- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
I believe, in cases like this, that avoiding misunderstanding among those who can help make an important change is as important as creating understanding among those fighting for the change.
I agree.I also should add that Michael Austin’s post at BCC, from which thread Steve’s and Ardis’ comments were excerpted, is excellent – and the comments are enlightening and, generally, excellent. LookingHard wrote:I just wish BYU would do
somethingto show they are getting the message (I guess more than setting up a committee to look at the issue). The longer they go, I just can’t help but feel more and more stories like these are going to come out.
But maybe this is the way it has to be, the frustration with the pace of change pushing people to just tell their stories. And maybe the more that are told – in the unflattering light of day – the more they will shape and ultimately speed the process.Ray: Quote:Fwiw, I am an advocate of understanding that
words and phrases having multiple meanings in a pluralistic society(and almost any society). I understand and respect completely what you mean, Hawk, when you use “rape culture” that way – but that term obviously means something different to others, and it is problematic when we use one definition knowing the people who understand the situation the least will misunderstand that definition the mostand, as a direct result, be more likely not to understand the point we are trying to make. Shock value works with some people, but it more often is ineffective and even counter-productive. Thus,
I personally do not use the term “rape culture” when talking about the situation at BYU. I have worked in higher education for the past 8 years and have seen what I would call rape culture – even though my definition / description would include some things that are not categorized generally as rape. In the case of BYU, I prefer “victim blaming” and “perp enabling” – and I understand that some people can’t accept what appears to be a too-fine line in those phrasings. Then
Quote:I do find it highly offensive, however, that Steve’s comment appears to have been used as a response to my comment, meaning it appears to have been used to describe me, when, in fact, it doesn’t describe me at all – not one tiny bit. Nor, for that matter, does the quote about being offended by the term rape culture. I am not and never have been offended by that term.
Yes, I understand that discouraging reporting can enable and embolden rapists, so I understand, again, why people say I am drawing too fine a line – but I do believe effectiveness in communication is as important as the righteous anger over the situation.
I believe, in cases like this, that avoiding misunderstanding among those who can help make an important change is as important as creating understanding among those fighting for the change.
I have NO problem with anyone else using this term in this situation – and
I didn’t say it shouldn’t be used. I chose my words very carefully, and I said I personally don’t use the term – but I also said I understand completely why others use it. In my post on W&T, comment #21 was from Martin, a long-time commenter who is generally pretty decent, but sometime a little tone deaf:
Quote:The term “rape culture” (not scare quotes, but quotes used properly) carries an emotional charge that is intentional in order to attract attention to the issue, but it’s also a pretty unwieldy weapon. I don’t think those using it realize they’re chasing thieves from a china shop by wildly swinging a mace. For example, I happen to think it’s important to teach YW to be aware of the messages they send with their dress and encourage them to dress modestly. I’ve been informed that means I’m complicit in rape culture. Not much nuance there. Just swinging the mace. I think it’s more useful to talk about the the way modesty is taught or emphasized and the unintended effects it can have. Just one example. Shame can be used to manipulate people. Rapists use it to their advantage. Shame only exists if one feels one has not lived up to standards or according to code. Therefore we should eliminate all standards or codes? Swing the mace.
Steve’s remark was addressed to commenter Mark B. who said:
Quote:““But so what?” Maybe we quit using an inflammatory term like “rape culture” and focus on fixing things that should be fixed.”
So when you pointed out that the term is inflammatory, you were making the same argument as these two gentlemen. I find it ironic to critique the rhetorical violence of terms like “rape culture” when we are talking about actual violence that mostly goes unreported in epidemic proportions. Nobody is saying either Martin or Mark B want more rapes, but let’s not be so sensitive to what terms are used to create awareness of an ongoing epidemic of unreported sexual violence. I don’t think I implied you are personally offended by the term, but to the extent that you agree with them that we should only use non-inflammatory terms to describe the problem lest we alienate potential allies, I think that Steve’s remark that anyone who would rally to the cause would not be scared off by the term. I’m aware you aren’t scared off or offended by the term and that you were simply paraphrasing the old adage “You’ll catch more flies with honey.” I don’t know that those individuals are scared off either. They are just tone policing. Defending tone policing is not worthwhile IMO. It’s a distraction.
Case in point, notice how now we’ve quit talking about rape and now we are talking about how words used to describe the problem make men feel. From an article on tone policing that is well worth a read
http://tooyoungforthelivingdead.tumblr.com/tone-policing
Quote:When you tone police, you automatically shift the focus of the conversation away from what you or someone else did that was wrong, and onto the other person and their reaction. Tone policing is a way of not taking responsibility . . . it dismisses the other person’s position by framing it as being emotional and therefore irrational. The conflation of emotionality with irrationality is often used to silence women and people who are read as women, when they are trying to speak about anything at all. It’s also used against all marginalized people when they attempt to speak about their very personal experiences with oppression. But being emotional does not make one’s points any less valid. It’s also important to note that, by tone policing, you not only refuse to examine your own oppressive behavior, but you also can blame that on the other person, because they were not “nice enough” to be listened to or taken seriously. . . . Anger is NOT counterproductive; being “nice” is counterproductive. Nobody was ever given rights by politely asking for them. Politeness is nothing but a set of behavioral expectations that is enforced upon marginalized people.
Let me put it this way: I personally talk about elements of rape culture that exist in our current framing of doctrines related to sex that, combined with the way the Honor Code is enforced at BYU, contribute to rape being under-reported – and even misunderstood. I personally focus on trying to highlight and change specific doctrinal ideas and practices that are cultural in order to lower the incidence of rape and increase reports of it. That is how I personally approach this issue, since that is how I think more conservative members
**with whom I communicate directly**will understand it better. I believe if we collectively can articulate cultural elements and focus on those elements, while simultaneously expressing anger over the actual situation, we have a much higher chance of fixing those elements than if people hear all of us say, “The LDS Church and BYU encourage rape.” (I know that is not what is being meant by the vast majority of people speaking about this issue, but it is what too many people hear.) Others can express the anger and talk about rape culture at BYU; I choose to talk analytically about elements of rape culture at BYU. In practical terms, we have the exact same objectives; I just believe talking about it in more than one way has a a better chance of being understood more broadly.
I have the luxury of choosing that option specifically because other people (including you) are talking so much about rape culture, comprehensively. If they (including you) weren’t doing that (if people weren’t educating so much right now), I would have to do much of what you are doing.
That is why I tried so hard to make it clear that I am not criticizing anyone who approaches this differently than I do. Seriously, there is no criticism intended in anything I have said about this issue. I personally choose to say that BYU is guilty of victim blaming and punishing rather than say BYU has a rape culture, but I have no problem helping people understand what rape culture means and how our beliefs and practices contribute to the creation of elements of rape culture.
Again, I have no problem with anything I have read being said by anyone else. I simply want to provide one more approach that has a chance of resonating with so many of my conservative friends. I wish that had been clearer in my previous comments, but I tried to say it clearly.
Quote:talking about it in more than one way has a a better chance of being understood more broadly.
Most certainly.
mom3 wrote:Just more to think about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svLZ303vDR0&feature=youtu.be ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svLZ303vDR0&feature=youtu.be
As I keep saying – the longer they wait – the more stories are going to come out. The snowball is starting to pick up steam. So sad.I am glad more stories are being heard – and that BYU appears not to be rushing the process. It truly is sad that so many stories exist that need telling, but I want them told.
mom3 wrote:Just more to think about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svLZ303vDR0&feature=youtu.be ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svLZ303vDR0&feature=youtu.be Elizabeth Smart is the picture perfect assault victim in the eyes of many. Completely detached from her assailant and clearly hurt and held against her will. That she is sympathetic to these acquaintance rape victims, and eager to tell their stories, is a real game-changer, I think. Even though I’m not a fan of the way segments like this are produced, it needs to be done. And if people at BYU want something more nuanced, balanced or different in any way – fewer dramatic drum beats – then maybe
theyshould get a production team working with some victims. But they’re up against some real limits on how good the university can look in this story. The stories can be told quickly. I do hope they take enough time to find the real solution.
Old-Timer wrote:I am glad more stories are being heard – and that BYU appears not to be rushing the process.
It truly is sad that so many stories exist that need telling, but I want them told.
I agree that BYU should not rush the process, but what is left standing out there is the calloused comment from Carrie Jenkins of BYU that they kind of like the fact that the Title IX/HCO puts a chilling effect on rape reporting. They could even state a bit that, “something needs to change and we are studying it intensely right now.” At least those that need some sort of healing by telling have the option to frame it, “I am looking forward to changes BYU is considering making and hope they will make changes that reduce what happened to me.” I am sure not all will take that angle, but someone that is still a TBM would like to be able to show the church/BYU that they still are “in” and not just fighting against them.Really addressing this problem is going to be difficult, particularly in our current Mormon culture, so I suppose taking more time is a good thing in the long run. To me, the two things that will take the longest to address are: 1 – Male empathy. Seriously lacking in the church.
2 – Female sexual naivete. It’s exacerbated by the fact that we believe that the rules will protect them. The rules will not deter a predator. Predators know how to groom their victims. Getting these stories out there should help, though.
The thing that should be fast to address (I seriously hope so), is that utterly reprehensible behavior of BYU’s Title IX office and the Honor Code office. Don’t open an Honor Code investigation on a rape victim (particularly galling when it came out that BYU opened them 100% of the time, even when there was no reason to believe the victim broke the rules), and the idea that they would tell a rape victim that she will be expelled if she was impregnated by her rapist is about the most evil thing I’ve ever heard. (It’s in the Elizabeth Smart video). There’s a special place in hell for the Dolores Umbridge who did that. If nobody is fired over this crap, they should ALL be fired for it.
hawkgrrrl wrote:If nobody is fired over this crap, they should ALL be fired for it.
I’m sure we’ll eventually be told that they were all hired as a direct result of Divine revelations and therefore calling for their firing is apostasy.
hawkgrrrl wrote:the idea that they would tell a rape victim that she will be expelled if she was impregnated by her rapist is about the most evil thing I’ve ever heard. (It’s in the Elizabeth Smart video). There’s a special place in hell for the Dolores Umbridge who did that. If nobody is fired over this crap, they should ALL be fired for it.
For the sake of fairness, I believe that it was her bishop that told her that she would need to “leave” the school if she became pregnant. I’m not sure how fully a bishop represents BYU. As church volunteers they can certainly be released… but not fired. To me this goes to leadership roulette and the predicament that the church has of having a largely untrained lay clergy and leadership.
But it does raise the question. If a female BYU student did become pregnant as the result of rape – how would the school handle that? Would she be welcome to attend classes and wander the campus as her belly grew in girth and became a constant reminder to all around her that she had been raped? Once the baby is born are there daycare options that could allow her to continue school? I hope the school gets better at dealing with these sorts of hypotheticals than they have heretofore been.
One of the many blog posts about this issue pointed out that a BYU rape victim has three or four people who must believe her and help her, all of them male – the cops, her bishop, her stake president, her dad. If any one of those people drops the ball, the harm to the victim is irreparable. If the cops don’t believe her, or her bishop decides to rescind her ecclesiastical endorsement, or her dad tells her she has brought shame on the family… It just seems like there are many possibilities for this system to break down and fail a victim, and only one way for it to succeed. There are a lot of changes that need to be made. Eliminating the possibility of leadership roulette would be a big help. Allowing female victims to counsel with a female ecclesiastical leader, rather than (or in addition to) a bishop and SP, would help too. All of this is low hanging fruit – none of it requires changing the doctrines of the LDS Church. Right now, though, the Newsroom statement makes it seem like church leadership has simply gone into defensive mode. That’s sad.
- The topic ‘Sexual assault and its aftermath at BYU’ is closed to new replies.