I can see the logic in trying to separate rape from sexuality(p 20) and make it in an assault. This takes away the questions of what she was wearing and what she was doing to perpetuate her own rape. The kind of question that would not be asked someone who reports a simple assault because, of course, who wants to be assaulted. The questions that are still asked today, which seem to find that moment where society can then say "Oh she asked for it because of A, B or C." I find it quite problematic that Brownmiller did not discuss the fact that most rapists are known by their victims "Yet the majority of women raped in the United States know their attackers in a social context"(p 21). This fact needs to be shouted from the rooftop because it is not as obviously known as one would think. In a conversation with some university-educated friends, I was shocked to learn that this was completely new to them and some of the ladies did not believe and still believe that rape happens to those women who are out late and by scary, unknown strangers. The theory that rape occurs because a man is at the mercy of sexual desires(p 25) because of what a women was wearing needs to be eradicated, sadly there are still many women who believe this narrative.
I have been thinking about my major paper and so far I have an overall theme "Rape as a Tool of War". It needs to be fine tuned and I still need to figure out which direction I will take it. Brownmiller talks about rape in times of war as "...not an act against the women herself"(p 18). She says that "Rather, the act is a direct threat to the ownership of the man who is the rapist's enemy."(p 18). This was horrifying to read but is fairly accurate. If a woman is seen as a man's property among his other properties, house, farm or business, it is a horribly vicious way to destroy another's man's property to go after his women.
No comments:
Post a Comment