Category: Opinions

Categories
Opinions

Victim Blaming: A Cultural Dismissal of Rape

On Saturday I posted a Facebook status containing a mini-essay I’d found online comparing the victim-blaming attitude toward rape with getting your Rolex stolen and having the police ask, “Is it possible you wanted to be mugged?”  Moments after, a friend of mine shared the status.  A friend of hers posted a comment.  His first line? “I get tired of women and this rape issue.”

To the gentleman who posted that comment, I will make a valiant effort to ignore the inappropriate and offensive nature of your statement, and operate under the assumption that you are simply confused and ignorant.  I address the following to you, in an effort to help you and others like you understand the injustices that fuel those women who make you “tired.”

In Canada in 2011, a policeman suggested that to prevent rape, women should “avoid dressing like sluts.”  What resulted was the first ever SlutWalk.  Women (and men) congregated in the streets of Toronto in various states of undress to protest rape and victim-blaming.

In the Christian community, modesty is an issue of respect and accountability.  Purity is an important aspect of our faith.  We don’t want to make it difficult for one another.  However, if a man or woman is not dressing modestly, must they then expect to be raped?  Personal preference should not dictate how one human being treats another, and, in fact, it doesn’t.  Rape is more often a crime inspired by power than lust.  Any kind of person can be and has been raped: senior citizens, prostitutes, handicapped, men, children, women wearing old, baggy sweaters.  There are no exceptions and therefore no excuses for committing the act.  Blaming a woman for her choice of wardrobe is both discriminatory and irrelevant.

This attitude of blaming the victim is present in more ways than one when it comes to rape.  A few weeks ago, two high school footballers in Ohio were charged with the rape of a 16 year old girl.  The evidence included a full video of the event that had been posted to YouTube, and photographs circulated on Instagram of the two boys carrying the nude and unconscious girl.  Despite this, the defense lawyer insisted that the girl be referred to as the “accuser” rather than the victim.  This label calls to attention issues of communication, and in this area as well, victims of rape are often discredited.

My step-mother was asleep in her own home when she was attacked.  A knife was held to her neck and she was told that if she woke her children, they would be harmed.  And yet these were the questions she dealt with from the police: Why did you leave the door unlocked? Did you tell him you didn’t want him?  To me, these questions reveal a dangerous attitude toward the concepts of resistance and consent.  This man broke into her home and threatened the lives of her children.  How necessary was it, really, for her to inform him that, no, she would not like to have sex with him?

Rape outdoors is extremely rare; in fact, most rapes take place in the home of the victim or perpetrator.  In 75% of all rapes, the perpetrator is known to the victim.  So in almost every rape, the victim is in a safe place, with a person they feel comfortable around, or both.  They are not expecting an assault, and when it happens they are shocked, confused, and scared.  Admittedly it is important for the perpetrator to know whether his or her advances are welcome, but in extreme cases, the emphasis placed on resistance in order to obtain a conviction is unacceptable.

Courtesy of http://www.globalpost.com/
Courtesy of http://www.globalpost.com/

On top of these injustices, there is a general cultural dismissiveness toward rape.  Prevention responsibility is put entirely on potential victims.  Don’t wear this, don’t do that.  Where is the advice, Do not rape?  How is any victim supposed to muster the courage to report rape if they feel responsible?  Three of my close friends have been raped, and not one of them has reported it.  Two of them were under similar circumstances; they were unconscious, in their own rooms and of their own accord from either medicine or alcohol.  They woke after the act had been completed by an acquaintance that had snuck in.  United States Federal law defines rape as engaging in a sexual act by using force, causing harm, threatening, rendering unconscious or drugging.  Which of these categories do these girls fit into?  What skepticism would they encounter if they dared bring their stories to the police?

The gentleman on Facebook also expressed frustration with female-centered rape protest, pointing out that men also experience rape, and complaining that women seem to view all men as potential rapists.  On the first count he is entirely right.  According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), 2.78 million American men have experienced rape, and their situations are also an example of the need for improvement in the way we handle rape.  Rape of men is classified as “sexual assault” rather than rape.  This, perhaps even more than discriminating legislation against women, reveals the chauvinistic nature of the judicial system.  Men are told, “You’re a man. You weren’t raped, you were assaulted.” This refusal to acknowledge what happened belittles the event and stunts healing.  Men should not feel marginalized or frustrated by the female campaign against rape.  They should join in wholeheartedly.

About 207,754 rapes occur annually.  RAINN states that 59% of rapes are never reported.  This means that the men and women in SlutWalk and in courtrooms are but a tiny percentage of those affected by rape.  It means that whether or not you have experienced rape, one or more people you know likely have.  Victims live their lives 6 times more prone to PTSD and 4 times more likely to contemplate suicide.  And out of every 100 rapes that occur, only 3 perpetrators will spend even a day in prison.

This is not an issue to grow tired of.  This is an ongoing abomination, a disgrace, and a call to arms.

Categories
Opinions

Women in Combat, A Next Step Toward Equality

Women in Combat
Women in Combat

In case you have missed the recent headlines, one of Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s final significant policy decisions, the military’s ban on women in direct combat situations has been lifted.
We as an editorial staff collectively say, “Finally.” We find compelling the case presented by the four servicewomen who sued the Pentagon and Panetta over the ban, pointing out that women have already in essence been serving in combat situations, and yet have not received formal recognition for their work and their sacrifices.

In an interview with Eyder Peralta for NPR, former Navy Lieutenant Carey Lohrenz said, “We have women in combat roles right now. We are just not able to promote them.” This denial of formal recognition and promotions has gone on too long, and Panetta’s lift of the ban is, in the words of Democratic Senator Mazie K. Hirono, a “great step toward equality.”

Others who read and commented on Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker’s New York Times coverage of the story don’t see it as such. A New York Times pick comment on their website by the username Harry from Michigan reads, “Next feminists will tell me that women can handle a man in hand to hand combat. How about we have women play in the NFL or any other pro sports…”
First, this comment villainizes feminism, a movement that has made and continues to make great strides in human rights issues for years. Next, to the dismay of Harry, we would point out that some women actually can handle men in hand to hand combat. There are many women who are more athletic than men, just as there are many women who are less athletic than men.

Veteran and Republican Senator John McCain has issued a statement supporting Panetta’s decision, and he added that, “As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world – particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units.”
Women will now have an equal opportunity to enter direct combat positions, but they do not expect any special allowances. In fact, the key is that servicewomen do not want to be treated any differently from servicemen.

Another online commenter on the New York Times article going by the username Keeping It Real wrote, “Why do American women want to be men? (Or is the real question, “Why are American women not allowed to be women?”)” New York Times pick commenter Academia Nut from Canada retorted, “Why would you limit a woman’s choice to be whatever she wants to be and is capable of being?”

Women have been moving into spheres traditionally occupied by men for years, and as Lohrenz said to Peralta, “We have women in combat roles right now… They’re on the ground in Iraq; they’re on the ground in Afghanistan. This is strictly formalizing and recognizing what their contributions currently are.”

The backlash from commenters such as Harry and Keeping It Real seem to be knee-jerk reactions to the blurring of lines between what is masculine and what is feminine that in the past have been more clear. They are focusing on the differences between men and women when the differences among men and women are much more significant.

This change in policy is not the first of its kind; New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland all already permit women to serve in direct combat. There is no word as to whether women have ruined professional sports in these countries yet.

Categories
Opinions

Is Christianity Intolerant? Defining Tolerance and Intolerance in Response to Accusation

Is Christianity Tolerant?
Is Christianity Tolerant?

In an increasingly secular western world, there are growing numbers of non-religious and even anti-religious young people in our country.   I enjoy dialoguing with these people, because they offer a perspective that is rarely encountered here at Houghton: a perspective without God in the picture.  Oftentimes the conversation drifts towards the criticisms of Christianity in particular, since it is the largest and most influential faith in our society and since Christians tend to make themselves easy targets.  While there are plenty of valid arguments that arise from the critic’s corner in these talks, one criticism that I hear over and over again bothers me because is often spewed without much thought.  That would be the sentiment that “I dislike Christians because they are intolerant”.
Intolerance.  What does that word mean?  I think before answering this question, I should explain what it doesn’t mean.  That’s because it is a word thrown around so casually and frequently in religious conversation that it can easily overstep its boundaries.  Some people that I’ve talked to seem to think that Christians are intolerant just because they have exclusive beliefs that don’t fit into a relativistic culture.  This just isn’t the case.  Yes, Christianity could be classified (in most of its orthodox strains) as an exclusive religion.  It affirms that Jesus Christ is the only way to most fully experience God in this life, and that Jesus is also the only way to gain access to God in the next life.  By default, Christians must admit that other faiths are incomplete, misinformed, or at least lacking in some key way.  Unfortunately for modern western Christians, this doctrine of exclusivity doesn’t bode well in a society that increasingly seeks to minimize religious differences, stress similarities, and ultimately claim that all faiths lead to the same place.  Society basically puts all faiths “on the same team” in hopes that in this way religious tensions and sensitivities can be put to rest; so that instead the moral cores that religions tend to bring out in people could thus shine through.  When a stubborn adherence to a non-relativistic belief system, such as that of Christianity, threatens the secular agenda, it is labeled as “intolerant” in order to scare or shame people away from the church.  But this is an inaccurate label.

Believe it or not, a person who subscribes to an exclusive faith can indeed be as tolerant of other faiths as someone who doesn’t believe in any God at all.  In fact, overzealous atheists and secularists, usually those who most often throw around the term “intolerant”, are actually a pot calling the kettle black.  What most people don’t seem to recognize about the word “tolerance” is that it requires or assumes a degree of disagreement to be relevant.  After all, what need is there for “tolerating” of a belief, lifestyle, ideology, or stance if you have no difference of opinion with that position?  Then you would not be tolerating that position at all, but simply agreeing with it.  Tolerance is the trait of having something you don’t fully agree with, and yet being okay with that.  In a sense, tolerance is an “agreeing to disagree” with someone and respecting their right to hold that opinion with peace and dignity.  For example, a Christian will not share the beliefs that a  Hindu holds, but both men can still be friends and not let the differences in beliefs become a barrier to their relationship.  The Christian can believe that the Hindu is mistaken in certain regards, but at the end of the day, the Hindu has reasons for believing what he does just as the Christian does, and has the right to retain those beliefs without feeling shamed or attacked.

What is intolerance then, and where does religious adamancy cross the line?  Intolerance is where one not only disagrees with something, but fails to respect someone else’s rights to hold that belief.  Intolerance can also cross the threshold of actually performing slander or violence against an opposing belief.  This threshold has been crossed many times by both religious parties and secular groups, but is not necessitated by either.  As I briefly alluded to earlier, many atheists or secularists who accuse Christians of intolerance are sometimes guilty of that very same thing.  A main characteristic of the latest surge of “new atheism”, for example, has not only been the disagreement and argument against religion, but an aggressive and brutal slander of religion and religious followers.  Certain prominent atheist speakers, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have made out religious people to be necessarily deluded, uneducated, fanatical, or a detrimental threat to society.  Taking away the dignity and respect from millions of people who have done nothing to deserve such a reputation is what makes the new atheist movement intolerant.  

Christians can certainly fall guilty of the same sin, when evangelism or dogma turns into a weapon aimed against the intelligence, autonomy, morality, or dignity of an opponent.

There is also a time where it is a good thing to be intolerant.  None of us would tolerate the murder of the children at Sandy Hook last month, for example.  It is a moral imperative for people of all faiths to take active stands against the types of immorality or sentiment that cause harm to others.  The difficulty comes in identifying what battles are those against threats to society and moral atrocities, and which ones are battles against a mere difference in belief.  The responses to these different types of disagreement must be handled in different ways.  Being a Christian does not require compromising one’s faith in order to be liked by other groups, nor does it require taking a sword to those who don’t share our beliefs.  What Christians are commanded to do, among other things, is to love one another and to fight injustice. Against such things there is no law, and against such things there is no valid label of intolerance.

 

Categories
Opinions

Fear Mongering and Media Bias

www.salon.com
Fear Mongering

Over the course of the last couple years the discussion over gun control has been gaining momentum. Unless you lead a secluded life, you have at least heard the incessant hubbub surrounding the debate, if not outright participated.

When the Aurora and Sikh shootings happened over this past summer I followed the ensuing debate very closely. I gained a strong stance against guns. For the most part, the arguments of the predominantly liberal pro-gun control crowd resonated well with me. Guns are designed to kill, and though they are not responsible for high crime rates, easier access provides the opportunity to do more harm, and after all, who needs a 30 round magazines?

Then I heard some interesting statistics revealing that over the course of the last 20 years, crime rates have been dramatically decreasing in the United States.  According to crime stats provided by the FBI, America had a violent crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992. Fast forward to 2012, and America’s violent crime rate dropped to 386.3 per 100,000. That is an almost 50 percent decrease. If this is true, why isn’t it better publicized? The media seems to want us to think that we will get shot every time we walk out our front door.

What’s even more surprising is that the United Kingdom—idolized by every good progressive liberal for their strict gun legislation—is, according to the European Commission, the most violent country in Europe. The rate of violent crimes with firearms has in fact doubled since the ban on guns was implemented after the Dublin shootings 20 years ago. According to the Home Office, England and Wales had over 762,515 violent crimes in 2011 alone. For a population of only 56 million, that comes out to a ratio of roughly 1,361 violent crimes per 100,000. That is 3.5 times higher than in the U.S.

Looking closely at the facts, it is evident not only that violence does not decrease with increased legislation, but that the opposite is true: the decrease of legally obtainable weapons leads to an increase in violence. The obvious conclusion is that in either case, people who use firearms for harm do not obtain them legally.

It is true that the U.K. has a slightly lower murder rate—only 1.3 compared to the U.S.’s 4.7— however, there are other factors to consider. The bulk of murders take place in small pockets in metropolitan areas of over 250,000 people. The U.S. has 186 of these metropolitan areas whereas the U.K. only has 32. Needless to say we are just scratching the surface when considering the complexities behind these tragedies.

It is clear that the solution does not lie within stricter gun laws. To suggest such a thing would be to ignore the facts. For example, both Chicago and NYC have a total ban on firearms, yet both cities are at the top of the charts for murder rates. So why would creating more gun restrictions better anything?

The statistics make the suggestions of gun-control seem even more ludicrous. According to the EU Commission the U.S. is not even in the top 25 most violent modern nations. The U.K., Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, and even Canada are ahead in violent crime rates. Based on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission data, guns aren’t even in the top 10 most common reasons for emergency room visits. Yet the media has a heyday every time there is a violent crime in America. It makes a better story to talk about one crazy man on psychotropic drugs shooting up a school in a state possessing some of the strictest gun laws in place, than to mention the mother in Colorado protecting her twin infants by taking down a home-invader with her .38 special, or the 15 year old boy in Houston who defended his sister against 4 armed home-invaders with his father’s legally obtained AR-15, or, most notably, the woman carrying a concealed weapon at the Hobbit premiere in San Antonio who took down Jesus Garcia, preventing what would have surely resulted in another Aurora-style slaughter. There are countless stories of law abiding citizens defending themselves with legally-obtained weapons.

This is a sensitive issue to be sure. But realize that where the insensitivity lies is in those who manipulate facts surrounding tragic events in order to push their agenda and increase government control.

Our time and energy would be better spent in figuring out how to decrease unemployment and poverty and fix the education systems within the areas with high crime rates, rather than attempting to deprive law abiding citizens of a chance to defend themselves against rapists, home-invaders, and criminals who gain access to illegal weapons.