When I saw
this article on the CNN website I just shook my head. It was perhaps one of the clearest examples of the "all kinds of wrong" ideas presented in the common conversation that dominates the discussion of rape.
As I read the piece my mind went back to my
January rebut of the Ebony.com piece "Stop Telling Women How to Not Get Raped". In it I said the following which encapsulates my position on "rape advice:
I don't know about Ms. Maxwell, but I would prefer to not deal with after the fact.
"After the fact" being, the doctor visits, the trial, the emotional scars, etc. This is my overarching concern here. It is not satisfactory to me to have to comfort a woman who has been raped when I have the opportunity to help her avoid the situation all together. To that end let's look at what I pointed out in my January piece and see how it relates to the events in Annapolis:
Marquet said she got sick over a holiday weekend and stayed behind on campus. Her roommate was out of town and she was alone in her room.
It was then, Marquet, said, that an upperclassman she knew showed up at her door late one night to talk "girl troubles."
"I kind of felt cool that an upperclassman wanted to be friends with me and was seeking my advice," Marquet recalls.
So she's sick. Some "upperclass" male that she "doesn't know well" decides to come over to talk about "girl troubles". Not to see how she is doing. Not to offer to get her medicine. Not to simply check to see if she's feeling OK but to talk girl troubles. OK. This is the point where you say "Thanks for checking on me. I'm tired so I'm going back to bed. Call me later."
Anyway...
After a drink, Marquet said, he persuaded her to go to his room.
Karley Marquet became "depressed and suicidal" after the alleged incident and dropped out of West Point.
"I just remember getting more and more intoxicated and my judgment really started to become impaired. ... I remember him turning off the lights and me asking, 'What are you doing?' And then he proceeded to rape me."
Marquet said she woke up disoriented, in physical pain, afraid to come forward.
Sick, she decides to drink up with dude she barely knows but "trusts" because his entire claim to being trustworthy is being what? an upperclassman? She's getting more and more intoxicated with a man she does not know well at all? Why?
Why hadn't someone informed her that studies:
Informs us of a group of 1,882 men out of whom 120 self reported acts that met the legal definition of rape. For you math heads out there that means of the group only 6% of the men self reported legal rape.
Furthermore the report showed that the majority, 80% of these men committed rapes on women who were "incapacitated" due to drug or alcohol use
Had this young woman been
educated in the ways that the vast majority of rapists behave, she would not have allowed herself to become intoxicated by a man she barely knew. Had she had this little piece of information her chances of being raped would have dropped
80 percent.
If knowledge is power, who's advice, given in January of 2012 would have been more helpful?
Before I deal with the perpetrator in this account let me move to the second Annapolis case:
During one of he first weekends at the academy, Kendzior was invited to a party off campus. "I was like, 'OK, cool! College, finally! I can live the college life for one night."
But Kendzior said she had way too much to drink, so when a fellow midshipman offered her a place to crash, she accepted.
"I was like, 'OK, you know, it will be fine. I trust you. You're an upperclass," Kendzior remembers, "Because that's what they teach you, to trust your upperclass."
But Kendzior says that didn't happen. She was raped.
"At one point in the middle of the night, I did come to and he was on top of me," Kendzior said. "And I remember saying 'No,' but I just passed out again.
Again we have a young women 'trusting" males she knows nothing about other than "upperclassman". I am failing to understand what parent does not educate their daughter better than that
for their own protection.
Secondly, notice the alcohol again. Had this young woman not gotten "passed out" drunk she would have decreased her chance of being raped by
80 percent.
Let's return to my January piece:
Let's pause here for a minute. If we go back to Ms. Maxwell's position that it is "offensive" and "ineffective" to advise women to not get drunk, how do we reconcile such a position with the above fact? It seems quite clear that advising women to not get drunk or otherwise incapacitated would possibly reduce the incident of rape by 80%.
I wonder if the young women in question would rather have been "insulted" by being told not to get passed out drunk around men they do not know and not have gone through "bouts of depression" and of course the specter of an STD. I don't know about you, but I would far prefer to be "insulted" and whole of body.
There are folks who left this piece a long time ago because they are of the opinion that I am "blaming the victim" and letting the rapist off the hook. That is not the case. The behaviors of these males are exactly as I discussed back in January. Serial rapists, and I am certain that these guys are in fact serial rapists have a specific M.O. Like any other criminal, if you understand how they operate then you can present a less "appealing" target. And this is what it is about: Not being an appealing target.
Let's go back to my January piece. I quoted Mz. Maxwell's position in regards on how to stop rape:
We need anti-rape campaigns that target young men and boys. Campaigns that teach them from a young age how to respect women, and ultimately themselves, and to never ever be rapists. In addition, we should implore our men and boys to call out their friends, relatives, and classmates for inappropriate behavior and create systems of accountability amongst them.
Let's take a look at these two cases. As is typical of serial rapists, the first perpetrator got the victim alone. This means that no matter how many "good men" there were on campus, not a
single one would have been in a position to do anything to help her. Newsflash people: most of these criminals avoid situations that would bring them to the attention of other males. Why? These criminals understand that their behavior is deemed unacceptable by the vast majority of males. The criminal
knows his or her behavior is wrong but they simply
do not care. No amount of educational campaigns will change this.
In the second case,once again, the perpetrator removed the young woman from the gathering so as to keep his actions from being witnessed by other males who we suppose would have intervened. Think about it, some girl at a party is falling out drunk. A guy offers to take her home/his place to "crash". Even if you think something is "wrong", what do you do? Ask the guy what he's doing? Exactly what "looks" wrong about a guy who seems concerned about a woman's well being offering her a place to "sleep it off"? I don't care how "good" the set of men are in this situation, they are unlikely to step in because there is no "probable cause" to do so.
In light of that overwhelming evidence that "education" would have done squat for these women. That the presence of "good men" would have done squat for these women. What are we left with? Allowing the women to be victims because the criminal should have had better morals? If you like your women to be victims I suppose that's what you could go with. Me? I prefer to tell young women in these environments to not get passed out drunk at frat(like) parties. Don't get passed out drunk with upper clansmen who are visiting you while you are vulnerable (sick) and offering you alcohol. Establish a relationship with these men so you can get to know them before letting down you guards. Reducing your chances of being raped by 80% is worth it.
