raped by soldiers at the wells, their genitals so severely mutilated that if they don’t die, they live with constant pain, incontinence, and an inability to farm for their families -- and then on top of everything, they are ostracized from their communities as though they are now worthless and, basically, left to die.
I feel lucky I wasn't them.
Although I'm very open about talking about the rape, and almost militant in my activism in some ways -- I still minimize what happened to me, because there are people who have had it so much worse.
I'm trying to figure out exactly why I minimize. I know intellectually it must make it easier for my mind to embrace what has happened, a sort of denial that facilitates recovery in some ways, a self-protection. I think it also is an attempt to temper what feels -- and I fear looks like to others -- like self-absorption in victimhood. It's furthermore probably a manifestation of low self-esteem that comes from having someone so completely disregard one's own will and wishes, which is what rape is -- a very clear message from the rapist that your voice means nothing.
I know this in my head. But it still doesn't FEEL right to completely embrace the full horror of my experience, without qualification. Sometimes I manage it, like in what I write at times in this blog. But then I feel simultaneously satisfied and yucky afterward, like I've done something not quite accepted. All the gender programming mixed in there reminds me the not-at-all demure female is threatening, not least to my own self-image.
The support group moderator said I minimize the crime committed against me. She said, "every person's story has it's own particular kind of damage and repercussions". I keep looking at those words, trying to soak them up through my skin, digest them, make them a part of how I feel, and not just what I know to be true. But I don’t feel it yet.
I still feel lucky.
Guest Post
The following piece was contributed by a member of the public.
"In the Overall Scheme of Things"
by Michaela Léan Chauvin
I have never shared with anyone all of the gory details of the abuse that I endured, not even my therapist. It took awhile before I even acknowledged to myself that it happened at all. That is why the flashbacks were so disturbing.
When I first started having them, I was devastated. The experience was absolutely horrifying and at first I thought I was imagining things, there was no way that those things could have happened. If they did, why didn’t I remember them until now?
About the time they began I was experiencing a particularly stressful time in my life. While I had had other stressors prior to this, this period was a trigger for these memories. I may never know what exactly the trigger was, and it really doesn’t matter. The fact is, it happened and it forced me to acknowledge the abuse. I still don’t talk about the details but for the first time in my life I can actually verbalize and acknowledge that I was raped, multiple times, over a period of years. There, now I have said it, in public.
Sometimes I get wrapped up in the bad things that have happened. They are part of who I am and they have shaped me. As much as I try, I cannot deny these things occurred. Even though I repressed my memory of these experiences, too painful to remember, they still impact me daily. Now that the memories have resurfaced I can see patterns of behavior that did not make sense at the time but are now perfectly clear. These “aha” moments are amazing and while the flashbacks have been painful, there is a bright side. Really!
For the first time in a long time I feel peaceful. I haven’t been looking over my shoulder and certain situations no longer cause me to bristle or withdraw. I still have a lot of work to do, but at least I am now on the road to working through everything. Notice I didn’t say “recovering” from my experiences. I don’t feel that I will ever recover, I can only move forward.
I was already seeing a mental health professional when the flashbacks started. Thank goodness for that! Part of my counseling included the development of a timeline of events in my life, from my earliest memory to the present. I found this exercise to be very therapeutic. When I look at my life from this vantage point I immediately recognize that the positive experiences far outweigh what I call the “dark periods”. I am also able to identify my strengths and support systems. I have after all survived and thrived over the long haul.
If I had a choice, I would choose to forego the trauma, but if that meant that I would be different than I am today, as a person, I would experience it all over again. Ultimately, I like the person that I have become and I am not sure that I would be who I am had I not experienced ALL of my life, the good and the bad.
There is a lot of good in my life and I am thankful for that. One thing that has helped me cope and keeps me moving forward is acknowledging that in the overall scheme of things I have a lot of positive experiences to draw upon.
"In the Overall Scheme of Things"
by Michaela Léan Chauvin
I have never shared with anyone all of the gory details of the abuse that I endured, not even my therapist. It took awhile before I even acknowledged to myself that it happened at all. That is why the flashbacks were so disturbing.
When I first started having them, I was devastated. The experience was absolutely horrifying and at first I thought I was imagining things, there was no way that those things could have happened. If they did, why didn’t I remember them until now?
About the time they began I was experiencing a particularly stressful time in my life. While I had had other stressors prior to this, this period was a trigger for these memories. I may never know what exactly the trigger was, and it really doesn’t matter. The fact is, it happened and it forced me to acknowledge the abuse. I still don’t talk about the details but for the first time in my life I can actually verbalize and acknowledge that I was raped, multiple times, over a period of years. There, now I have said it, in public.
Sometimes I get wrapped up in the bad things that have happened. They are part of who I am and they have shaped me. As much as I try, I cannot deny these things occurred. Even though I repressed my memory of these experiences, too painful to remember, they still impact me daily. Now that the memories have resurfaced I can see patterns of behavior that did not make sense at the time but are now perfectly clear. These “aha” moments are amazing and while the flashbacks have been painful, there is a bright side. Really!
For the first time in a long time I feel peaceful. I haven’t been looking over my shoulder and certain situations no longer cause me to bristle or withdraw. I still have a lot of work to do, but at least I am now on the road to working through everything. Notice I didn’t say “recovering” from my experiences. I don’t feel that I will ever recover, I can only move forward.
I was already seeing a mental health professional when the flashbacks started. Thank goodness for that! Part of my counseling included the development of a timeline of events in my life, from my earliest memory to the present. I found this exercise to be very therapeutic. When I look at my life from this vantage point I immediately recognize that the positive experiences far outweigh what I call the “dark periods”. I am also able to identify my strengths and support systems. I have after all survived and thrived over the long haul.
If I had a choice, I would choose to forego the trauma, but if that meant that I would be different than I am today, as a person, I would experience it all over again. Ultimately, I like the person that I have become and I am not sure that I would be who I am had I not experienced ALL of my life, the good and the bad.
There is a lot of good in my life and I am thankful for that. One thing that has helped me cope and keeps me moving forward is acknowledging that in the overall scheme of things I have a lot of positive experiences to draw upon.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
It's a Cultural Thing
Afghanistan passed a law recently making marital rape legal. I don’t know which is more disturbing – the fact this law was passed, or the comments supporting this law in the ether (http://www.thestar.com/article/617179).
I think most people reading this blog will agree with Obama that the law is “abhorrent”. As my mother would add, “abhorrent, period.” End of story. Get the law off the books. And don’t give me any of that wishy washy relativism that we feminists coming of age in the 80s were saddled with. My values may be Western and theirs may be based on Sharia, but we’re all human beings, and this law is contrary to universal human rights.
Why is it that when it comes to rights for the female half of the population, people comment that “it’s not our affair”, or “It’s cultural, we can’t possibly understand it, so we should stay out of it”? Do we say that when Congolese soldiers chop off the hands of thousands? Or when armies draft child soldiers? Or when skinheads attack Jews and Blacks? Or when governments engage in torture? If we say those horrors are “cultural”, it’s to say “wow, that’s a pretty f’d up part of the culture” – and then we call our leaders or march in the streets or at least express our disdain at cocktail parties to show how much we know about world affairs. But we don’t say, “It’s none of our business.” We did that with the Tutsis and the Serbs for a while, but we started to learn our lesson with those debacles – hundreds of thousands die when we say “it’s cultural”.
But we’re still saying it when it comes to women around the world. Ok, it’s gotten better. Aid packages from Western nations usually have strings attached indicating human rights for women have to be observed by the recipient countries. Western presidents are expressing outrage about this Afghan law. But then you get comments like this in response to a news story about the Afghan law:
All those mistakes, spelling and otherwise, indicate this writer isn’t the tastiest pea in the pod. But isn’t that what our world is made up of? That, and the below:
These comments came from readers of the Toronto Star. Westerners, for all intents and purposes. And although their arguments are different in content, I say they are part and parcel of the same cowardice: an unwillingness to defend women’s human rights because to do so would entail a property loss to men.
Now, I haven’t sounded off like this – on how men view women as property – for a long time. I’ve gone off that shtick. It’s too ideological. Doesn’t get at the complexity of human motivation and interaction.
But I will call a spade a spade. The oppression of women is tied in with culture, but that is no excuse or justification. There are universal ethics. Cultures, including religious aspects, must change in order for universal ethics to be upheld. And one of the aspects of ALL cultures – not just those under the sway of Sharia, but our own beloved Western cultures – that must change is the notion that what men do to women is what men do to their property, and is therefore private, and none of our business.
Clearly, the Afghan law treats women as the property of their husbands. Don’t say it’s their business, and then claim you simply respect the cultural integrity of Afghani Shiites. What you really respect is the right of men to certain behaviors on the part of women. If you don’t believe Nazi skinheads have the right to attack Jews and Blacks on the streets; if you don’t believe soldiers have the right to draft children into military service – you can’t believe Afghani Shiite men have the right to pass a law forcing their wives to have sex. If you do believe the latter, then, well – it’s as I said: you are defending the right of men to hold women as property.
The progress toward greater human rights in the last two centuries has been about one thing, in essence: a refutation of the idea that humans can hold property rights in other humans. It started with the abolition of serfdom (property rights by virtue of class, title, and economic circumstance), continued with the abolition of slavery (property rights by virtue of nationality or ethnic group), progressed to the regulation of employment conditions (rights of employers by virtue of owning property – a business) and other civil issues (entertainment and eating establishments, schools, landlords – their right to dictate who gets to use their property). The world has progressed in its thinking about what rights one person can have over another. We have progressed in our thinking about how men can control women.
But we have a long ways to go. And it’s not just in Afghanistan that we see how men view women as property. It’s right here, right now, in our own homes and social circles and political arenas. One indication is how we still hear “it’s none of our business”, “it’s cultural”, and “it’s private”, where relations between men and women are concerned. There are myriad other indications from our everyday lives, often very subtle indications, and women often bind themselves as much as they let men do the binding. But that’s for another blog entry.
For now, can we just have a resounding, “WTF is Karzai doing, thinking he can get away with signing that horrendous law!?”, and make sure he doesn’t, in fact, get away with it?
I think most people reading this blog will agree with Obama that the law is “abhorrent”. As my mother would add, “abhorrent, period.” End of story. Get the law off the books. And don’t give me any of that wishy washy relativism that we feminists coming of age in the 80s were saddled with. My values may be Western and theirs may be based on Sharia, but we’re all human beings, and this law is contrary to universal human rights.
Why is it that when it comes to rights for the female half of the population, people comment that “it’s not our affair”, or “It’s cultural, we can’t possibly understand it, so we should stay out of it”? Do we say that when Congolese soldiers chop off the hands of thousands? Or when armies draft child soldiers? Or when skinheads attack Jews and Blacks? Or when governments engage in torture? If we say those horrors are “cultural”, it’s to say “wow, that’s a pretty f’d up part of the culture” – and then we call our leaders or march in the streets or at least express our disdain at cocktail parties to show how much we know about world affairs. But we don’t say, “It’s none of our business.” We did that with the Tutsis and the Serbs for a while, but we started to learn our lesson with those debacles – hundreds of thousands die when we say “it’s cultural”.
But we’re still saying it when it comes to women around the world. Ok, it’s gotten better. Aid packages from Western nations usually have strings attached indicating human rights for women have to be observed by the recipient countries. Western presidents are expressing outrage about this Afghan law. But then you get comments like this in response to a news story about the Afghan law:
“Their laws are none of our afair. We may totally disagree with the way they understand and enforce their laws but its non of our business. Not minding our own business is how we get into these messes in the first place. The Afgan affair is just another holly was in "wolves clothing"! Submitted by ef at 11:37 AM Sunday, April 12 2009
All those mistakes, spelling and otherwise, indicate this writer isn’t the tastiest pea in the pod. But isn’t that what our world is made up of? That, and the below:
“Rape in definition is "to use force". If a woman signs this marriage contract than she is agreeing to ready herself every four days. If she agrees to the contract than she is not being forced to have sex. If she is forced to get married/to sign the contract, that is a problem that should be dealt with. Educate your women and treat them equally. BUT all women should have sex with their husbands! It's not that big of a deal if they are not sick, menstruating or recovering from childbirth. If they love the person they chose to marry than they SHOULD ready themselves at least every four days. Not for religious reasons but for his sanity!” Submitted by mel1976 at 11:02 AM Sunday, April 12 2009
These comments came from readers of the Toronto Star. Westerners, for all intents and purposes. And although their arguments are different in content, I say they are part and parcel of the same cowardice: an unwillingness to defend women’s human rights because to do so would entail a property loss to men.
Now, I haven’t sounded off like this – on how men view women as property – for a long time. I’ve gone off that shtick. It’s too ideological. Doesn’t get at the complexity of human motivation and interaction.
But I will call a spade a spade. The oppression of women is tied in with culture, but that is no excuse or justification. There are universal ethics. Cultures, including religious aspects, must change in order for universal ethics to be upheld. And one of the aspects of ALL cultures – not just those under the sway of Sharia, but our own beloved Western cultures – that must change is the notion that what men do to women is what men do to their property, and is therefore private, and none of our business.
Clearly, the Afghan law treats women as the property of their husbands. Don’t say it’s their business, and then claim you simply respect the cultural integrity of Afghani Shiites. What you really respect is the right of men to certain behaviors on the part of women. If you don’t believe Nazi skinheads have the right to attack Jews and Blacks on the streets; if you don’t believe soldiers have the right to draft children into military service – you can’t believe Afghani Shiite men have the right to pass a law forcing their wives to have sex. If you do believe the latter, then, well – it’s as I said: you are defending the right of men to hold women as property.
The progress toward greater human rights in the last two centuries has been about one thing, in essence: a refutation of the idea that humans can hold property rights in other humans. It started with the abolition of serfdom (property rights by virtue of class, title, and economic circumstance), continued with the abolition of slavery (property rights by virtue of nationality or ethnic group), progressed to the regulation of employment conditions (rights of employers by virtue of owning property – a business) and other civil issues (entertainment and eating establishments, schools, landlords – their right to dictate who gets to use their property). The world has progressed in its thinking about what rights one person can have over another. We have progressed in our thinking about how men can control women.
But we have a long ways to go. And it’s not just in Afghanistan that we see how men view women as property. It’s right here, right now, in our own homes and social circles and political arenas. One indication is how we still hear “it’s none of our business”, “it’s cultural”, and “it’s private”, where relations between men and women are concerned. There are myriad other indications from our everyday lives, often very subtle indications, and women often bind themselves as much as they let men do the binding. But that’s for another blog entry.
For now, can we just have a resounding, “WTF is Karzai doing, thinking he can get away with signing that horrendous law!?”, and make sure he doesn’t, in fact, get away with it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
