How to Protect Rapists
Hind Mohammad Eid, An 11- year-old Egyptian girl, was raped. She gave birth to a child. Her case seems to have attracted attention and Suzan Mubarak, Egypt's First Lady, issued orders to take care of the mother and child and to open an investigation. (in Arabic)
As if this is a special case!!
But the overall reaction to Hind's rape is to make girls wear the veil regardless of how young they are. While some religious figures see this as an overreaction (since in Islam the veil is for menstruating females), others are encouraging it, and parents are obliging, carting off their little girls to veil land.
What is the connection between rape and veiling?
Well, the patriarchal logic goes like this: if a girl or a woman gets raped, it is because she was provocative. She was not fully covered and therefore it is her fault. So a 7-year- old girl who is raped is to blame. Or at least her parents are to blame because they left her exposed, thus tempting some man to rape her.
According to this logic, the girl must be veiled to protect the man from temptation. He is the victim.
Rapists rape girls as young as one year old. Shall we veil those temptresses too? Rapists rape men and boys. Why don't we veil those seducers as well?
Let us veil the whole universe to protect rapists from temptation. Veil the trees, veil the sea, and don't forget the air because all can be sensuous, all can be sensual, all can be dangerous.
And rapists, we all know, must be protected.
Labels: rape
posted by Amal A @ 8:21 AM
7 comments
links to this post
7 Comments:
You forget to ask to veil the goats! :) Poor things!
I agree with you that the position of many regarding underage hijab is really laughable. But Jumping to conclusions is more media than science...
Now, I don't know why you enjoy taking a single side of the whole story and just expand on it in your usual anti "patriarchal" argument. It's getting pretty boring
For the case of Hend, which I have been following up through Zannobia's blog. After exposing the fact in a court of law, here are the surprises
1) The girl was proved forensically to be between 15 and 16 years old.
2) The accused Rapist, was proved (through DNA test) NOT to be the father
3) Some lawyers withdrew from the session -for some reason- I don't want to speculate
Qwaider,
long time no see!!
Sorry for being boring; I'll try to jazz things up.
But seriously in what way are the three points you list about the case contradict my position? I'd say they are irrelevant. My post is taking issue with the argument that veiling of women and girls is the answer to rape. I'm saying that's BS.
Do you disagree with that?
No I don't disagree with that, but I can't help noticing you push your beliefs in the middle of the issue which is what I did as well :) "Oops! Did I say that out loud!?"
Now, I agree with you, that Veil alone is not a shield against rape! (If that was the case, then Saudi would have 0 cases of rape, which is farthest from reality)
In this respect, I really appreciate the Jordanian law adding the death sentence for any underage rape (doesn't matter what the gender is) I think such strong consequence might work as a good deterrent against these matters.
Rape appears to be a male only crime. (lets face it, how many documented cases of women raping men?) There are many reasons for it. And potentially many remedies, someone's version was veiling (doesn't work ... Saudi is an example) what does? No body knows
But the issue of jamming in a patriarchal society is what's getting pretty old... lets try to find the real issues. That would help everyone
Qwaider,
I don't think Amal - or anyone - can be accused of "jamming in a patriarchal society": for the reason that we're all always already jammed into a patriarchal society. You too.
And you are right, it is old; that is precisely why we complain about it. Enough already!
But I like the idea of Jammin' in a patriarchal society - very Bob Marley...
kb
Qwaider said: "I ... appreciate the ... law adding the death sentence for any underage rape ... I think such strong consequence MIGHT WORK as a good DETERRENT against these matters." (capitalization added).
In the U.S., both adult-on-adult rape and adult-on-adolescent rape (statutory rape) are decided by state criminal law, and, since these cases are nearly always decided by juries, it is not clear that the death sentence would act as a deterrent. In the U.S. state of Georgia, where I live, studies show that perpetrators of apparently both premeditated and impulsive violent crimes are not deterred by awareness of the punishment (including the death penalty) because these perpetrators expect not to be detected or apprehended. In cases of adult-on-adult rape, it's likely that male perpetrators, even if apprehended, expect not to be convicted because American juries can be manipulated into blaming the female victim. In the case of adult-on-adolescent rape (statutory rape), a death sentence for underage rape might actually deter juries from convicting a male perpetrator even if DNA evidence convinced them that the defendant was guilty. On the other hand, in cases of prepubertal rape (child molestation), American juries might actually be glad to convict of a capital crime -- but it still might not deter potential child rapists if the rapist expects the child not to report the crime or not to be believed if it's reported. I transcribe hospital charts for a living, which include child protection cases, and judging from the reports that I transcribe, apparently the alleged perpetrators don't expect to be apprehended or at least don't weigh consequences to themselves when they commit the crime. So even for child molesters, a death penalty might not be a deterrent -- although it would eliminate recidivism after conviction.
I've led focus groups with male rapists and not one of them, once they were able to articulate what they felt, said their motivation was sexual. Not one said their desire to rape was driven by the appearance of the girl, boy, man, or woman. Their desire to rape was driven by a compulsion for control, for power, and they chose their victims based on availability and vulnerability. NOT based on whether or not that individual was clothed in such a way that they became aroused.
In fact, veiled women are often perceived as MORE vulnerable, and therefore more desirable victims. Conversely, high heels and tight skirts are more difficult to run in. This is the reason some rapists have chosen victims dressed in this way. Not because they're enticing, but because they're more vulnerable due to decreased mobility.
Rape is not a sexual act, but is classified as a violent act. We've determined that clinically in the states, but not societally yet. We still have victims living in shame with massive underreporting because the victim feels that somehow it was their fault.
As for libido? It's a scientific fact that women have higher libidos than men. End of discussion on that as a possible factor.
What about the "she was too enticing" clause? Let's break that down. Let's use "normal" people for this, just so we don't get confused here.
Situation 1:
Sexual attraction happens between two people. As in, they're attracted to each other. There's a chemical interchange. If one person does not feel the attraction, the person feeling attracted can't conceive of acting on this attraction because there's no reciprocity.
I'm going to try to be as tactful as possible here...
Situation 2:
Partner 1 is very aroused and really wants to become intimate. Partner 2 is not in the mood. Partner 1 tries to arouse Partner 2. Partner 2 continues to insist they are not in the mood, and further tells Partner 1 to stop trying.
Reaction of Partner 1 can span the gamut from pouting to frustration to total shut down. The physiological response of Partner 1 is usually a loss of drive, and loss of the body's readiness to engage.
The reaction of Partner 1--whom we've established as a "normal" individual--is NOT to force themselves on Partner 2. Their arousal is squashed when they hurt their partner, are rejected by their partner, or realize their partner is ill or otherwise incapacitated.
Their arousal is squashed, not heightened by refusal or pain or fear. A rapist is aroused by vulnerability... pain or fear or refusal, fight or flight, etc.
Severely mentally handicapped people, people in wheelchairs, blind people, weak people... are they trying to be provocative? Does that read as absurd as it does in my head?
Was this long enough? :D
Something like this actually came up at Pandagon a while ago. A bunch of Christian fundies, came up with a list of 'stumbling block', faced by men who wanted to be modest, but am tempted by the very existence of women who dared to not hide themselves.
In response;
President-for-Life Sheelzebub institutes her new Stumbling Block Prevention Program
Posted by April 20, 2007 in Personal Security, Conservatism, Fashion
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/20/president-for-life-sheelzebub-institutes-her-new-stumbling-block-prevention-program/
Blindfolds for men! If it's men who couldn't stop noticing the women, let the men wear the blindfold.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home