The readings this week were especially difficult for me, as I felt like each piece had something vital missing, though I couldn’t quite place my finger on what it was. That is, until I had the misfortune of watching the film Knock Knock at the Garneau this Thursday, and my issue with this week’s readings became glaringly obvious. For now, I’m going to focus on Cahill’s piece, as I feel it is the most fitting to work through my discomfort with it in relation to the film I watched.
My apologies in advance for spoiling the film, but if its any consolation, I don’t think it’s worth seeing in the first place. Knock Knock is a thriller about two young, attractive women throwing themselves at a middle aged husband and father repeatedly until he “gives into temptation” and “has sex” with the two women. Later on, the women punish the protagonist for cheating on his wife with them, physically and psychologically abusing him for the rest of the film. What is shot as sexy, consensual sex between three people, is quite clearly coercion and rape. The women continue making advances despite the male character repeatedly physically separating himself from them, talking about his happy monogamous marriage, and outright saying “no” several times. Eventually, the protagonist “gives in” and is shown as enjoying himself for the rest of the evening. As both a feminist, and survivor of similarly coercive rape, I understand that “enjoying yourself” is one way to survive rape, and to reduce the amount of harm being caused by the rapist. It was incredibly upsetting to sit in a theatre full of people that clearly thought the protagonist was “lucky” and that the many gratuitous rape scenes throughout the film were entertaining.
The reason I found Cahill’s article disturbing is that not only did she not account for coercive and acquaintance rape, which is much more common than stranger rape, but also only speaks for women who are raped by men. I understand that feminist theories about rape and rape culture often focus on how women are coded as rapable and passive objects, and how this leads to men being aggressors and perpetrators. However, patriarchy also dictates that men must always want sex, and cannot be overtaken by women, and are therefore unrapable. This stigma is incredibly damaging for men and masculine of centre non-binary folks who are raped, as they are always read as actively consenting, no matter how they react to the situation.
Cahill argues that because rape culture “constructs” women as passive, that feminist self-defence classes may allow women to feel more in control of their bodies, and of their autonomy (364). Although I understand that Cahill believes this will lead to more women standing up for themselves, rather than being able to physically defend themselves against rape, it still implies that rape happens in a very specific way, and that rapists will simply give up after a certain amount of time. Coercion is insidious in that it plays into the scenario at hand. For example, even though men are constructed as active and dominant, a rapist may be able to play into these tropes to convince the victim that he must want to sexual interaction, because it is going to happen regardless. How does Cahill account for coercion, or for rape victims that don’t fit into the social construction of passivity?
Amy, I think you ask an important question at the end of your post here about how Cahill would account for rape instances that involve coercion and I would argue that she does not. Cahill's article leaves a wide gap in rape scenarios, and while she does admit that "what is true on a large scale may not be true on an individual level, and it is certainly possible that some cases of sexual violence are effectively resisted using passive means," (377) she goes on to contradict this by arguing that in the end, passive forms of resistance don't work well for women (377).
ReplyDeleteAlso, I really liked the point that you made on how dangerous adding to the binary of "women as rapable and men as unrapable." While in Cahill's first article she is highly critical of Brownmillers argument that all men oppress all women, like you mentioned, she seems to assume this as well in this article. While I also see where Cahill is coming from on her idea that these classes will allow women to feel in more control of their bodies, I think that her argument adds to problematic gender bianaries that are already so prevalent in our society.
I think you bring up some excellent points surrounding the movie. I find that this situation they created goes along quite well with the narrative that men always want sex, and that they are always ready to go. But obviously, like you said this individual voiced that he did not want to partake in this, yet when he agrees, it again is reinforcing that no doesn't actually mean "no", but "convince me". This creates such a violent narrative, in which individuals we usually see as active, or in control of the situation, are still coerced, yet is seen as just needing to be convinced. Again, here the survivor is doing what he needs to to survive but people see it as enjoyment. I don't believe Cahill takes into account the need for 'active' bodies to need to have the tool of self defines because it doesn't fit into her narrative. Again, like Karah states, this creates problematic gender binaries, and stereotypes.
ReplyDelete