CNN Reports on the "Promising Future" of the Steubenville Rapists

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I would most certainly say that the comments made by the celebrity are contributing to a culture of rape and degradation honestly.  Her words make the act of rape one of punishment for "behaving poorly" rather than as a violent act. 

[Maiz]

I'm not arguing for more victim blaming, and I'm not sure where you read that at all. I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is to dance around victim blaming and tell young women how to ~reduce their risk~ of sexual assault.

Her quote is appalling, misogynistic, and blaming the victim. You ask if it's good advice for all genders, but she's directly talking to young women. In the same interview she bemoans how girls dress in more revealing clothing, and attacks them for it. How can you even view this as good advice? she's implying that if only young women didn't dress the way they do, or act like lads, then they wouldn't be taken advantage of.

1. This is pushing stereotypical gender roles and creating double standards.
2. She is still putting the blame on victims/potential victims instead of rapists/potential rapists.
3. This advice still completely ignores the fact about how rape happens/occurs.

Most rape happens by people the victim knows. No amount of "good" advice will change that. How is it good advice to minimize your risk of rape by walking in day light, in 'proper' clothing, without flirting when your rapist is your boyfriend or a friend or family member or coworker? Do you see how idiotic it is to give that advice when it does not accurately cover the reality of rape?

And you know what? i'm sick of hearing this is good advice for robbery. Do you have any proof at all that taking these ridiculous advice prevents robbery/theft? And I would throw out her advice too because she isn't giving general advice to a general audience. She was giving specific advice to a specific population, and covering it in sexist and misogynistic language.

[Healergirl]

The rapist is the one who has Agency.  Not the victim.  Ever.

Don't get drunk.  Male or female. Don't get drunk.  You are far more likely to get in trouble.  Either as the victim, or by starting something stupid.

Xiaomei,

Joanna Lumley clearly has some Issues, Serious issues here but....

Looking alert and prepared, not just being alert and prepared, looking like it is always good advice for deterring any crime.  Stating otherwise just flies in the face of known predator behavior - and any criminal is a predator.

But there is the Agency thing again.  The rapist or wanna-be rapist has it, the victim does not.  And human rapists are not as rational as non-human predators, I believe that with all my heart - the Heinlein quote about man being not a rational animal, but a rationalizing animal comes to mind.  Women who are alert and prepared do get attacked

[Oniya]

I thought I recognized the name, and I think this is one of those 'celeb telling people not to act like a popular character' incidents.

Joanna Lumley is famous for playing Patsy Stone in the hard-drinking 'comedy' Absolutely Fabulous.  (Never saw the appeal.)

[gaggedLouise]

I thought I recognized the name, and I think this is one of those 'celeb telling people not to act like a popular character' incidents.

Joanna Lumley is famous for playing Patsy Stone in the hard-drinking 'comedy' Absolutely Fabulous.  (Never saw the appeal.)

Well, the two ladies in the Ab Fab series were supposed to appear over the top, weren't they - both vivacious, raunchy and sometimes cheesy? I didn't watch it regularly at all but part of the sting of that series was about how they seemed more speedy, head-over-heels and emotional than the characters could really contain. It's not a discussion I feel like getting into, it's very beset with mine charges because it's about (female) perception and self-perception.

For a more sinister contrast between a popular  artist's image and the way it is read, lots of you must have heard about Rihanna's latest album where she is singing about her return to Chris Brown, who infamously beat her up black and blue a few years ago (she confirmed in an interview a few weeks after the release of the album that they had reconnected as a couple). People who have been writing about the record have had all kinds of things to say about whether it was okay of her to make that return to him and then sing of her affection and trust for him, and it's also been a running topic how far she should have to act like a good role model to young girls - kids or adolescents, kids of any age are exposed to her music and her videos. But with Riri, it's obvious that the "good girl gone bad" thing is part of what's made her hot property, what sells her. And the uncomfortable thing is, when I first read about her new record and the rapprochement to Brown, I thought "I bet somebody will write that she shows how strong and freethinking she is, what a rebel girl she is, precisely because she is returning to him, placing herself in a situation where she risks getting raped and beaten up again and again. And singing about being his little slut, about bending to male characters in her lyrics and longing to be punished and subjugated, which will inevitably be read as so many peepholes on her relationships with Chris or other men. I know someone's gonna write that she is a rebel - and therefore she's a role model, sort of - by acting out that part and blurring the lines between her private self and her public star persona in that respect!" (my premonition was fuelled both by stuff I'd heard from her earlier and by tracks like Madonna's Gang Bang - she's one of the A-league stars Rihanna is obviously competing with, or maybe she's outpaced her already).

Well, had to wait a little while but two weeks ago that kind of article showed up in a tabloid around here. Google translation doesn't want to do the job of putting it into English and actually the critic is not all head-over-heels with that kind of perspective but she does size it up as a kind of revolt against the big matrix of masculine domination in society, partly endorses it (she is paraphrasing somebody else who spelled it out without any reservations in a small-circulation literary review) and strongly hints that this kind of theatrical masochism and playing out of a longing to be abused, raped and pimped out could be a viable strategy for liberating women. And it's seen as a fashionable thing to say in hipster circles, and in the media.

Presumably, if Rihanna did a video where she was gangbanged and forced to work as a hooker it would be hailed by some as a feminist statement, even if neither the song nor the video, nor her comments on it did anything to distance her from the situation, the idea that she was enjoying it, needed it, or to question them - and even if it was plain that it was 95% just a publicity stunt, a way of playing on stock ideas of sex and violence and women as whores. Why? Mostly because criticizing Riri is in itself seen as anti-women: she's got a lot of appeal for many girls and she can be sized up as exuberantly sexual and making a kind of shortcut between 'I'm a slut' and wider rebellion. Depressing, honestly. While I have submissive wishes and fantasies myself I would never see that orientation as a kind of social or political revolt in itself.

[Healergirl]

So, some people hnk that a woman embracing as a reality of her life - not a fantasy - in which she is treated like dirt is liberating? Old School Patriarchs are cheering her every move.  Rebellion hell, that's just the reality they want for women. 

[gaggedLouise]

So, some people hnk that a woman embracing as a reality of her life - not a fantasy - in which she is treated like dirt is liberating? Old School Patriarchs are cheering her every move.  Rebellion hell, that's just the reality they want for women.

Yup, and both the person who wrote that article and the one she had got the gist of her reasoning from are women. 

Okay, it's just one article, but I do have a gut feeling that more people are feeling that way about Rihanna and other similar stars, even if it's a hefty thing to say openly when it connects to her stepping into the part of a sex slave, being treated like crap etc. Rihanna has made some really dodgy gigs around here in Scandinavia over the last two years and debate about her star persona and her on-stage habits has been intense - and it's been hinted fairly openly lots of times (mostly by women journalists and bloggers) that if you're against anything she does you're really expressing misogyny, you're against women in general.

[Healergirl]

Expressing misgivings about a woman embracing misogynistic treatment is itself misogynistic?

I wish I could say I'm surprised by that.

[Chris Brady]

So, some people hnk that a woman embracing as a reality of her life - not a fantasy - in which she is treated like dirt is liberating? Old School Patriarchs are cheering her every move.  Rebellion hell, that's just the reality they want for women.

Why do you think Twilight or 50 Shades is so popular and considered 'feminist'?  Because celebrities endorsed it.  And because some famous idiot endorses it, some fuck wit is going to think it's awesome and then a game of telephone ensues and twists it to mean whatever it is that they want.

[consortium11]

I would most certainly say that the comments made by the celebrity are contributing to a culture of rape and degradation honestly.  Her words make the act of rape one of punishment for "behaving poorly" rather than as a violent act.

I just don't see it.

As mentioned above, I think her use of "will" rather than "might" is unfortunate but other then that I struggle to see the issue. Would there have been the media scrum or outrage there was if she'd simply not mentioned rape and limited it to being non-sexually assaulted and/or robbed? I suspect not... most would have nodded their head and thought it was fairly sensible advice rather than dismissing it entirely.

Baby with the bathwater.

I'm not arguing for more victim blaming, and I'm not sure where you read that at all. I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is to dance around victim blaming and tell young women how to ~reduce their risk~ of sexual assault.

You noted (as implicitly a negative) how men aren't told what to wear, what to do, where to go etc. I mentioned they were (if not as loudly).

You noted how even if that is the case, they aren't blamed when they do such "prohibited" things. I mentioned they were (if not as loudly).

You're pointing out that the genders are treated differently. I don't disagree. But from your phrasing your issue was that the two were treated differently in and of itself. We could solve this issue by treating men the same way women (shamefully) are. It would remove your entire complaint.

Would that be a good thing?

Victim-blaming (for all genders but especially women) is a wrong in and of itself; it doesn't need to be artificially strengthened by pointing out how others aren't blamed as loudly. Because if that's the argument then it would be neutered by victim-blaming being just as loud for men.

Her quote is appalling, misogynistic, and blaming the victim. You ask if it's good advice for all genders, but she's directly talking to young women. In the same interview she bemoans how girls dress in more revealing clothing, and attacks them for it. How can you even view this as good advice? she's implying that if only young women didn't dress the way they do, or act like lads, then they wouldn't be taken advantage of.

1. This is pushing stereotypical gender roles and creating double standards.
2. She is still putting the blame on victims/potential victims instead of rapists/potential rapists.
3. This advice still completely ignores the fact about how rape happens/occurs.

Most rape happens by people the victim knows. No amount of "good" advice will change that. How is it good advice to minimize your risk of rape by walking in day light, in 'proper' clothing, without flirting when your rapist is your boyfriend or a friend or family member or coworker? Do you see how idiotic it is to give that advice when it does not accurately cover the reality of rape?

1) She specifically pointed out that she didn't condone the "raucous behaviour in young boys". It's simply that the interview had turned to focus on her advice for women.

2) In this previous thread I've pointed out that advice that the style of clothing someone wears has little consequence. I think she was wrong to mention it. But that's only one part of a greater whole. Baby with bath water.

3) She never said that if someone did follow her advice they'd never be taken advantage of.

4) It wasn't an interview about "how to prevent rape". It was an interview about an unrelated topic that then turned to her views on people's conduct on nights out (focusing on women), which in turn moved onto her advice for preventing being taken advantage of when on a night out. All of the points you make about where sexual assaults take place are right and I don't disagree (and as I mentioned earlier in the thread I think the focus on the "stranger danger" sexual assaults takes attention away from the far more serious wider issues about sexual assault). But none of them apply to her advice which was on a different topic. If her comments had been framed as "this is how to stop women getting raped" then you'd be right. But it wasn't.

And you know what? i'm sick of hearing this is good advice for robbery. Do you have any proof at all that taking these ridiculous advice prevents robbery/theft? And I would throw out her advice too because she isn't giving general advice to a general audience. She was giving specific advice to a specific population, and covering it in sexist and misogynistic language.

It doesn't prevent it; it lowers the chance that someone will be selected as a victim. I believe "Creating the Illusion of Impending Death: Armed Robbers in Action" (1997) by Richard T. Wright and Scott H. Decker is still considered the leading study on victim selection by armed robbers and "Taxing on the Streets: Understanding the Methods and Process of Street Robbery" (2007) by Jo Deakina, Hannah Smithsona, Jon Spencera and Juanjo Medina-Arizaa the leading piece on victim selection by all forms of robbers (although it applies to the UK).

Moreover, from your last comment, are you saying it's bad advice (or at least, advice that should be ignored) to say don't get so drunk you're sick, don't be in a position where you don't have an easy way home/to your next location and don't stagger about in the dark? We could throw in the other usual clichés in there; don't be on your own/don't go off with strangers, don't wander through a part of town you don't know. Not in terms of preventing rape, but in terms of general good advice about life?

I thought I recognized the name, and I think this is one of those 'celeb telling people not to act like a popular character' incidents.

Joanna Lumley is famous for playing Patsy Stone in the hard-drinking 'comedy' Absolutely Fabulous.  (Never saw the appeal.)

On this note, Lumley has made clear she detests Patsy as a character. She thought she was a vile creature and was horrified to see her become a sort of role model to people.

[Oniya]

On this note, Lumley has made clear she detests Patsy as a character. She thought she was a vile creature and was horrified to see her become a sort of role model to people.

Exactly my point.  And if you look at the statements she made, a lot of the bad behaviors are the sorts of things that Patsy would have done.  Repeatedly.

[Kythia]

I think its less to do with Patsy and more to do with Lumley though.  She's spoken out on a load of social issues - the gurkhas are the ones she's most associated with but there's loads of other things.

[Maiz]

I just don't see it.

As mentioned above, I think her use of "will" rather than "might" is unfortunate but other then that I struggle to see the issue. Would there have been the media scrum or outrage there was if she'd simply not mentioned rape and limited it to being non-sexually assaulted and/or robbed? I suspect not... most would have nodded their head and thought it was fairly sensible advice rather than dismissing it entirely.

Baby with the bathwater.

You noted (as implicitly a negative) how men aren't told what to wear, what to do, where to go etc. I mentioned they were (if not as loudly).

You noted how even if that is the case, they aren't blamed when they do such "prohibited" things. I mentioned they were (if not as loudly).

You're pointing out that the genders are treated differently. I don't disagree. But from your phrasing your issue was that the two were treated differently in and of itself. We could solve this issue by treating men the same way women (shamefully) are. It would remove your entire complaint.

Would that be a good thing?

Victim-blaming (for all genders but especially women) is a wrong in and of itself; it doesn't need to be artificially strengthened by pointing out how others aren't blamed as loudly. Because if that's the argument then it would be neutered by victim-blaming being just as loud for men.

1) She specifically pointed out that she didn't condone the "raucous behaviour in young boys". It's simply that the interview had turned to focus on her advice for women.

2) In this previous thread I've pointed out that advice that the style of clothing someone wears has little consequence. I think she was wrong to mention it. But that's only one part of a greater whole. Baby with bath water.

3) She never said that if someone did follow her advice they'd never be taken advantage of.

4) It wasn't an interview about "how to prevent rape". It was an interview about an unrelated topic that then turned to her views on people's conduct on nights out (focusing on women), which in turn moved onto her advice for preventing being taken advantage of when on a night out. All of the points you make about where sexual assaults take place are right and I don't disagree (and as I mentioned earlier in the thread I think the focus on the "stranger danger" sexual assaults takes attention away from the far more serious wider issues about sexual assault). But none of them apply to her advice which was on a different topic. If her comments had been framed as "this is how to stop women getting raped" then you'd be right. But it wasn't.

It doesn't prevent it; it lowers the chance that someone will be selected as a victim. I believe "Creating the Illusion of Impending Death: Armed Robbers in Action" (1997) by Richard T. Wright and Scott H. Decker is still considered the leading study on victim selection by armed robbers and "Taxing on the Streets: Understanding the Methods and Process of Street Robbery" (2007) by Jo Deakina, Hannah Smithsona, Jon Spencera and Juanjo Medina-Arizaa the leading piece on victim selection by all forms of robbers (although it applies to the UK).

Moreover, from your last comment, are you saying it's bad advice (or at least, advice that should be ignored) to say don't get so drunk you're sick, don't be in a position where you don't have an easy way home/to your next location and don't stagger about in the dark? We could throw in the other usual clichés in there; don't be on your own/don't go off with strangers, don't wander through a part of town you don't know. Not in terms of preventing rape, but in terms of general good advice about life?

On this note, Lumley has made clear she detests Patsy as a character. She thought she was a vile creature and was horrified to see her become a sort of role model to people.

Also you're being too pedantic. I'm not arguing that men need to be victim blamed either. By comparing how men and how women are treated I'm trying to make a point to show how sexism plays a role in victim blaming.

Even if she doesn't condone it, notice the difference between saying it's bad behavior for boys to do and then to criticize young women for doing 'laddish' behavior? From her language its kind of clear that while she doesn't think anyone should do that type of behavior, when girls do it, there is an extra layer of badness because they are behaving like men.

If you take just her comments alone, then yeah it's like oh she's just talking about sensible advice to not have a crime committed upon you.

But that ignores the connotation, the context, and the history of advice like that. You can't just isolate it and explain away why people see problems with it. The fact still stands that the "dont drink, dont go down dark alleys, dont dress like that, be wary of strangers" is overwelming used to victim blame rape victims, cause rapists to go free, and it also fails to address that it constructs a false reality where rape is committed by strangers outside the home. Until that changes, it's incomplete, harmful, and inaccurate advice to me.

This "advice" derails conversations as well. Look at the case of the Steubenville rapists. Instead of focusing in on those boys' actions, people focus in on party culture and under age drinking. At best it ignores the rapists, and at worst it's used to say "well of course she got raped, she was drunk" or other forms of victim blaming. Instead of discussing the attitude/culture/behavior that made these young men rape, now it's a discussion on good/bad advice and risk reduction.

People are saying that the rapist has agency in the crime, and the victim doesn't, yet applying this advice and telling it to people so their chances of rape is lessened is creating this idea that victims can stop rape from happening to them (outside of self defense while the act is occurring). Also it makes what people discuss on what people can do to lessen their chances of rape instead of changing the mentality that it is okay to rape.

Why do you think Twilight or 50 Shades is so popular and considered 'feminist'?  Because celebrities endorsed it.  And because some famous idiot endorses it, some fuck wit is going to think it's awesome and then a game of telephone ensues and twists it to mean whatever it is that they want.

Where on earth did you get the idea that either of those series are considered feminist? Even just googling the titles +feminist/feminism shows a lot of feminist critique of both series.

[gaggedLouise]

But it's kinda iffy to hold an actor to count for how some characters he/she played were behaving. No one would accuse Tommy Lee Jones of being a nasty person in private because he has such a gift for playing evil crooks on the silver screen. It's plain lots of actors and actresses enjoy doing goofy or wicked stuff in their parts which they could not do in their real lives.

The ones playing the bad guys can be the most gentlemanly and charming when they're not on set. Larry Hagman was a prime example: he was once praised by French film director Roger Vadim as follows: "The evil man of Dallas is one of the most charming men I've come to know in America." 

With many pop stars and reality tv stars it's a different bag because we're actually encouraged to see the real self as coming through in how they act, sing or do things on tv: there are no really clear borders between their artistry and their off-screen/offstage selves.

[Oniya]

Where on earth did you get the idea that either of those series are considered feminist? Even just googling the titles +feminist/feminism shows a lot of feminist critique of both series.

'50 Shades' in particular is commonly being called 'Mommy porn' (which I personally find insulting as both a mother and a porn reader, but that's beside the point).  I think the following quote (misattributed to King, but actually by someone named Robin Browne) sums the other one up:

"Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend."

[Valthazar]

Where on earth did you get the idea that either of those series are considered feminist? Even just googling the titles +feminist/feminism shows a lot of feminist critique of both series.

I know this comment was for Chris Brady, but I found two examples of perspectives on how 50 shades empowers women:

http://politicalfiber.com/featured/11/14/50-shades-of-grey-influences-third-wave-feminism/
http://fromgrindtowhine.com/2012/06/01/50-shades-of-empowerment/

edit:  put the wrong name 

[Healergirl]

Xiaomei,

So, you think victims are totally helpless, then?  There is nothing they/we can do to help ourselves?  Do you know what Agency even is, for the love of God?

It is not an absolute, the rapist has Agency because the rapist decides to commit the crime.

But although the rapist has Agency in that case, we women are not helpless fucking pawns  of male predation as you seem to believe.  Well, I'm not.   Maybe you are.  You certainly talk like it.

[Kythia]

Xiaomei,

So, you think victims are totally helpless, then?  There is nothing they/we can do to help ourselves?  Do you know what Agency even is, for the love of God?

It is not an absolute, the rapist has Agency because the rapist decides to commit the crime.

But although the rapist has Agency in that case, we women are not helpless fucking pawns  of male predation as you seem to believe.  Well, I'm not.   Maybe you are.  You certainly talk like it.

This.  A thousand times this.

The message you seem to be trying to convey is the best any person can do is just cross their fingers and hope not to get raped.  "There are scary people out there and if they decide to rape you then its gonna happen, unlucky."

[Ephiral]

Err... well, I hate to harp on this, but... again, the best numbers we've seen show a 0.42% marginal utility to preventive measures. So... yeah, they're not likely to do much for you.

Though I think the point xiaomei was trying to make is closer to the same one I was: Why is all the dialogue about what the victim can do? Why are we not addressing victim-blaming, or what the attacker does?

[Maiz]

Xiaomei,

So, you think victims are totally helpless, then?  There is nothing they/we can do to help ourselves?  Do you know what Agency even is, for the love of God?

It is not an absolute, the rapist has Agency because the rapist decides to commit the crime.

But although the rapist has Agency in that case, we women are not helpless fucking pawns  of male predation as you seem to believe.  Well, I'm not.   Maybe you are.  You certainly talk like it.

Do you know what agency is? It's the ability to make choices in a situation. Do victims have agency/the choice to stop rape before it even happens? No, they don't. Does that make them "helpless fucking pawns of male predation"? No, that's ridiculous. But it's harmful to tell people that they have the ability to stop rape (outside of trying to do self defense), because no magical formula is going to stop rape from happening. It is not only harmful but condescending to imply that  victims can stop rape from even happening, because how is that even possible? There is no good advice to avoiding rape at all.

And most importantly no person makes the decision or chooses to be raped.

[Healergirl]

I think I have a much clearer handle on the concept of Agency than you, by denying that our actions can lessen the odds we are chosen for attack, you deny we have any agency at all.  Agency is not a magic word of absolutism!

We have the ability to lessen the chances that we will be selected as the targets of the assault.

No victim chooses to be raped, but the rapist is a person and does make the choice of who will be raped.

A victim can, not will, but can stop herself from being chosen as a arget.  Can reduce the odds, can make herself more safe.  Not will, that is an absolute - of which you are very fond.  But potential victims can reduce the odds that they will be chosen for attack.

And again, you seem to think that women are indeed helpless, that we can do nothing, nothing to safeguard ourselves.  If my perception of your opinion that we are helpless is incorrect, tell me what you think we can do, tell me what our outlet of agency is, since you seem to believe that very long established techniques for enhancing personal defense and security are meaningless.

[Ephiral]

I think I have a much clearer handle on the concept of Agency than you, by denying that our actions can lessen the odds we are chosen for attack, you deny we have any agency at all.  Agency is not a magic word of absolutism!

We have the ability to lessen the chances that we will be selected as the targets of the assault.

No victim chooses to be raped, but the rapist is a person and does make the choice of who will be raped.

A victim can, not will, but can stop herself from being chosen as a arget.  Can reduce the odds, can make herself more safe.  Not will, that is an absolute - of which you are very fond.  But potential victims can reduce the odds that they will be chosen for attack.

And again, you seem to think that women are indeed helpless, that we can do nothing, nothing to safeguard ourselves.  If my perception of your opinion that we are helpless is incorrect, tell me what you think we can do, tell me what our outlet of agency is, since you seem to believe that very long established techniques for enhancing personal defense and security are meaningless.

...do you have better numbers than the ones posted upthread? I would love to see them.

[Maiz]

How does anyone have the ability to lessen the chances to be targets of sexual assault/rape? Ephiral has already pointed out that the dont be drunk/dress/walk down strange alleys is flawed. Not to mention that that advice does nothing to address the overwelming majority of rape (rape by family/friends/partners/etc).

How can you make yourself safe when the 'methods' don't even work that well? How can you make yourself safe around family/friends/partners?

Yes people can do self defense during the crime. But to imply that women have the choice in not being raped is ridiculous. No one can stop themself from being a target of rape. It's a difficult thing to accept, but how do children stop their caretakers/teachers/religious leaders from raping them? How do people stop their significant partners from raping them? How does a person stop their family member from raping them?

The way to stop rape is to change why rapists rape, to change the mentality of rapists, to change the culture that we live in. We have to shift the discussion from "this is how you don't get raped" to "this is how we stop society from making rapists".

[Kythia]

...do you have better numbers than the ones posted upthread? I would love to see them.

In fairness though, your numbers - even if she doesn't - don't show a 0% effectiveness.  They show that there is an effectiveness to the techniques.  So...yeah.  Not sure that there's actually a disagreement?

[Healergirl]

Ephiral,

Regrettably, I do not.  those studies have problems, and I have severe reservations concerning the data selection bias of the authors, but I have nothing hard to offer.  My  main objection to the idea that women can do nothing to affect target selection at the vary least is that the basic situational awareness habits I've spoken of are the things that influence predator behavior.  And rapists are predators.

And part of my objection is ideological.  There is nothing we can do?  Nothing to protect ourselves?  Then we are indeed helpless, our independence as women as we perceive it is an illusion that can be stripped from us by any man at any time.