A wonderfully written piece:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-18/meagher-the-danger-of-the-monster-myth/5399108
'One of the most dangerous things about the media saturation of this crime was that Bayley is
in fact the archetypal monster. Bayley feeds into a commonly held
social myth that most men who commit rape are like him, violent
strangers who stalk their victims and strike at the opportune moment. It
gives a disproportionate focus to the rarest of rapes, ignoring the
catalogue of non-consensual sex happening on a daily basis everywhere on
the planet. It validates a limitation of the freedom of women, by
persisting with an obsession with a victim's movements rather than the
vile actions of the perpetrator, while simultaneously creating a "canary
down the mine" scenario. Men who may feel uncomfortable by a peer's
behaviour towards women, may absolve themselves from interfering with
male group norms, or breaking ranks with the boys by normalising that
conduct in relation to "the rapist". In other words he can justify his
friend's behaviour by comparison: "He may be a ___, but he's not Adrian
Bayley."
The monster myth allows us to see public infractions on
women's sovereignty as minor, because the man committing the infraction
is not a monster like Bayley. We see instances of this occur in bars
when men become furious and verbally abusive to, or about, women who
decline their attention. We see it on the street as groups of men shout
comments, grab, grope and intimidate women with friends either ignoring
or getting involved in the activity. We see it in male peer groups where
rape-jokes and disrespectful attitudes towards women go uncontested.
The
monster myth creates the illusion that this is simply banter, and
sexist horseplay. While most of us would never abide racist comments
among a male peer-group, the trivialisation of men's violence against
women often remains a staple, invidious, and rather boring subject of
mirth. We can either examine this by setting our standards against the
monster-rapist, or by accepting that this behaviour intrinsically
contributes to a culture in which rape and violence are allowed to
exist.
....
The idea of the lurking monster is no doubt a useful myth, one we can
use to defuse any fear of the women we love being hurt, without the need
to examine ourselves or our male-dominated society. It is also an
excuse to implement a set of rules on women on "how not to get raped",
which is a strange cocktail of naiveté and cynicism. It is naïve because
it views rapists as a monolithic group of thigh-rubbing predators with a
checklist rather than the bloke you just passed in the office, pub or
gym, cynical because these rules allow us to classify victims. If the
victim was wearing x or drinking y well then of course the monster is
going to attack - didn't she read the rules? I have often come up
against people on this point who claim that they're just being
"realistic". While it may come from a place of concern, if we're being
realistic we need to look at how and where rape and violence actually
occur, and how troubling it is that we use a nebulous term like
"reality" to condone the imposition of dress codes, acceptable
behaviours, and living spaces on women to avoid a mythical rape-monster.
Ok, this rape-monster did exist in the form of Adrian Bayley, but no
amount of adherence to these ill-conceived rules could have stopped him
from raping somebody that night.'
--------------------------------------------------------------
On a related note, we've been completely overlooking the big issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment