The myth of the myth
The dominant thinking around sexual assualt and rape today centers around attempts to dispell the 'myth' that sexual assualt and/or rape is about sex. This position which is held by many professionals in the field, along with the political arena, and not to mention many, many lay people, posit that sexual assualt/rape (I'll use just rape to represent both from now) has nothing to do with sex, the sex act or sexuality, that is entirely centered around power, control and violence against women.
I have always had alternative theories about this. I have voiced my thoughts in conversations with other professionals with expertise in this area, and in the area of human psychology. I remain so suprised at the academics that I speak with who too are increasingly frustrated with this 'myth'. Why suprised? Because there are so so many people who believe this baseless argument which only provides a simplistic and superficial understanding of such an act and fails to provide a thorough insight and exploration and presentation of the covert dynamics involved.
Sex is about sex. Violence is about violence. Control is about control. Sexual violence is about sex, violence and control. Sexual violence is not simplistically about violence. Sexual violence is not just about horrible men who attack women because they are violent and want to overt power and control over them. To say this gives us a simplistic, superficial understanding.
Sexual violence does contain elements of violence, control and power - there is no doubt of this. But is also involves an element of sex, and sexuality within our culture. For many men (as we know, the majority of rape is by men) their individual personality, circumstances and beliefs can alter, but the underlying dynamic across these men who rape is a conceptualisation of a women as sexual and subservient.
Let me introduce micro and marco levels of social behaviour. When we consider rape on a micro level, we direct blame, responsibility and punishment to those men for committing a violent act upon a women. We need to hold individual men accountable for their actions, because no matter what your background, no matter your underlying beliefs and personality structure, you are responsible for actions committed against another. When we consider rape on a macro level, we begin to attempt to understand the concept of rape seperate from the individual. This is after all an enourmous societal crisis, one which is significantly underreported. We ask why? Why are our men doing this? It is all too easy to point our fingers and say "they are mongrels" (which on a micro level I agree). But when we have a social crisis we need to ask ourselves as a society what is happening to have so many men who think in these ways, who in turn violate women so proufoundly.
We can seek some answers in the dynamics of 'non-abnormal' social arenas. We can attempt to understand atrocities in human behaviours by analysing human behaviour and what elements of human behaviour and societal norms may manifest themselves in heightened ways.
In our culture women are increasingly presented as sexual objects. How far do we have to look to see a sexualised women? Not far. TV, billboards, Movies, Magazines, Newspapers etc etc,. Historically this was womens struggle - to be seen as 'people' even 'female', but not sexual objects for the demeaning gratification of men. Times have changed and it seems women do not fight with this movement anymore, but yet are willing participators. It has become normal. Some call it sexual freedom or sexual liberation. Whatever one thinks about it, whatever you call it (theres a lot to be said here too), for the purposes of this peice lets just think about what kind of dynamic it sets up.
When a women presents herself sexually, she becomes that. It is called sexual objectification because it reduces one to a sexual object, nothing more, nothing less. And for the pleasure of men, they view women as that sexual object. With an object there is a significant diminshment of intimacy and respect, for humanity. By virtue one is a sexual object that person no longer carries with them the quality of a human who commands respect. It is lost. Understanding this on a macro level, remembering that that sexual objectification of women has become extreme and normalised, what is this doing to the way women are viewed as a whole? Or the way the majority of women are generalised? What are our children learning about what it is to be a women and what it is to be a man?
There is an underlying grumbbling amonst culture that a womens position is to be sexual, to 'present'. That for men, women can be consumed sexually.
By the virtue of this understanding there is certainly a sexual compenent. There is also a power imbalance - "women for mens pleasures". Whilst this remains normal, 'innocent' in normal areanas, the more society creates amonst itself this construction the easier it will become for a man to walk to fine line between "women are there for my pleasures" and "now I'm going to take". When one creates an atmosphere of permissiveness, of imbalance, of dehumanising, we are going to see those who cross the line, who take these dynamics to the next level, owning them, one step up. Couple that with a violent society and you have a dangerous world for women.
It's like providing a breeding ground for nasty things to happen. For want of a better analogy - just like in science when we take certain ingredients that seperatly seem innocuous, and then we mix them all together, we can get a very different reaction, sometimes an explosive one.
This 'myth' is a 'myth'. It is society's attempt to explain a complex, and scarily large crisis of social relations and humanity, and the ongoing battle for the place of women within soceity as respected human beings, not meremly sexual beings. Pehaps it is still so dominant because the academics are not being heard. Perhaps because it is easier to point blame at certain individuals and call them mongrels. Perhaps it is too scary for us to acknowledge these dymaics. After all, if we did it would mean reconsidering what millions of people identify with in their 'normal existence'. It is always easier as human beings, as society to reduce complex social behaviours in simplistic ways, just like it is easier to believe that 'ferrel, junky people have drug addiction problems' rather than acknowledging the numerous problems within society that impact and intrude on peoples lives. Just like its easier for us to believe that people with mental health problems are 'crazy freaks', who are 'not like us', rather than once again acknolwedge the numerous problems within society and human relationships that impact on the health and wellbeing of ALL people. Just like it is easier to label someone as having a 'Bordeline Personality Disorder' rather than acknowledging the high likelihood of the trauma they have experienced in their lives from other people - another societal problem. Its easier for us to see that person as personality disordered. And, its easier to believe this 'myth', that violent sexual acts are all about men who are 'mongrels' that are violent towards women, rather than acknowledging a proufound dysfunction of human relations. That would involve all of us.
I have always had alternative theories about this. I have voiced my thoughts in conversations with other professionals with expertise in this area, and in the area of human psychology. I remain so suprised at the academics that I speak with who too are increasingly frustrated with this 'myth'. Why suprised? Because there are so so many people who believe this baseless argument which only provides a simplistic and superficial understanding of such an act and fails to provide a thorough insight and exploration and presentation of the covert dynamics involved.
Sex is about sex. Violence is about violence. Control is about control. Sexual violence is about sex, violence and control. Sexual violence is not simplistically about violence. Sexual violence is not just about horrible men who attack women because they are violent and want to overt power and control over them. To say this gives us a simplistic, superficial understanding.
Sexual violence does contain elements of violence, control and power - there is no doubt of this. But is also involves an element of sex, and sexuality within our culture. For many men (as we know, the majority of rape is by men) their individual personality, circumstances and beliefs can alter, but the underlying dynamic across these men who rape is a conceptualisation of a women as sexual and subservient.
Let me introduce micro and marco levels of social behaviour. When we consider rape on a micro level, we direct blame, responsibility and punishment to those men for committing a violent act upon a women. We need to hold individual men accountable for their actions, because no matter what your background, no matter your underlying beliefs and personality structure, you are responsible for actions committed against another. When we consider rape on a macro level, we begin to attempt to understand the concept of rape seperate from the individual. This is after all an enourmous societal crisis, one which is significantly underreported. We ask why? Why are our men doing this? It is all too easy to point our fingers and say "they are mongrels" (which on a micro level I agree). But when we have a social crisis we need to ask ourselves as a society what is happening to have so many men who think in these ways, who in turn violate women so proufoundly.
We can seek some answers in the dynamics of 'non-abnormal' social arenas. We can attempt to understand atrocities in human behaviours by analysing human behaviour and what elements of human behaviour and societal norms may manifest themselves in heightened ways.
In our culture women are increasingly presented as sexual objects. How far do we have to look to see a sexualised women? Not far. TV, billboards, Movies, Magazines, Newspapers etc etc,. Historically this was womens struggle - to be seen as 'people' even 'female', but not sexual objects for the demeaning gratification of men. Times have changed and it seems women do not fight with this movement anymore, but yet are willing participators. It has become normal. Some call it sexual freedom or sexual liberation. Whatever one thinks about it, whatever you call it (theres a lot to be said here too), for the purposes of this peice lets just think about what kind of dynamic it sets up.
When a women presents herself sexually, she becomes that. It is called sexual objectification because it reduces one to a sexual object, nothing more, nothing less. And for the pleasure of men, they view women as that sexual object. With an object there is a significant diminshment of intimacy and respect, for humanity. By virtue one is a sexual object that person no longer carries with them the quality of a human who commands respect. It is lost. Understanding this on a macro level, remembering that that sexual objectification of women has become extreme and normalised, what is this doing to the way women are viewed as a whole? Or the way the majority of women are generalised? What are our children learning about what it is to be a women and what it is to be a man?
There is an underlying grumbbling amonst culture that a womens position is to be sexual, to 'present'. That for men, women can be consumed sexually.
By the virtue of this understanding there is certainly a sexual compenent. There is also a power imbalance - "women for mens pleasures". Whilst this remains normal, 'innocent' in normal areanas, the more society creates amonst itself this construction the easier it will become for a man to walk to fine line between "women are there for my pleasures" and "now I'm going to take". When one creates an atmosphere of permissiveness, of imbalance, of dehumanising, we are going to see those who cross the line, who take these dynamics to the next level, owning them, one step up. Couple that with a violent society and you have a dangerous world for women.
It's like providing a breeding ground for nasty things to happen. For want of a better analogy - just like in science when we take certain ingredients that seperatly seem innocuous, and then we mix them all together, we can get a very different reaction, sometimes an explosive one.
This 'myth' is a 'myth'. It is society's attempt to explain a complex, and scarily large crisis of social relations and humanity, and the ongoing battle for the place of women within soceity as respected human beings, not meremly sexual beings. Pehaps it is still so dominant because the academics are not being heard. Perhaps because it is easier to point blame at certain individuals and call them mongrels. Perhaps it is too scary for us to acknowledge these dymaics. After all, if we did it would mean reconsidering what millions of people identify with in their 'normal existence'. It is always easier as human beings, as society to reduce complex social behaviours in simplistic ways, just like it is easier to believe that 'ferrel, junky people have drug addiction problems' rather than acknowledging the numerous problems within society that impact and intrude on peoples lives. Just like its easier for us to believe that people with mental health problems are 'crazy freaks', who are 'not like us', rather than once again acknolwedge the numerous problems within society and human relationships that impact on the health and wellbeing of ALL people. Just like it is easier to label someone as having a 'Bordeline Personality Disorder' rather than acknowledging the high likelihood of the trauma they have experienced in their lives from other people - another societal problem. Its easier for us to see that person as personality disordered. And, its easier to believe this 'myth', that violent sexual acts are all about men who are 'mongrels' that are violent towards women, rather than acknowledging a proufound dysfunction of human relations. That would involve all of us.
posted by Personal | 6:02 AM
|
10 comments
