I know this is a late post, and I know there’s lots going on in the world…but I have kept waking up in the night for the last few with bile rising over the Republican-led effort to valorize rape over women. If you’re worn out on this topic, just walk on by.
Here’s what’s kept me raging:
Rape is a weapon of war. It is used to terrorize a subject population — or sometimes the forced sexual availability of women whether of the wrong class or the wrong ethnic or national identy is simply understood as one of the spoils of war.
In the context of war, sexual coercion is a wholesale business. When the weight of an army stands behind the man unzipping his trousers, there’s rarely need for a fist to the belly or a knife held to the throat. When death or desperate brutality is the understood alternative, it may even be possible to pretend that there is some plausible simulacrum of consent.
The illusion may gratify this client or that, but rape it remains, over and over again.
__
For just one example: in 2007, a then 84 year old woman recalled her experience as a “comfort woman” for Japanese soldiers. Jan Ruff O’hearne, a Dutch-Indonesian woman interned after the Japanese conquest of the Dutch East Indies, testified that she had been raped “day and night” for three months after being captured. She was then nineteen years old.
__
All this comes in the context of the Forced-birth/Rapists Rights bill masquerading as a measure to restrict government funding for abortion. I’m coming late to to discussion, to be sure, and it’s all been well covered already by John, Dennis G. and Kay (and Kay,) not to mention all the comment threads.
__
All I want to add to all that is a reminder of from whence comes that which John accurately termed the objectively pro-rape position of the bill’s supporters.
__
Which to my way of thinking translates into the argument that those who support this bill have thus announced their willingness to pal around with war criminals: privileging the consequences of rape over the autonomy of the victim of a sexual assault fits the underlying logic that transforms rape into an instrument of war. In that logic women are mere utensils: instruments through which the attacker may inflict damage on the men with whom they are connected — or else they are just one more element in a military supply chain, dragged along in the logistical tail to supply the needs of an army in the field.
That is in the context of rape in war: woman and girls cannot be recognized as ends in themselves, but rather remain means to others’ — other male — goals.
__
And so too in the Forced-Birth/Rapists Rights Bill of 2011. Stripped to its essence the underlying theory of the “forcible rape” move is that women are better understood as ambulatory wombs. Seen that way, anyone and anything — a rapist, a foetus, the presumed natalist interest of the state — takes precedence over the body-part inconveniently surrounded by a life-support system that acts under the delusion that it is a person.
Thus the essence of terror: to the terrorist, those people who make the mistake that they are in fact possessed of autonomy and independent value, are actually mere attributes, things.
But you know what?
I’m glad that our Republican friends — and the handful of fellow travelers they’ve recruited from the other side of the aisle — have made their disdain for women so overwhelmingly clear. I’m delighted that Michelle Bachmann has shown us what the radical right of the Republican party really thinks of veterans. I’m very thrilled that Paul Ryan and his friends are doing the best to remind the elderly just how much less important Social Security is than further transfers of wealth from the old and the sick to the betterment of our financial masters. Say it loud, say it proud folks — let no one out there mistake what it is you Republicans are actually trying to do.
I’m not happy about the pain and suffering and lost dreams and betrayed children that could flow from all that folly, of course. But I do think it is extremely valuable to see what it looks like when GOP true believers start to exercise real power. Each time you get a clear statement of intent: rapists outrank rape victims; vets are less valued than Wall St. executives — it becomes that much easier to shrink the Republican coalition as we go forward.
But there is, of course, one great caveat. We need to be doing — now — what our friends across the aisle have so often done so well to us. And that is to play up each opportunity as it arrives, preferably with stealth and cunning (make ’em deny they enjoy the carnal knowledge of their barnyard animals) , to every appropriate slice of the electorate. What I’m saying is that I want the tactics of the Swift Boaters exercised with this difference: that we’re merely accurately (if pointedly) reminding folks of what the GOP is actually doing. I really, really hope that Democratic tacticians have already got the direct mail/email lists of veterans needed to spread Bachmann’s message of veteran love to the right groups in every state. And I hope that the vectors for that message emphasize the argument that Bachmann is merely saying out loud what few other Republicans are willing to admit: that the logic (sic!) of Republican policy calls for screwing over those who’ve served their country to defend the interests of those who served themselves.
Seriously. If the Republican party wants to abandon the old, the female, the veterans — we need to be as neighborly as possible and help them to that glorious end.
Images: Lucca Giordano, The Rape of Lucretia, 1663
Titian, The Rape of Lucretia, 1571.
Kermit
Problem is of course that with our current media landscape, the centrist aka “reasonable” position is always seemingly defined by where the goalposts are set.
Elvis Elvisberg
Say it loud, say it proud folks—let no one out there mistake what it is you Republicans are actually trying to do.
The Democrats are incapable of getting the media to report genuine scandals. The Republicans are great at getting the media to report false scandals.
I would love to be wrong. But I don’t think the media will pick this up at all.
numbskull
I think some words got trampled on. Might need an edit.
Mayken
Well said! I’ll be linking to thus everywhere I can!
piratedan
or to sum it up for the T-Shirt crowd, if you ain’t white, male and rich, you ain’t worth shit, at best you’re a tool to be used and discarded when whatever job that they have used you for is done.
Tom Levenson
@numbskull: Indeed it did, and now has one. Thanks for the catch.
c u n d gulag
I don’t understand why gays, people of color, and women can possibly be Republicans, unless they’re the Michael Steel, Sarah Palin, or Phyllis Schlafly type who use the party for power or financial gain.
I guess self-hate takes a back seat when you can hate people like you even more than yourself.
matoko_chan
Isnt it fascinating that there is no prostitute class in Islam? No Madama Butterflies in Iraq or A-stan, no half-American babies or muslimah warbrides.
The Romans brought campfollowers and hetarai along on their campaigns of conquest, sos not to piss off the locals, but not America.
That is why Blackwater/Xe got into so much trouble there.
It is still my hypoth that the mercs hanged from the bridge and burnt were up to some local shenanigans with the village daughters…..like the Iraqi Rape Squad?
Membah Blackwater/Xe, Levenson? Republican congressmen defended the company contract that explicitly said female employees could not sue for rape.
El Tiburon
To a Republican, it is truly only rape if performed by a Big Black against a Petite White.
In the immortal words of Republican/Texan Clayton Williams, “if it is inevitable, just sit back and enjoy it.”
I mean, who was that uppity soldier in Iraq who was raped by Halliburton employees then held hostage because she got all bent out of shape?
This is just an extension of the Republican parties core ideology.
kerFuFFler
Here’s a petition people can sign objecting to the new, narrow definition of rape: http://pol.moveon.org/smithbill/?id=25965-18138476-1fCwslx&t=3
aimai
What, no Picasso ?
But yes, Tom, yes again yes again yes. It boggles my mind, in the context of the discussion of “safe, legal, and rare” in the thread below this one, that the very first thing the Republicans do is go after the abortion rights of precisely those kinds of women/girls whose right to an abortion is so crucial to their lives. You will never see those rat bastards pass a law targeting their own right wing/religious nuts. Call it the “publication of number of successful pregnancies in the church rows law” which would have the government actively penalize their own membership for failing to follow an open womb policy. They know they can safely grandstand on the bodies of young, poor, suffering women.
aimai
numbskull
Part of this may result from inability to empathize. I suspect a lot of the legislators behind this think (to the degree that “think” can be used here):
“I don’t know anyone who ever needed an abortion or got an abortion. I don’t know anyone who was ever raped.”
For the subset for which this statement is not true, the thinking then goes to: “My wife/sister/daughter never needed and will never need an abortion. My wife/sister/daughter was never and will never be raped.”
For the subset for which this statement is not true, the thinking then goes to “I (as a man) will never be raped (forgetting that he could be) and I certainly will never need an abortion. I mean, I love my wife/sister/daughter, but hey, they’re not ME, so…”
Chris
Very old news. See the Iraq war and Oliver North’s shenanigans south of the border, for one.
asiangrrlMN
@c u n d gulag: You pretty much nailed it with both your suppositions. Self-hate and/or power. Or, exceptionalism. “I am different than all the others. I can work outside the home, but most women shouldn’t.” Plus, someone like Clarence Thomas can delude himself into thinking that he’s just that much better than others of his ilk.
This whole pro-rapist bill is so despicable and reprehensible. Tom, if you were right in that shit like this would be the downfall of the Republicans, it may be worth stomaching the ugliness that will stream from them in the next two years. However, I am highly doubtful that the masses in general will ever find out (or care) about the truly heinous shit the Republicans are proposing.
@numbskull: I’m not even sure the first part of your statement is true. There are many conservatives who are just fine with abortion for their daughters in certain situations.
Chris
@c u n d gulag:
Or when you have enough hate for the other minorities. There are Muslims who vote Republican because of their disgust for Teh Ghey degeneracy and the liberal permissiveness that encourages it. And gays who vote Republican because of their disgust for the Eebil Muslim Cult and the liberal treasonousness that allows them to practice their religion.
When in college, one thing I noticed in the religious student groups was that the most hardcore, anti-Catholic Protestants and the most hardcore, anti-Protestant Catholics both happened to be the staunchest Republicans in the group. Their ability to appeal to people’s prejudices is almost a work of art.
bemused
The righwing focus is always on females. Whether it’s pregnancy or contraception, they don’t want women or girls to have any control whatsoever over their own bodies. At the same time, mens’ roles in these issues are barely mentioned.
I don’t remember any “principled” pharmacist who refuses to fill prescriptions for emergency/morning after pills also protesting the sale of condoms in that same pharmacy. They should be against anything that prevents pregnancy but it is only birth control women use that must be denied.
JenJen
Excellent post, Tom.
Got me to thinking about an excellent film I saw last year, “A Woman in Berlin.” Somewhat-controversial film based upon the anonymous diary written by a Berlinerin who suffered under the systematic rape of German women by Soviet soldiers, following the fall of Berlin during World War II. Very difficult film to watch, but it hits a lot of your themes.
Joan McMullen
I have been a “lurker” on this site for a long time, but this post galvanized me to speak and I only have two words -“Thank you”.
I have both a sister and a daughter who were raped and these are the most thoughtful words I have read on the subject. It brought tears to my eyes to know that there are men who understand.
Everytime I see a group of “Right to Life” protesters, I am amazed that they are mostly men. It is mind boggling. Again, thanks!
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
@matoko_chan:
Not that you’re reading me, but there’s actually a long, huge, and complex history of prostitution in Islamically-controlled lands. One of the funniest papers I have in my collection of early Ottoman works is one analyzing how Islamic courts of the period dealt with prostitutes. Suffice to say that it was much more like Night Court (“$50 and time served!”) than any of the horrors of so-called “Muslims” today — and this in a time when women were, if anything, even more isolated than during the worst of the Taliban era.
And before you jump in (oh wait, that’s right, you won’t jump in, because you blocked me, whee!) to say “Ottomans don’t count”, I suggest looking up the history and records around the qaina, slave women, during the ‘Abbsid era — the much-lauded “Golden Age” of rulers like al-Rahid. Because, again, of restrictions on women, they (and the male “cup-companions”) were prostituted to their owners and the people they performed for.
And yes, even unto modern times; part of the issue for we belly dancers in Egypt is a connection, in many Egyptians’ minds, to prostitution. This has contributed to making dance artists’, especially native ones, work a living hell in the region. It’s also why belly dancers in America are very sensitive, in many cases, to being compared to strippers and/or burlesque artists…but I’m running off track, here.
So no, Islam has a long association with “women (and men!) of the night.” There’s a very real parallel to the topic of this point in that; slut-shaming, encouraging women to police the behaviors of other women, the struggle around the role of women in these cultures (which isn’t all oppressive) — all this is an old game in many Islamic cultures, but in ways that differ in subtle ways from the Western model.
TheMightyTrowel
This painting is how the republican attitude to women and rape makes me feel.
(translation: stabby)
Citizen_X
In the Spanish Civil War, rape was used systematically by the Fascists to terrorize Republicans in conquered areas. Nationalist troops would paint walls with “Your women will give birth to Fascists” (they did not mean voluntarily), and General Queipo de Llano would broadcast nightly diatribes where he would talk smack about his troops raping leftist women. Here’s an example. It illustrates a lot about the right-wing mind:
(Quoted from Paul Preston’s The Spanish Civil War: Reaction, Revolution, and Revenge, 2007, Norton, pg. 206.)
Original Lee
@bemused: This. Not to mention certain pills to enhance male “performance”.
Chris
@Citizen_X:
Interesting if really, really sick.
The obsession with Real Men reminded me of a few rants I’ve read in the comments sections of wingnut websites, to the effect that immigrants from Latin America and other dark societies didn’t have any respect for women – and that the emasculation of society by the feminist movement meant that there were no more Real Men in America to defend those helpless women from those roving bands of immigrants.
The cult of manhood as practiced by the right (and not only by conservative men) ought to be a subject for a book in itself. As should the tremendous insecurity that goes with it, since women wearing pants in offices are apparently all it takes to make them feel “emasculated.”
aimai
This is in reply to Woodrow (asim) Jarvis up above but I can’t get the function to work. Yes, absolutely, the notion that there’s no prostitution in Islam is a serious confusion of concepts and terms. I’d also like to point out that what is at issue varies from Sunni to Shi’a and I want to recommend a very good book on the subject of the practice of “temporary marriage” in Shi’a law: Law of Desire.
I don’t want to bother rebutting anything Matoko Chan said since its not worth it. But I do want to point out that what we consider “prositution” is a combination of things having to do with ownership over the woman, exclusivity, sacred marriage, and inheritance rights for children. Monetary transactions that are defined as “not prostitution” when they take place within marriage are defined as prostitution when they take place outside of marriage in the western tradition. The western tradition of life long monogamy makes it clear that temporary sexual connections “for” money are a distinct and distinctly disapproved form of sexual connection. But under Shi’a law in Iran short term sexual/social relations are approved under the rubric “temporary” marriage in which a married state is specified for a limited time (three days or 99 years or whatever the parties agree to.) What makes this lawful marriage is that there is a ritual, there is a payment of money or an exchange of gifts, and a disposition is made (theoretically) for any children that result–and also (although its been a long time since I’ve read the book) the couple agree to conform to rituals of purity and pollution associated with sexuality.
Its a fascinating book and worth reading in its entirety. I think what I want to add is that you can’t understand why this form of “marriage” is considered any different from western prostitution (especially since it is engaged in historically in the same sorts of situation in which unmarried/single women have traditionally resorted to prostitution to earn money) until you grasp that Iranian society is anxious to regularize and canalize sexuality and children and make sure that one man’s child is not passed off as another man’s child. What makes this temporary marriage “good” as opposed to “bad” prostitution is the provisions for clean sex, a clean break in the sexual connection between the man and the woman, and provisions for pregnancy–the ownership of the child–that theoretically prevent the woman from marrying into another family and foisting the child of the first family on them.
aimai
bemused
@Original Lee:
The constant tv ads drive me nuts. The only “enhancement” type ad for women (pleasure items) I’ve seen on cable tv have been at 2 am. Actually, it was pretty funny. First scene is the bride’s wedding shower with her girlfriends. Second scene is bride and groom opening gifts received in the mail & THREE gifts were girl toys. The groom yells, “Saaweet!”
There were some health insurance coverage plans that paid for the male enhancement meds but wouldn’t cover birth control for women. I don’t know if that is still true.
Nope, no discrepancies here at all.
cs
@matoko_chan:
Iran, of all places, does have something akin to legalized prostitution. Temporary marriages ( sigheh ) are allowed and either party can ask for money for the privilege. The term of the marriage can be as short as a few minutes. The Sunnis reject this practice but the Shiites still consider it valid. I’m not sure if this is done in other Shiite populations outside of Iran.
thomas Levenson
@TheMightyTrowel: Excellent art, great backstory to the painter/painting.
@aimai: Now that’s a choice piece of art.
Next time the Republicans do something stupid around carnality. I’m guessing we won’t have to wait long.
Hogan
@numbskull:
“I don’t know anyone who ever needed an abortion or got an abortion. I don’t know anyone who was ever raped.”
To which the reply is, “Yeah, like they’d tell YOU.”
El Cid
I didn’t see anyone mentioning the frequent anti-choice argument regarding not permitting abortions for rape victims, even as war crime rapes:
Don’t compound the crime by killing the unborn person inside. That incipient soul didn’t choose to be created in such a way, but now that it exists it deserves even more kindness.
Also, of course, we fundies really, really, really will respect and support that mother whose beautiful child was produced out of such horror. We promise. We really, really will. You can count on it. Scouts honor.
blondie
In a country where almost 1 in 10 people are unemployed, Republican priorities are:
1. Take away health care
2. Hurt rape victims
3. Take away veterans’ benefits
These are their top priorities.
ruemara
@TheMightyTrowel:
I’ve always adored that painting. And many conservatives leave me feeling quite stabby too.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0r9KVfDbP4E/R_ZRpw9gDRI/AAAAAAAAAK8/-iwInxtQzPE/s400/Judith+et+sa+servante,+1618-19.jpg
this one too
Ruckus
@blondie:
1.They think that if things go well for them they will have health care. For them.
2.If they get rid of all the minorities then there won’t be any rape victims. Purity/morality of whites doncha know.
3.They never plan on serving so they won’t be vets and see #1.
OK now I have to set myself on fire to cleanse off the wingnut.
Richard S
Having you, Tom, and Aimai in the same thread is a treat. Question for both of you that’s preoccupied me from time to time over the last few years. I can’t think of a difference between rape and torture that matters. Having Aimai and you use the term war crime for both seems to make sense. Or is there something I’m missing?
matoko_chan
@cs: you are an incredible asshole.
temporary marriage is nothing like prostitution.
THERE IS NO MONEY EXCHANGED MORON.
its like living together in college or a hook up with SOME ONE YOU KNOW you retard.
a kind of try before you buy.
prostitution is slavery for women.
just like anti-abortion laws are slavery for women..
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
@aimai: What you said, man. Thanks for the additional backup, and the book ref. as well.
Ruckus
@Richard S:
Can’t speak for them but I’d say you are missing nothing.