id's an entity thing:
I don't see what's so complicated about this issue. And I reserve the right to scream at anyone, even a woman who has not herself been raped, who thinks I need to just "lighten up" about a statement like that.
What's complicated is essentially the interaction between the notions I've been developing as to this and the actual social social context I'm in and it's implicit rules, which makes me wonder whether I'm just being a bit of a nutcase - I increasingly feel that I'm not, and that's it's best to be "excessively" reactionary to bullshit than going to the other extreme of having no issue of taking anything as okay to be insensetively played with (as said female's posture seemed to imply would be, y'know, not that bad). And of course I realize that she has no authority simply for her gender, but in a way, since she is a female, I did feel that she was more entitled to assess what kind of humour she accepts. I'm growingly convinced that's a bullshit concept itself.
Come to think of it, it's telling that it's easy to make jokes targeting rape victims, but difficult to even come up with one that targets a rapist.
Which is probably somewhat telling of the priorities of those who do joke about this sort of thing as to who exactly seems the more appropriate object of disrespect, I guess?
Ex:
MSN is a word-based medium. If someone had this slogan on a T-shirt, or greeted you with it whenever you met them, would you feel more justified in being repelled?
Hmm... I think what complicates the issue is that MSN (this sort of program in general, really) is somewhere between a private and a public space - it's not exactly being exposed to just about anyone, but those who this person allows into his list. Only that encompasses a whole lot of people, and a whole lot of space for different interpretations already, leading to it being pretty much impossible to read whether his point is anything other than offense - and I do think it's something that should be obvious from the get-go, which might have been clearer in a more private space, where his intentions were more explicit and as such more easily assessed (though I don't, indeed, see how they could be anything other than shit, which is convincing enough). Not sure how to put this more clearly, sorry.
For me, it seems to not only trivialise rape, but to reinforce myths about rape, as well. The idea that only attractive people get raped can shade over into the idea that if you're looking deliberately attractive, you've in part inviting sexual assault; also, that unattractive people are implausible victims of sexual assault because who'd want to; and the overall idea, which might be a bit complex to get into, that rape is about overwhelming sexual desire. A lot of feminist stuff in the 1970s was pointing out that it rape is not the spontaneous overflow of horniness, but about power, control and violence. Happy to expand on that a bit if it seems useful.
Yes, I'm sorry for not acknowledging the greater depth of the phenomenon - in the end, I stuck to the superficial content of the phrase itself. Which I suppose ends up reflecting how this can affect me (and anyone else), in terms of how I view rape and it's gravity and full nature, if I allow this sort of thing to, on a very banal level, pass me by, and accidentally nudge my mind towards a simplification of the phenomenon - which is surely the most dangerous effect of this sort of treatment of such complicated issues (particularly when consistent: I honestly can't think of moments in daily life when people refer to rape other than in jokes)?
And I'd reserve the right to scream at someone who had been raped. Suvivour status does not automatically give anyone the right to be the final arbitrator of what is and is not funny/acceptable, or to demand that everyone else experience antagonistic JOKE!1!!s in the same way ze does.
This certainly seems an important point to remember. It reminds me somewhat of the way that I approached said second female friend as corresponding more than me to the fictional object of that sentence, implying that she has a greater capacity, intelectually or morally, to assess the lyric's gravity. Which is, on reflection, wrong. Meaning, I think I'm becoming more willing to trust my judgement than running along with some concept of entitlement others have for being actual targets of the offensive material (or, in this case, a purely potential target, I suppose), seeing as, I suppose, there's as much space for them fucking up as there is for me, ultimately.
Thanks for the thoughts, everyone. Nice to see it led to some, hmm, nice wordiness. |
