From: jessec@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: My Young Friend Was "Date Raped"...
Date: 11 Nov 1992 00:08:09 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana
Distribution: world
   s.tcd.ie> <1dcj51INNgc2@agate.berkeley.edu> <1debifINNocj@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1debifINNocj@agate.berkeley.edu>,
dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
> In article <1dcj51INNgc2@agate.berkeley.edu>
uunet!infmx!hartman@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Robert Hartman) writes:
> [ long dialogue of Perp trying to talk Victim into intercourse ]
>>
>>At what point did the perp cross the line from bargaining to rape?
>>
>>I think it occurred at the last quoted line.  The perp made an agreement,
>>then broke it, and demanded an additional sexual favor before performing
>>as agreed.  At that point, as far as I'm concerned, it crosses the line
>>into rape.
>
> How about when the victim says:  "Get the hell out of here!" and the Perp
> refuses?  Or when she tries to push him out the door, and he refuses?  She
> has many options besides submitting, if she doesn't want to.  If all he
> did was refuse to leave until she submitted, then I have no sympathy for
> her.  Lying is not a crime, not in these circumstances, anyway.  Call the
> police, or a friend, for chrissakes.
>
> Women can only be equal when they are willing and able to stand up for
> themselves at the necessary times.  In the scenario Robert presents, the
> Victim, presumably a women, is not physically powerless, is not forced,
> but is unable to deal with the pressure from the Perp.  Whose fault is
> this?  The Perp, or the Victim?  The Perp may be an ass, a jerk, a total
> slimeball, but a rapist?  Come on.  Calling the Perp a rapist is basically
> saying that the Victim is not able to defend herself against this sort
> of mental pressure -- in effect, saying that the Victim is not the social,
> mental, or emotional equal of the Perp.

   I think that last sentence is key.  With the exception of "mental",
by which I take you to mean equality in terms of intelligence, I'd say
that a woman in this society is likely, some would say necessarily, *not*
"the social or emotional equal" of a man. (To be fair, this is in a sense
slightly different from what you probably intend.) If you want to say that
women are social and emotional equals-- i.e., that they have the status,
authority, *power* awarded to males, and that they are *not* conditioned
>from birth into a belief in their own weakness and inferiority, that they
are *not* trained and encouraged to submit-- then I think that you are not
being true to reality; you are being an idealist.
   Now, the problem with my challenge to you is that it has the
possibility, taken to an extreme, to promote an ideology of victimism.  If
we are going to say that a person is utterly, *completely* defined by
his/her environment, culture, nurture, what have you, we have done as much
as those who would argue for complete biological determinism-- we have
negated all free will, destroyed the individual.  I don't think that kind
of philosophical "solution" is necessary.  What we need is simply a
recognition that basic conditions of inequality exist.  The woman *should*
have the social power and the psychic will to resist; 9 times out of 10, I
don't think she would, and understandably so.


   --Jesse.

   "Nonsense doesn't break down the codes; speaking precisely that which
the codes forbid breaks the codes."

                                   --Kathy Acker
                                     *Empire of the Senseless*




-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.