Risk Management is an interesting concept when it comes to sexual assault. During Dr. Gotell's talk, she brought up this idea of those who take responsible measures, in the situations of those who are HIV positive. Yet when taking that further, as she does within her article, this idea of the 'responsible victim' or risk management is a problematic one. Well she does examine this, I can't help but think back to Campbell's piece, in looking at the rules society tells us to ensure our safety from sexual assault. Yet, as we know, these ideas fail us time and time again, especially when looking at it through the context of risk management. When putting this together with the Kindred House presentation, I kept thinking back to how these women can never been seen within this realm of the 'responsible victim', because as Shawna said, they are told that sexual assault is part of their job. Structural violence will never allow for responsible victims, especially within the institution of sex work. How is one suppose to become a 'responsible victim' when the system will always be continually working against them?
Just as when Dr. Gotell was speaking to the situations of criminalization in instances of HIV positive individuals and sexual interactions, how is one to be responsible when they system marginalizes them as soon as they are diagnosed? During Gotell's discussion, I was having a hard time during the conversation battling back and forth between what I thought was right, until I realized that it was the stigma surrounding HIV that was clouding my thoughts. The socialization I have received hadn't made me question this criminalization, as being an active member in a society that marginalizes HIV.
More and more I am getting confused about why our society creates narratives about victims/survivors. I understand that its because our society used sexual assault to silence individuals and to reinforce power dynamics within our society, but if a majority of us understand these narratives to be untrue, I struggle to understand how so many of us cling to them - I know I still do. This is entirely what Gotell is asking us to resist in the final sentence of her article as she wants us to move away from the "assigned role of safety-conscious victims-in-waiting" (Gotell, 221) because these narratives help no one, and need to be thrown away.
"The performance of a diligent and cautious femininity grants some women access to the protection of the law, while those who fail to follow the rules of sexual safekeeping can be denied protection"(Gotell 217). We have already learned that the so called "rules" to keep ourselves safe don't necessarily work from Campbell's article and they are also problematic because "These recommendations seem to offer reasonable advice, but such rules are fraught with problems because they create the impression that women can control whether they are raped"(Campbell 48). This puts the onus the woman to make sure that she does not get raped, and if she does than she the idea becomes that she must have brought in on herself. It is upsetting that this narrative still continues. We do not seem to have one where we tell the perpetrators not to attack as the common sense theme. In class it may seem obvious that survivors are not responsible for the action of the perpetrators; but as soon as you step out of class you realize very quickly that this is not a widely held view. Whether you use the term risk management or not, women are constantly questioned and blamed after an attack. I feel the same about the safety "rules", technically I know that they do not work, but I find following them by rote. I park in the light, don't stay out too late and I try to be constantly vigilant about who is around me. Am I trying make sure that I am the proper, sympathetic victim? The more I learn, the less I'm sure about it seems.
ReplyDelete