In recent days, I've been thinking a lot about the "you must scream when you're raped" rule...[thanks Big Tex for the correspondence on this issue]. Then I read a column by Mindelle Jacobs in our London Free Press (I believe she writes for the Edmonton Sun) that inspired me to write the following rebuttal...Although not JW specific, it might still be of interest to some on this forum. Thanks for reading and any feedback you may care to contribute!
_________________________________________________________________
By Donald D'Haene
When I first began reading Their Lives in Their Hands by Mindelle Jacobs (Jan. 14), a shiver ran down the length of my spine and a knot formed in the pit of my stomach.
Nevertheless, I kept an open mind. Jacobs praises The Sexual Assault Network of Edmonton's public awareness campaign to inform women there are options when confronted by a potential rapist.
But by the time I got to this line, "Perhaps rapists will think twice if they think theyll meet fierce resistance", that knot burst into frayed ropes.
It's not that I disagree, "that fighting off would-be rapists is appropriate in some cases". I just don't want to see one more guilt trip laid on women who have been sexually assaulted and are made to feel that not screaming and/or not fighting is labelled do(ing) nothing!
Jacobs accomplishes this in not-so-subtle ways. She praises women who use force to resist rape calling it a "viable alternative". She quotes a male prosecutor who suggested to reporters that victims should "fight back and not submit", adding, "He hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that physical injuries heal a lot faster than the emotional scars."
Tell that to my close friends "Mary" and "Natalie".
"Mary" was a sixteen-year-old virgin who was asked to join her workmate on a double date. Her twenty-something friend promised she would never leave Mary alone. They would go out for dinner and then back to the workmates home for a house party. Later that evening, as soon as the workmate and her boyfriend left Mary and her date alone in the living room to go to an adjoining room, Max made it clear a sexual act was going to take place. Mary screamed for her friends' help. Neither responded. She ran to the phone. Max grabbed the phone and used it to bash Mary on the head. She fought and screamed during the entire rape, but to no avail.
"Natalie" was asked if she needed a ride home from one of her fellow University students. Pulling to the side of the road, Sam pulled out a knife and lay it on the dashboard. No words were spoken. Natalie was raped and although emotionally numb to the experience itself, her survival was foremost on her mind.
Both rapes happened more than twenty years ago.
One fought. One didn't.
Mary screamed. Natalie froze in silence.
Although both women reacted in completely different ways, both share emotional scars, feelings of guilt and shame, and both asked, "Could I have done more?"
Jacob's column was entitled "Their lives in their hands". She thinks?
And Jacobs states, "Demonstrations of female power are well and good. But the psychological mantle of victimhood has diminished such efforts."
I suggest the psychological mantle of victimhood will be helped more by demonstrations of understanding and empathy and less by columns that judge a womans choice to do "nothing" when a perpetrator is doing "something."
Are we still asking, did she stop it, instead of, why did he do it?
This public awareness campaign by Sexual Assault Network of Edmonton is comprised of police, prosecutors, nurses and local sexual assault centres. The group's unfortunate acronym is SANE.
Sometimes I wonder.
Edited by - morrisamb on 14 January 2003 22:7:52