Was that a duck?

The following is cross-posted from the Damsel in de Tech blog. Click here to see the original.


Pop quiz! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a __________.

Can you spot the duck?

Yup. Definitely a duck. Look at that perfect example of a duck. I've got my eye on you, duck. 

Uh... yeah. Still a duck. Just, like, with a nose job or something.

Ah, there we go. Back to the definitive duck-action.

Uh... heh. Ok, you got me. It's a goose. But geese are like ducks, so nice try. 

Ye-ah... ok, so it's a swan. Point taken. Still, it could break your arm if you went up to it and called it a duck, so it's up to the swan to differentiate itself from ducks.

Ok, that's just mean. Yes, it's a duck even if it has mobility issues and can't walk quite like other ducks. Geez.

Uh... that's a movie character. It's some dude dressed up as a duck with animatronics and stuff.

Now you're just being sarcastic.

Ok, ok, I get it. Some animals have duck-like qualities and are otherwise totally not duckish at all.

.... you don't have to be rude ....

What the... what end is the...

To break it down for the uninitiated, when talking about issues including sexual violence and victim-blaming, etc, often we hear the aforementioned justification of "if it looks like a duck." Insert for "duck" anything ranging from slut, whore, n*****, f**, etc.

As you can see, it's not even straight-forward to describe a duck. Is it the bill? Is it the feathers? The affinity for water? Are loons ducks? Are geese just a tall and lankey species ducks? Do all ducks quack?

When it comes to women and the label "slut" (as just one possible example), it's even more complicated. Women and girls are frequently labelled sluts for every manner of perceived indiscretion, from the length of their shorts or skirts, amount of skin shown, number of sexual partners they're perceived to have had (real or imagined, really doesn't matter when slut-shaming), how they carry themselves, their profession, their hairstyle, their makeup, their height, their weight, their breastsize, colour of their skin (racism and exoticism of women of colour is a huge factor), who they associate with and family makeup (if one of their friends or family members has been labelled a 'slut', so much easier to label them as such), if they're perceived as flirty (again - reality doesn't matter so much as perception), marital status, etc etc etc.

This isn't hyperbole. This is what women and girls and queer not non-gendery-binary persons experience. Anyone who declares that there is a solid definition of whom can reasonably be labelled with a slur against their sexuality and that the lines aren't easily blurred to envelope whomever the slur-slinger wants to slander, is either blissfully ignorant or a baldfaced liar.

And, even if one happens to fall under the so-broad-as-to-be-meaningless definitions of slut, what then? If you are saying that sluts get treated as such, then you must have some idea as to what that treatment entails. And, here's a hint, it often involves violence.

If you aren't saying that you are sanctioning sexual violence against any one of the myriad of persons who, at one point or another in their lives or the course of a week, could be called a slut, then you really need to think more deeply about your words and their implications. Words matter. Words have meaning. Words can make the difference between supporting survivors of sexual violence or of supporting rapists.

Please think about your words and their implications, because they matter.

But, seriously, why can't we just shoot all the rapists?

The following is cross-posted from the Damsel in de Tech blog. Click here to see the original.


*CONTENT WARNING FOR DISCUSSIONS OF RAPE AND GUN VIOLENCE*

As a follow-up to the post "Kill all rapists!...", here are some practical considerations to take into account when trying to tell women that they all should arm themselves as a method of rape-prevention.

To start off, here are some quick groups that armament won't help, that I really don't think need any further clarification (or least I sincerely hope not):
- infants and children below the age that are legally able to carry firearms
- persons with disabilities that prevent them from being able to handle a firearm
- persons with mental health issues that would make possession of a firearm exceptionally unsafe and irresponsible

I hope we can agree that persons from those groups should not have to arm themselves. Unfortunately, those groups make up a large portion of the victims of sexual violence.

Next, there are some people who may not want to have firearms:
- pacifists who do not believe in responding with violence under any circumstances, including those whose religious beliefs dictate such
- parents who are afraid their young children may get a hold of their weapons
- persons with abusive partners that have not been able to move out and have reasonable fears around keeping weapons in the household
- persons who are not comfortable around guns due to a history of family violence, PTSD, having lost a loved one to gun violence, or any other of a million valid reasons

Now that we've got those groups out of the way, we'll assume that the advice of "carry a gun" is just being directed at this time towards women who are old enough to legally own and responsibly handle a firearm, who want to carry a firearm, and who can conceivably arm themselves at all times because of the particular gun laws where they live.

Let's say that I'm walking through an alley (I know, I know - why would I do that if I value my safety and vagina?) Let's just say that there's construction on the street and all foot-traffic is being diverted through the alley. Let's say I hear footsteps coming up quickly behind me.  I'm armed, I'm alarmed, and someone grabs my arm! I turn and fire off a bunch of shots into... a nun who was trying to return the wallet I dropped. Well, that was a justifiable homicide, right?

Ok, let's be more serious. Let's say that I'm on the subway and it's later at night, maybe around 8 or 9pm, and this far up on the line it's deserted except for me and a man who is staring at me. His stares are making me quite uncomfortable, so I try to keep myself occupied by reading Facebook on my phone. Then, I realize he's masturbating. Can I shoot him, yet? Do I have to wait to see if he approaches me? If I wait, am I just giving him signals that he's safe to assault me because he's already violated my boundaries and I haven't done anything about it?

How about I'm at a house party and a friend is drunk and being really overly friendly and handsy with me. She pulls me in for a kiss, even though I've been trying to keep her at bay all night. Do I shoot her now? Do I wait until she tries to stick her hand down my pants? And if she does, is that enough to shoot her? Or am I only supposed to be shooting men? And what if it's a woman sexually assaulting a man? Can he shoot her? Is this just the kind of protective violence we sanction in theory coming from straight ciswomen to straight cismen, or can people of any gender identity shoot anyone else who attacks them without concern for how the law sees them?

Let's say that I'm fast asleep in bed at home and I wake up and my husband of 20 years is having sex with me in my sleep? Can I casually reach over into the nightstand and grab my gun and shoot him? Do we run drills like we would fire drills so I can practice going throught the motions of shooting someone when suddenly woken up out of a dead sleep?

What if it's a Thursday afternoon and I'm catcalled on my way home from work? Can I shoot the catcaller in the face? I don't know if I ignore him or respond if he'll react with anger. I don't know if this interaction will escalate. I don't know if I'm in physical danger or if he just wants to spook and publicly humiliate me. How long do I have to wait to make sure?

What line has to be crossed before I get the go-ahead?

What threshold has to be met in order for me to shoot any of the people who make me sexually threatened in the course of a day or a week or a month or my lifetime?

Do I have to wait until it's "too late" and they've already penetrated me? How is carrying a gun then a prevention measure as opposed to a measure of vegeance and inhilliation afterthefact?

Does the advice of "carry a gun and shoot all rapists" have anything at all to do with a realistic notion of safety, or is it a gratifying way for people to feel like they're adding something constructive to the conversation without having to do any of the heavy-lifting of understanding how rape happens?

I don't know if the people who give the advice of "carry a gun and shoot all rapists" know how often women feel sexually threatened. The thing about sexual violence, is it's a part of a continuum of unwanted sexual behaviours, and we never know whether or to what degree it will escalate. That's not because we're not aware of our surroundings, or we're inexperienced, etc. It's because the degree of escalation is not up to us - it's up to the perpetrator.

Things like peeping, public masturbation, groping, breaking and entering, etc, can all be a pre-cursor to more extreme levels of sexual violence. Or the perpetrators may not escalate. The people they target do not know whether or not this will escalate, because we are not psychic.

If you really, sincerely think that giving a good number of the population access to and permission to use lethal weapons against people who they fear will rape them, then be prepared for a lot of bloodshed, because these transgressions against our physical boundaries happen to a lot of people on a regular basis.

Or, you can passing along some tangible, effective safety advice that can start working right now, today, towards reducing the instances of sexual violence, and that doesn't require people to kill each other.

Rape Apology, Racism and Tosh Fans

By: Liberate Zealot
Content Warning: Rape, Rape Culture, Rape Apology

Unsurprisingly, a lot of people have read my post/seen the video (content warning - rape) where Tosh.0 shows the rape of a teen boy and decided to make excuses for how it isn't "real" rape. Here's my response to the various forms of rape apology that have shown up on tumblr or this blog. 

First lets get this one thing out of the way, because I see a lot of people trying to excuse what happened because it was a “prank”.  Bad things can happen in pranks, pranks can be part of bullying, pranks can be planned with bad intent.  Even if the boys meant this as a friendly prank, it does not change the results of what happened.  And what happened was a serious sexual assault. Non-consensual sexual acts were done to the boy in the white shirt. He had a large dildo jammed at and quite possibly into his asshole, certainly that was the intent since one boy told the rapist to “put it in”.  Even if this started at a prank, it quickly turned into sexual violence and a serious crime.  In fact, the majority of rapes that are done to men/boys by men/boys are "caused" hazing, "discipline", jokes, and "retaliatory justice".  Many of these are gang rapes (while the assault in question is not technically a gang rape, it did involve a group of boys watching and encouraging the rapist). 

Also this is not the first time rapes have happened and bystanders did not intervene.  Maybe some were in shock when their friend took it that far.  Maybe some have been too indoctrinated by the rape myths that men can’t be raped (something the FBI agreed with until earlier this year) too recognize this for what it is.  It certainly seems that a couple of them are just rapists and thus enjoyed victimizing their “friend”.  Which is another thing that is not uncommon for rapists, they target people they know. 
Another rape myth, that apparently those teens, and many people commenting on this have internalized is that all victims act in a certain way that involves screaming and fighting off the rapist.  However,  many victims/survivors go into a state of shock.  They can’t believe someone they trust is doing such a horrible thing to them.  They freeze in panic. And this boy did try to stop/block the assault.  As for him “laughing” afterwards.  I saw his shoulders and ribs moving rapidly, I heard a shake in his voice when he spoke.  Signs of laughter, yes, but also signs of crying, fighting off tears, or a panic attack.  Also laughing can be a nervous/panic response.
 
Many people are also discussing how this isn't "real rape" because there "wasn't real penetration" or penetration couldn't happen under these circumstances and that to call this rape takes away from "real victims".  Now everyone doing this makes me sick and want to scream profanities, but I'm going to try to address these claims with a level of care and maturity that the people commenting thus really don't deserve.   The FBI's updated definition of rape includes “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” See that "no matter how slight"?  That means even the smallest amount of penetration changes a sexual assault/attempted rape into a rape. And yes, the video is of a lower quality and from a distance/angle that does leave a certain amount of interpretation from the viewer. But from everything I've seen, based on my and the legal understanding of rape, this is very likely to qualify.  And even if I'm wrong, even if this was an attempted rape that wasn't fully completed, well so what.  Is calling this boy a survivor of rape going to take away from the experiences of rape victims?  I certainly don't feel so, and I am a survivor.  In fact, I'm a survivor of a rape that many would not call a "real rape".  But guess what does hurt survivors of rape? Closely examining the details of each and every rape and having outsiders rule on whether it's "real" enough. Certainly that aspect of rape culture made it take me over a year to fully name what had been done to me.  Hell, in some people's minds the drugging and raping of a 14 year old by a grown man isn't "real" rape. 
Also to the people saying anal is only possible with liberal amount of lube and prep, just no.  From first hand experience, while lube and prep are necessary for pleasurable anal, they are not necessary for anal full stop.

As for the media response, that’s rape culture. The victim/survivor was a boy, and rape culture tells us men and boys can’t be victims of sexual violence.  The assault started as a prank, so rape culture tells us it was just “boys being boys”.  The victim/survivor didn’t scream or act the way a victim/survivor is “supposed to”, so rape culture says they aren’t a victim.  These are all exceedingly common rape apology tactics. 

And of course, the majority of the people making all these claims are the ones claiming that rape culture doesn't exist. 

Now, less prevalent, but equally problematic are all the claims about how Tosh's commentary isn't racist, because "it's a proven fact that black men have larger penises", it was a joke, and if it is a stereotype it's a "complimentary one".  Guess what though, racist stereotypes are racist.  Racist jokes are racist. And there is no such thing as a complimentary/good stereotype.  One doesn't have to be a member of the KKK to be a racist.  One doesn't have to use the n-word.  All on has to do is treat/see people of color as other.  And if you've grown up in North America, Europe, Australia, or plenty of other countries, and are white, than it's a pretty safe bet that you're at least a little bit racist sometimes.