That Last Post

This story illustrates nicely the damned-if-you-do social scenario women find themselves in that I was trying to describe in that last post.

I’m sure if the woman had instead chosen to be meek and shame-faced, and had been willing to quietly accept whatever condescension the officer wanted to pitch her way, coupled with any legal consequences and some perhaps less aggressive fondling, she would have been able to go on her merry way secure in the knowledge that A) at least he didn’t rape her and B) she would never be able to prosecute the sexual assault, nor get support from others she describes it to, because she “let him” do whatever he would have done.

Instead, she spoke up, got loud, got assertive, did all the things women are not supposed to do in social interactions, and as a result was sexually assaulted, with the officer helpfully pointing out that he felt he had a right to sexually assault her because she was “acting like a woman.” If she’d been acting meek, that would have been “acting like a woman”, too, because women are quiet and weak, dontcha know. But instead she defended herself got hysterical, which is also how women act, because women are crazy and unable to control themselves, dontcha know. And either way, they need to be punished for being a woman, and acting in the way women do. Which is, you know, the same way that men act, only men get to act those ways without their actions being dismissed as irrelevant because Exhibit A: penises exude stupid, Exhibit B: you have one.

So, here’s how it goes:

Act in the way women are supposed to act — passive and subservient — and you will be mistreated and assaulted because you are weak and easy to assault. Afterwards, it will be your fault for “letting” him.

Act in a way women are not supposed to act — aggressive and dominating — and you will be mistreated and assaulted because you are not making an attack on your person easy for your attacker. Afterwards, it will be your fault for “provoking” him.

And, bonus prize: however you act, there is a corresponding negative descriptor to make your actions specifically female: hysterical (justifiably angry), passive (minimizing danger), bitchy (assertive), shrill (speaking out loud), crazy (setting boundaries), dyke (sexually unavailable). And when every action you take, every behavior you engage in, can be neatly and quickly reduced to a negative attribute of your gender, this reinforces the rightness in having attacked you.

Because at the core of it, that is the fundamental reason women are attacked. Not because they deserved it, not because they earned it, not because they provoked it, not because they failed to prevent it.

Women are attacked because they are women.

Women are attacked because they are women, and the cultural definition/classification of women designates them simultaneously as an invasive species and available receptacles for sex; pairing the two leads very obviously (and intentionally) to unleashing hostility and beating back the invasion via “sex.”

If a woman dares to invade a “man’s” space (even if that space is the public arena)

or if a woman dares to demand certain rights in her presence (such as the right to choose, or not choose, her sexual partners and be left in relative peace about her decision, or the right to not have her space invaded, or the right to not have her body or gender insulted),

and if the definition and purpose of a woman is a creature that is supposed to be available for the sexual consumption of men,

then an appropriate way to quiet invasive demands and successfully reacquire the invaded space and rights is to humiliate, frighten, and injure her sexually. This is a socially acceptable (and extremely effective) way that a man can reaffirm his inalienable rights to space, attention, resources, and respect based on being male (and capable of rape), and her lack of inalienable rights to space, attention, resources, and respect based on being female (and rapeable).

It is only when women demand things that women ought not have because they are female that they are raped, and our justifications for rape clearly reflect this:

Why was she outside, at that time of night? (women shouldn’t be outside)
Why was she wearing that? (women shouldn’t wear unapproved clothing)
Why was she hanging out with him? (women shouldn’t be in the company of men)
Why did she yell at him? (women shouldn’t raise their voices)
Why did she date him if she wasn’t going to have sex with him? (women shouldn’t deny men sex)
Why was she so mean? (women shouldn’t set their own boundaries)
Why did she drink with him? (women shouldn’t imbibe in substances)
Why did she go to that party? (women shouldn’t be out of doors, dressed in unapproved clothing, and in the company of men unless they are there to provide sex)
Why did she fuck all those other guys, if she didn’t expect something like this to happen eventually? (women shouldn’t have veto power over who does and does not have access to her vagina)

We have a lot of reasons why we justify each individual attack, and they can all sound like very individual, circumstantial, specific reasons. In addict land, that’s called “superficial logic,” something that sounds deceptively good on the surface, but immediately falls apart as soon as critical questions are asked. And all our specific circumstances for each individual attack come down to insults and justifications based in gender. Women are attacked because they are acting like women (didn’t fight back). Women are attacked because they are not acting like women (fought back, provoked him). Women are attacked because they were acting like worthless women (short skirt, let him kiss her).  Women are attacked because they were acting like virtuous women (cock tease).

Women are attacked because they are women, and there is no 100% guaranteed way to be a woman who cannot be justifiably attacked. Even if a woman does all the right things, to be the most valued and protected class of woman available, they are still women. Wives can be (and are) raped by husbands, even if they were virgins until getting married, even if they cook three meals a day and never raise their voice and keep trim and in shape and don’t leave the house without an escort.

This is all an ultra-depressing thing I am saying here: if you are born a woman, in this time and in this place, that is reason enough to expect that you will be attacked someday. I doubt there is any woman out there who could read this and not understand, at some level, what I’m saying. Even if you’ve never been raped, you’ve been belittled, you’ve been groped, you’ve had your boundaries invaded in some way, at some time, because you were a woman and he was a man. Even if you didn’t consider it a big deal, or it didn’t damage you (much), or you just laughed it off. You knew it was happening — and couldn’t be stopped — because you were a woman, and he was a man.

But I am saying this ultra-depressing stuff because I want to emphasize a crucial piece of it: Being a woman is reason enough to be attacked. There is nothing women can or cannot do that will aid or end their attacks; every action they take or do not take is only further proof of their womanhood, and thus further justification for being attacked. There is no way a woman can create or end an attack. There is no fault a woman can truly bear for her attack. Her crime was simply being.

I can’t repeat this enough.

Women are attacked because they are women.

Any reason or justification given for the attack is just another euphemism for “she was a woman.”

Women are not to blame for their attacks unless we are willing to blame them for being born women.

Hint: We are, and we do.