Teaching About Rape

[UffishThought]

Sitting in my living room, looking up statistics on rape, trying to finish my lesson plan for tomorrow. I'm nervous.

I really love the book Speak, and I think it's a great one for high school students to read. But tomorrow we hit the the chapter where she finally admits what happened, and so were spending a whole class period on it.

Here's my plan: have the kids read the section aloud. Give them a 1 page journal write: how do you feel about this? do you know anyone who's been a victim? how can rape be prevented? Some discussion of the journal writes, if the students are up for it. Then on to cause-and-effect charts. One for the rape itself, with the kids hopefully concluding that while the narrator made some unwise decisions, the rape was in no way her fault. One for her healing process, where I hope they'll conclude that healing is possible, but it takes a lot of work.

Overall moral of the day: shit happens regardless, but you decide if you let it break you or not.

And I'm still terrified of this lesson.

[bobtheenchantedone]

Good luck! That does not sound like an easy lesson to teach.

[Whistler]

Sitting in my living room, looking up statistics on rape, trying to finish my lesson plan for tomorrow. I'm nervous.

I really love the book Speak, and I think it's a great one for high school students to read. But tomorrow we hit the the chapter where she finally admits what happened, and so were spending a whole class period on it.

Here's my plan: have the kids read the section aloud. Give them a 1 page journal write: how do you feel about this? do you know anyone who's been a victim? how can rape be prevented? Some discussion of the journal writes, if the students are up for it. Then on to cause-and-effect charts. One for the rape itself, with the kids hopefully concluding that while the narrator made some unwise decisions, the rape was in no way her fault. One for her healing process, where I hope they'll conclude that healing is possible, but it takes a lot of work.

Overall moral of the day: shit happens regardless, but you decide if you let it break you or not.

And I'm still terrified of this lesson.

I was watching Scott Pilgrim last night, and there's a scene where they're making out in bed and the girl is like "I changed my mind, I don't want to have sex tonight." And he listens to her! I thought it was a great example of consent (although, probably not classroom-appropriate, since, underwear).

[UffishThought]

Good news! 2 of 4 classes down, and it's going pretty well. Some kids are quiet, some are having a good discussion. A couple are still a little smirky, but no one is outright disrespectful, and for the most part, they're doing well with it. Phew.

[Katya]

Good!

[UffishThought]

Just finished the last of the lessons about rape. We had a really good discussion. However, one of the kids was adamant that it was at least a little bit the main character's fault. If she hadn't been drinking, if she had fought a little more, if she hadn't wandered off alone, etc, none of this would have happened. I understand where he's coming from: you can think about it in terms of timeline, and if she'd made one little change, her whole future might be different. And yes, she could have been more careful. But I don't think a rape is ever, EVER the victim's fault. And I think the fact that society tends to blame the victims for the crimes is at least one of the reasons that only about 16% of rapes are ever reported. The victims feel like people will blame them, and most likely, they already (inaccurately) blame themselves. And when we talk about rape, most often we talk about what the victims can do to prevent it, not what we can do to stop it at the source.

Anyway, it was interesting. I don't know if I got through to the kid that even if she put herself in a bad situation, the rape wasn't her fault. What do you guys think. Do you side with him, with me, or somewhere else entirely?

[krebscout]

Just finished the last of the lessons about rape. We had a really good discussion. However, one of the kids was adamant that it was at least a little bit the main character's fault. If she hadn't been drinking, if she had fought a little more, if she hadn't wandered off alone, etc, none of this would have happened. I understand where he's coming from: you can think about it in terms of timeline, and if she'd made one little change, her whole future might be different. And yes, she could have been more careful. But I don't think a rape is ever, EVER the victim's fault. And I think the fact that society tends to blame the victims for the crimes is at least one of the reasons that only about 16% of rapes are ever reported. The victims feel like people will blame them, and most likely, they already (inaccurately) blame themselves. And when we talk about rape, most often we talk about what the victims can do to prevent it, not what we can do to stop it at the source.

Anyway, it was interesting. I don't know if I got through to the kid that even if she put herself in a bad situation, the rape wasn't her fault. What do you guys think. Do you side with him, with me, or somewhere else entirely?

You. Did you ever see that little article floating around after the Aurora theater shooting, about victim blame? About people who reamed the parents who brought their six-year-old to a midnight showing of Batman?

[UnluckyStuntman]

Just finished the last of the lessons about rape. We had a really good discussion. However, one of the kids was adamant that it was at least a little bit the main character's fault. If she hadn't been drinking, if she had fought a little more, if she hadn't wandered off alone, etc, none of this would have happened. I understand where he's coming from: you can think about it in terms of timeline, and if she'd made one little change, her whole future might be different. And yes, she could have been more careful. But I don't think a rape is ever, EVER the victim's fault. And I think the fact that society tends to blame the victims for the crimes is at least one of the reasons that only about 16% of rapes are ever reported. The victims feel like people will blame them, and most likely, they already (inaccurately) blame themselves. And when we talk about rape, most often we talk about what the victims can do to prevent it, not what we can do to stop it at the source.

Anyway, it was interesting. I don't know if I got through to the kid that even if she put herself in a bad situation, the rape wasn't her fault. What do you guys think. Do you side with him, with me, or somewhere else entirely?

As Black Sheep would say: "IT'S STILL RAPE!"

Victim blaming is for chumps.

[Katya]

Just finished the last of the lessons about rape. We had a really good discussion. However, one of the kids was adamant that it was at least a little bit the main character's fault. If she hadn't been drinking, if she had fought a little more, if she hadn't wandered off alone, etc, none of this would have happened. I understand where he's coming from: you can think about it in terms of timeline, and if she'd made one little change, her whole future might be different. And yes, she could have been more careful. But I don't think a rape is ever, EVER the victim's fault. And I think the fact that society tends to blame the victims for the crimes is at least one of the reasons that only about 16% of rapes are ever reported. The victims feel like people will blame them, and most likely, they already (inaccurately) blame themselves. And when we talk about rape, most often we talk about what the victims can do to prevent it, not what we can do to stop it at the source.

Anyway, it was interesting. I don't know if I got through to the kid that even if she put herself in a bad situation, the rape wasn't her fault. What do you guys think. Do you side with him, with me, or somewhere else entirely?

I'm going to set aside the "fighting back" argument because that's just stupid. Most women are physically weaker than most men, plus, if someone's on top of you, it's even harder to fight back, plus fighting back can lead to getting hurt even more badly, in some circumstances.

Looking at the other two arguments, drinking does not always lead to getting raped and sometimes not drinking still leads to getting raped. Going somewhere alone does not always lead to getting raped and sometimes being with other people still leads to getting raped. This means that neither of these things is deterministic—on the contrary, the odds of B following from either A are pretty low if you take into account every single person who ever gets drunk or goes off by themselves. This means that Melinda couldn't know, beforehand, that either action would definitely lead to getting raped. So it definitely wasn't her choice to get raped, because the rape didn't follow directly from her actions.

Let's look at Andy. Does deciding to rape someone correlate with raping them? Yes, there's a pretty strong correlation, assuming a minimal level of means and opportunity. Does deciding not to rape someone correlate with not raping them? Yes, even more strongly. It's pretty safe to say that a man (or any person) who decides never to rape someone never will.

So, just based on choice and correlation, the outcome of events is correlated with Andy's choices, not with Melinda's.

But there's still the argument of "avoiding a bad situation," so let's look at those arguments:

Drinking is a bad idea because: IF Andy decides to rape Melinda AND Melinda has been drinking, she might not know what was going on or she might not be able to fight back.

Wandering off alone is a bad idea because: IF Andy decides to rape Melinda AND Melinda is off alone, other people might not hear her or come to her aid.

Notice that the "avoiding a bad situation" argument is still predicated on Andy's decisions. If Andy makes a different choice, it doesn't matter what Melinda does, because she won't get raped. The "avoiding a bad situation" argument, then, is based on an estimation of probability of a bad thing happening and the severity of the bad thing happening. If Melinda thinks it's very likely that someone will rape her at a party, then she will make choices that will minimize that risk or danger (including, perhaps, not attending the party at all). Or if Melinda thinks that being raped at a party is the worst thing that could ever, ever happen, she will, again, make choices to minimize that risk or danger (including, again, not attending the party at all). She could also not leave the house after dark. Or not leave the house alone. Or not leave the house at all.

But none of those (increasingly extreme) actions make it Melinda's fault if she is raped, they're just about perceptions and gauging risks. And, frankly, the focus of society should be on minimizing risks, not on blaming victims for happening to be victimized (whether or not they should have "known better" and whether or not they were making choices we would have made).

To be honest, I think a lot of victim blaming is us wanting to make ourselves feel like we have more control than we do. If we making a crime or assault the victim's fault, then we can reassure ourselves that since we didn't do anything "bad," we won't ever be a victim.

The gender dynamic also comes into play in very problematic ways, so let's spin that around. Suppose a guy comes home from work, criticizes his wife's cooking, they get into a fight, and she goes in the bedroom, grabs a gun, and fatally shoots him. Is that his fault? In a Groundhog Day scenario, he would probably make different choices the next day but, again, we're making the choice to argue or criticize deterministic of more severe consequences than it is. By the same logic used to attack Melinda, though, we could say that the guy should have known better than to get into a fight with his wife, so it's his fault that she shot him. Or maybe he should have known better than to come home without a present for her to make her happy, so it's his fault that she shot him. Or maybe he should have known better than to come into the house at all, on the off chance that she was angry, so it's his fault that she shot him. Yes, we all make evaluations about the risks involved with certain choices, but that's not the same thing as saying that something is our "fault" if someone else makes the choice to do something terrible.

[krebscout]

Katya, I have ambitions to someday think as clearly and logically as you do. Thanks.

[Katya]

Katya, I have ambitions to someday think as clearly and logically as you do. Thanks.

Thanks for the compliment. I spent most of the afternoon thinking about the logic behind victim blaming and teasing it apart, and almost an hour writing that post. Reminds me of my days on the Board!

[krebscout]

Katya, that article I mentioned before also came to the conclusion that people victim-blame because we naturally, subconsciously assume that we can avoid all tragedy if we do everything *just* right. And I associate that thought with two other things: reading about the Just World Fallacy on You Are Not So Smart, which reminds me of myself before I went through my political apostasy; and that scene in Benjamin Button leading up to Cate Blanchett getting hit by a car, which was my favorite part of the whole movie.

we are not allowed to have too many on topoc posts in a rowbyou guys.

*Tips hat*

[UffishThought]

Katya, I love you too. My brain has been racing around all day about this, and often in circles. You have good points well reasoned, and they make me feel happier.

[NerdGirl]

I don't believe that people can consent to having sex while they are drunk, so if you have sex with someone who is drunk, there's a pretty good chance it's non-consensual.

[Emiliana]

Katya, can I be you when I grow up?

I don't believe that people can consent to having sex while they are drunk, so if you have sex with someone who is drunk, there's a pretty good chance it's non-consensual.

What if both parties are drunk?

[NerdGirl]

Katya, can I be you when I grow up?

I don't believe that people can consent to having sex while they are drunk, so if you have sex with someone who is drunk, there's a pretty good chance it's non-consensual.

What if both parties are drunk?

I was hoping someone would ask that, because I have thoughts about that. Generally one person is the initiator of sex. It doesn't just sort of happen. But you shouldn't be initiating sex while you are drunk, just like you shouldn't be driving while you are drunk. I should clarify probably that when I say drunk, I mean that your blood alcohol level is high enough that you can't make good decisions anymore. I don't mean that you have had a glass of wine with dinner. If someone is likely to do dangerous things like drive or have sex with other drunk people (who, I am contesting, cannot consent), then that person needs to either avoid being drunk or make some kind of plan to avoid doing dangerous things while they are drunk. In the case of driving, if you know you are going to think it's a good idea to get behind the wheel after you've had a few too many, you do something to pre-empt that. You might give your car keys to a designated driver, or you might leave the car at home and take a cab. In the case of sex, if you are likely to rape people while you are drunk, you should probably avoid getting drunk or you should do something like have a sober friend stay with you who can help you to remember not to have sex. This might all sound a bit ridiculous, but I think it all comes down to the fact that doing illegal things cannot be excused because someone was under the influence of alcohol or other substances.

[Marduk]

A few disclaimers before I comment: I haven't read the book, so I cannot comment on the specifics found therein. I acknowledge that rape is a crime, and should be treated as such. Victim blaming is endemic in our society, and this is likely nowhere more true than with rape, which leads to many problems that have already been pointed out.

That being said, I think there's something to say about making intelligent decisions. No decision ever is going to keep you safe in all instances. No matter what we do, other people exercise their own will, and sometimes that causes us direct harm, no matter how much we prepare for the contrary. However, that doesn't mean certain sets of actions are likely to significantly reduce the likelihood of X bad thing happening, and therefore ought to happen. If they don't, and something terrible does happen, that doesn't mean it is the victim's fault that it happened, but certainly had the victim taken preventative action it would've made it less likely.

Let's take another example. Let's say that I don't lock my door when I leave my house, and someone jacks my stuff. Is it my fault? Certainly not. I didn't take my stuff. Is it deterministic? No. I've left the door unlocked dozens of times to no harm. That's pretty akin to going off by oneself and getting drunk; we can do either many times without anything bad happening, but it increases the likelihood, and therefore isn't a good idea.

Katya said "Does deciding to rape someone correlate with raping them? Yes, there's a pretty strong correlation, assuming a minimal level of means and opportunity. Does deciding not to rape someone correlate with not raping them? Yes, even more strongly. It's pretty safe to say that a man (or any person) who decides never to rape someone never will."

I'm sorry, but I find the logic here ridiculous. Most rapes are not premeditated. That is, the rapist didn't wake up that morning and decide to rape someone, go out and look for a victim, and perpetrate the horrific crime. It is a crime of opportunity. All rape isn't created equal in this regard. It runs the gamut of someone who does, indeed, follow the scenario I prescribed, all the way to someone who takes advantage of someone who is intoxicated of their own volition, and agrees to have sex, but as Nerdgirl pointed out, can claim that without sufficient mental faculties, it was rape. It (generally speaking) isn't an active decision, as Katya implies here. Sure, we're responsible for our own actions, and that certainly applies when the action is criminal, but not all scenarios are equal, and to assume it is merely a matter of cognitive decision making totally ignores that reality.

To answer the overt question, Uffish, I'd say (in typical philosopher fashion) that it depends on our definition of the word "fault." Nothing makes it inevitable, as Katya astutely pointed out. That being said, we must acknowledge that acting foolishly increases the likelihood that bad things will happen. Plenty of people are raped who do no foolish things. And plenty of people who act entirely irresponsibly are not raped. But statistically, doing things like getting drunk or wandering off in an unkown place by oneself increase the odds that an assault, robbery, or rape can happen. We cannot assume that a victim is at fault, because they have not done anything overtly wrong (just foolish.) But we cannot go to the other extreme and say that no matter what stupid things someone does, they can expect nothing bad will ever happen to them.

[Katya]

Katya said "Does deciding to rape someone correlate with raping them? Yes, there's a pretty strong correlation, assuming a minimal level of means and opportunity. Does deciding not to rape someone correlate with not raping them? Yes, even more strongly. It's pretty safe to say that a man (or any person) who decides never to rape someone never will."

I'm sorry, but I find the logic here ridiculous. Most rapes are not premeditated. That is, the rapist didn't wake up that morning and decide to rape someone, go out and look for a victim, and perpetrate the horrific crime. It is a crime of opportunity. All rape isn't created equal in this regard. It runs the gamut of someone who does, indeed, follow the scenario I prescribed, all the way to someone who takes advantage of someone who is intoxicated of their own volition, and agrees to have sex, but as Nerdgirl pointed out, can claim that without sufficient mental faculties, it was rape. It (generally speaking) isn't an active decision, as Katya implies here. Sure, we're responsible for our own actions, and that certainly applies when the action is criminal, but not all scenarios are equal, and to assume it is merely a matter of cognitive decision making totally ignores that reality.

How many opportunities have you had in your life to rape someone? How many of those have you taken advantage of? If the answer to the latter is zero, what's the difference between you and someone who has ever or often taken advantage of those opportunities?

I take your point that "most rapes are not premeditated," but I assume that you take mine that most guys who are utterly determined not to rape someone, never will. So how would you better phrase the difference between someone who decides to take advantage of an opportunity and someone who doesn't?

[Katya]

But we cannot go to the other extreme and say that no matter what stupid things someone does, they can expect nothing bad will ever happen to them.

Is anyone here saying that?

[Katya]

To clarify, this is what I am saying:

Victim-blaming is bad because:

Victim-blaming leads to the mentality that the victim "deserved" it, and is therefore not worthy of sympathy.

Victim-blaming leads to underreporting of certain types of crimes, which means that the perpetrators of those crimes are not punished and society as a whole has less (or skewed) information about what types of crimes are occurring in a community.

Victim-blaming places a disproportionate burden of crime-aversion on the shoulders of certain classes of people. (I.e., women bear more responsibility for avoiding being raped than men bear for avoiding raping people.)

Nowhere in here am I saying that people shouldn't be thoughtful about gauging risk and making good choices. Nowhere am I saying that people can "expect nothing bad will ever happen to them." I AM saying that the effects of victim-blaming mentioned above are really bad for a society, and we need to find a better way to look at these situations.