When news like this comes out, I lose the little hope I had for humanity (womanity in particular). The results of a British Home Office survey of people’s attitudes towards violence against women are disturbing. The survey was conducted in England and Wales.
Between ten and 20 percent of respondents think it is acceptable, in at least some circumstances, for a man to use violence against his wife or girlfriend in response to “nagging,” flirting with other men, wearing sexy or revealing clothes in public, and not “treating him with respect” (whatever the hell that means). The full report can be found here; it includes some handy dandy charts.
What’s surprising is that a higher percentage of people think it’s acceptable to use violence against a woman if her clothing is revealing than if she’s cheated. According to the poll, respondents consider wearing sexy clothes in public the biggest transgression of them all. The poll found that those aged 25-39 were most likely to think there are circumstances in which it’s acceptable for a man to use violence against his female partner. I often hear people claim that chauvinism will decline as people in the older generation die out. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be an sound prediction.
Attitudes towards sexual assault are even more depressing. The survey asked people whether women should be held fully responsible, partially responsible, or not responsible at all in several sexual violence scenarios. It’s unsurprising – though appalling – that 17 percent hold prostitutes responsible if they are raped. 49 percent believe women who have not clearly said “no” are at least partially responsible if they are raped. In other words, they consider sexual availability and willingness women’s default. People over age 65 and those in lower social class groups are most likely to hold women at least partly responsible for being raped or sexually assaulted.
I just don’t know what to do. Legislation and stricter law enforcement are important, but people’s attitudes have to change in order for social progress to occur. And people – men and women both – are victim-blamers: Violence against women is sometimes warranted – and we’re not talking self-defense here. Sexual assault and rape are just the natural consequences of walking alone at night and flirting heavily; she brought it on herself.
Feminism is still necessary. But are we even making any headway?
“In other words, they consider sexual availability and willingness women’s default.”
Well, to be fair, women do walk around with our vaginas all open and just ready to be f**ked. Why can’t we be more like men, with some sort of flaccid appendage to indicate our unwillingness?
/sad, sad sarcasm
It looks like the older crowd was most likely to hold women responsible for their own rapes, but I find it incredibly shocking that 25-39 year olds are the most likely to think it is ok to hit a woman in “some circumstances.” What does that mean? Why does the younger (but not youngest) generation actually accept violence MORE than their elders? I really have no words and feel devoid of insight.
I can’t even come up with a coherent comment on this. What can we possibly do? This isn’t something a letter-writing campaign can solve. This is just how some people think.
This makes me want to cry, except I can’t, because I’m at work. Clearly “no means no” didn’t go far enough. We need an “ONLY yes means yes” campaign. Unless you have clear CONSENT to sex, you should not have sex. Period.
Crazily enough, I originally got this idea from a sex book intended for married Christians. The author, whom I’m sure I could find many points of disagreement with otherwise, actually suggested that husbands should always have clear, vocal consent from their wives before they penetrate them in any way, and pointed to past trauma as a particular reason to always get clear consent that it is OK to proceed with penetration. Not something you usually hear from the kinds of folks who usually seem to suggest that the very fact of being a wife (or a woman) is all the consent a woman needs to give. But I think in light of this article, in which you’re responsible for sex if you somehow don’t get your “no” across clearly enough, as if consent is default, that an “ONLY YES MEANS YES” campaign is really necessary.
Sometimes I wonder if it would be better to use contract principles instead of criminal law to regulate consent in sex. But I’m sure that is a black hole of horror as well.
jdregent: This reminds me of the time I went to see Leaving Las Vegas with two guys from law school. One was my BFF, but the other guy was his dorky friend who was a complete bastard. I didn’t know the jerk was coming with and so imagine my horror when during the movie, my BFF gets up and moves to sit a row away from me and the jerk. Later, I sent him an e-mail that said, “How could you have left me sitting there during a rape scene (he knew I’d been raped) with a person who thinks the remedy for the same can be found in Article 2 of the UCC?” Little did I know that the jerk would be reading BFF’s e-mail over his shoulder and his response was, apparently, “Hey, that’s not a bad idea!” Ugh. Oh, and why he moved? The BFF said the jerk smelled bad and he had to get away from him. ???
HA HA HA/vomit/shiver. he SMELLED bad? interesting. i usually found law school assholes to be impeccably groomed. so i guess you’re saying contract law is no better? i haven’t thought about contracts since like 2003, so I’m just throwing shit out there.
Funnyface, that’s what Yes Means Yes is about. It’s amazing to envision a world wherein “yes” is the standard rather than “no.”
But are we even making any headway?
If it’s 20%, then, well, yes, I would say that’s headway compared to twenty years ago.