"I am not your wife, sister or daughter. I am a person."

[MadrasT]

Excerpts from: http://bellejarblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/i-am-not-your-wife-sister-or-daughter/

What I do want to tell you is that you need to stop using the “wives, sisters, daughters” argument when you are talking to people defending the Steubenville rapists. Or any rapists. Or anyone who commits any kind of crime, violent or otherwise, against a woman.

In case you’re unfamiliar with this line of rhetoric, it’s the one that goes like this:

You should stop defending the rapists and start caring about the victim. Imagine if she was your sister, or your daughter, or your wife. Imagine how badly you would feel if this happened to a woman that you cared about.

Framing the issue this way for rape apologists can seem useful. I totally get that. It feels like you’re humanizing the victim and making the event more relatable, more sympathetic to the person you’re arguing with.

You know what, though? Saying these things is not helpful; in fact, it’s not even helping to humanize the victim. What you are actually doing is perpetuating rape culture by advancing the idea that a woman is only valuable in so much as she is loved or valued by a man.

These recent appeals to get people to empathize with the victim have bugged me (The "what if it were your wife or daughter?" appeals).

I think this blogger identified why: "What you are actually doing is perpetuating rape culture by advancing the idea that a woman is only valuable in so much as she is loved or valued by a man."

It's as if a woman's value only matters in relationship to the men in her life.

[niyad]

1. the responses to this should prove interesting

[Little Star]

2. I am a person is a great argument....

But I don't get the "a woman's value only matters in relationship to the men in her life"?

I'm a woman and I have a mother, a sister, a daughter and if I were not straight I might very well have a wife. Those people all hold value to me, a woman.

Maybe it's the framing that I have a problem with or maybe someone needs to explain to me what I can't see.

I am actually afraid to hit the send button because I don't want you to be mad at me for asking

[ismnotwasm]

7. They hold value to you

But they don't actually define you, it's a women's personal identity being subsumed by her 'roles'

This idea is often misunderstood. We like or love being mothers, sisters, daughter; we take great joy in it and it enriches our lives (some of us anyway) but in the long struggle of women's rights, too often we WERE defined by our roles, and not as persons in our own right. Even law reflected this, the most obvious being the suffrage monument, but there were others as well, for a long time women were subordinate to their husbands and had no financial autonomy, for instance.

And when we are with our loved ones, we are in our role, we work on it improve on it, it may not define us, or it might occupy much of our time, but its part of the human condition to love and form relationships.

But you, Little Star, are also a full entity in your own right, and you may choose the roles you take on, and to what extent they do define you.

To give (another) personal example; I'm estranged from my sister, it's been so long I rarely think of it. So even though I AM a sister, it has no part of who I am. The details of why are long, strange and sad, and it certainly could change one day, and then I'll take on the mantle-- and role of 'sister'

[Little Star]

8. I agree. The value is in the I am a person. Thanks ism.

[onpatrol98]

3. ???

Quote: "I think this blogger identified why: "What you are actually doing is perpetuating rape culture by advancing the idea that a woman is only valuable in so much as she is loved or valued by a man."
------------
I'm not quite sure what to say. My first impulse (often wrong) is to say this is a ridiculous charge.

Reasons:
1) Wife ==> It's 2013, A wife can be married to a man or a woman.
2) Mother ==> Surprisingly enough, women have mothers, also.
3) Daughter ==> Women have daughters.

Now, if your point is they imply a woman is valuable ONLY if she's loved, maybe I would see it. Then again...no, I really don't.

I think the whole point of mentioning this variety of roles is to say...hey, picture your loved one in this predicament. When I see an old man mistreated, I think...that could have been my father. With my sons, in cases like this, I do say, it could have been me, your grandmother, or a daughter that you may one day have. I think the goal is a noble one. We want people to empathize. We want to raise children who empathize. Empathy suggests placing yourself in someone else's shoes. This is how you do it.

I DO NOT believe we perpetuate the rape culture by suggesting people should consider those they love when things like this happen. Maybe if those other kids had been able to truly empathize, they would've rushed to this young woman's aid. That's the problem we're having. Some of our kids are either cold-blooded and couldn't empathize or cowards.

When the President said Trayvon Martin could have been his son, I was already thinking the same thing. The President has no sons. He was empathizing. And, when they show the picture of him in his team shirt, he actually did look like my 18 year old son in a similar team shirt.

When the President said that was he perpetuating the murder culture? No, he was a man grieved by the thought that a child was dead, and he could have been mourning the death of his own child had the circumstances been different.

This is the ultimate humanity. When my neighbor hurts, I hurt. Be they black, white, republican, democrat, American, or otherwise...people with feelings empathize and sympathize. We're connected.

So, I think I'll file that blogger's notion under useless.

[seabeyond]

14. as a whole we see men as a person, we do not need to title them as someone we love to see them as a

person. to talk about what happens to a man, we do not need to say see him as a brother, or father. we can already see him as a person. we do not need a toold to bring him to being a person.

as a society we create women as things to be used. a tool. not a person. objectified. pornified. and accessory. and the need to humanize her by constantly reminding a man do not think of her as your porn to use, or product to use, or a thing.... think of her as your sister. humanizing her so empathy can be felt.

[ismnotwasm]

4. I actually read this

I understand it. There is also the notion that rape shouldn't take a placating emotional plea in order for it to be seen as wrong.

One of the recently much maligned 'feminist theory's' acknowledges this, a woman's agency as wife sister daughter overshadows 'human being' in a intrusive way that removes possible life choices and in a way men don't experience.

Women say 'I AM a wife daughter sister, not realizing the loss of agency. If you talk to older, in fact elder women, they might talk about this, this loss of personal identity "it seems I've always been a 'wife'" or "I took care of everybody, I wish I would have done this or that when I was younger"

That being said, as screwed up as we are as a rape culture, that 'wife sister daughter' emotional appeal is what people are going to react to. Not rape culture itself, it's to abstract for many people grasp, apparently because you know they're not rapists right?

[Z_I_Peevey]

5. I think the sentiment by the blogger and the OP could be better understood as:

"What you are actually doing is perpetuating rape culture by advancing the idea that a woman is only valuable insomuch as she serves others." That we are valuable only in relationship to others, not as human beings in our own right.

It's a valid point.

[MadrasT]

6. ^^^ yes ^^^

Thank you.

[seabeyond]

15. yes. this is what i was seeing. but further. not only to serve, but a tool to be used. nt

[yodermon]

9. This is a shortsighted critique.

The point of the "appeal to empathy" is to try to get the listener, whom we assume a priori *has no (or low) empathy for a "random" rape victim*, to advance their awareness and compassion to ALL women, regardless of their relationship to the listener.

The end goal of such an exchange is PRECISELY for the listener to move past the idea that compassion is reserved soley for those women in his life, and should be extended to ALL women, on principle, full stop. The "women in your life" angle is meant to be the catalyst for the listener's growth in this area. The exchange is NOT meant to start and end with women defined by their relationships to men.

Just my opinion.

[ismnotwasm]

10. The objection comes from history

When a women's worth was embodied in how well she performed traditional roles.

Rape culture perpetuates the same type of idea, but this is gong to be misunderstood. So objecting to it is going to be of limited use. You are correct, people will make the impersonal personal if they internalize the idea.

Nicely phrased logic BTW, you should come in and spice up the philosophy group some are trying to start.

[seabeyond]

16. you do not hear us have to say, think of him as your father, or brother. we do not need to humanize

a man in order to be able to empathize. he is already seen as a person, independent of being a loved one.

the point is, why the need to have to humanize a woman in order to empathize.

and in having to humanize a woman in order to empathize her rape, then we are still creating separateness.... even more... reinforcing the seperateness of a person and a thing.

[yodermon]

22. I think we're talking past each other just a bit.

OF COURSE the *ideal* is to NOT NEED to engage in appeals to empathy like this.
The IDEAL is that men fully recognize each woman's humanity without the need to "personalize" them.

Are we at this ideal? No of course not. But the process of moving from point A ("she was kind of asking for it&quot to point C ("this is intolerable for all women, everywhere, full stop&quot some men may need to pass through point B ("imagine if she was your loved one&quot .

We are fighting against a rape culture after all, which is fully subsumed in "point A". And as great as it would be to teleport directly from A to C, that probably won't happen. I think empathy sorely lacking in all spheres of our culture and a healthy dose of it would help in all sorts of ways, e.g. health care ("imagine if it was *your* dad going bankrupt from medical bills&quot to war ("imagine if it was your cousins being bombed to oblivion&quot etc etc. Even though we shouldn't have to pretend its our actual family that's suffering before we are prompted to do the right thing. So i cringe whenever i see empathy criticized, even obliquely. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, to overuse a cliche.

PS: How's this for a way to bridge this gap, imagine a PSA like this:

"When it comes to human dignity and freedom from violence and violation,
ALL WOMEN ARE MY MOTHER
ALL WOMEN ARE MY SISTER
ALL WOMEN ARE MY DAUGHTER"

(the audience being all who've been bombarded with the "imagine she was your daughter" meme recently).

[Squinch]

18. I agree about why the phrase is used, and I also agree that with some listeners it is

the closest you will get to getting the listener to relate to the victim. But it DOES say something about the percieved relationship of the victim to the listener.

You say this phrase mostly to men, to get them to humanize the victim. But if the victim were a man, you would say, "Imagine if it were you" rather than "imagine if it were your son, father, brother." You wouldn't need to humanize the victim.

[Scout]

11. makes me think of the definition of chivalry

"a man's inclination to protect a woman from every man but himself."

i.e., if he doesn't find you fuckable you are not of interest.
hate to think how many men in our world are so base, so uncivilized to have this attitude, but they are out there. probably not the majority, at least i hope not.

[redqueen]

12. Hear, hear!

I hate that tactic.

[seabeyond]

13. point. and you are right. but it is the objectification/pornification of all girls and women

that makes us feel the need to say. and yes, it creates more of an issue and reinforce the "other". to have to bring a mans brain to the point of seeing a woman as human, we do this. there should not be the need to have two very separate views of female. a thing. and a person.

[Squinch]

19. As usual

I read your post, and my immediate thought was, "oh, wait a second." And then, as usual, I thought about it, and realized you are right.

It is a need to take the listener away from viewing a woman as an abstraction and toward viewing her as a fellow human. And the step I was missing in my knee jerk response was: why are we viewing her as an abstraction and not a human in the first place?

[seabeyond]

21. it is an interesting perspective. i have been coming back to this much of the day.

the thought about this is growing. the inherent selfishness that the male is privilege with and the inability to do to women what they do, if the thought of them as people. hence their need for the default to be a thing.

i am gonna do some research tomorrow on this.

[Squinch]

17. This never occurred to me. When a man is victimized, we say, "Imagine if it happened to you."

When it is a woman, we say, "Imagine if happened to your wife, sister or daughter."

This assumes that the relevant listener is a man. And it puts the person you are talking about at one remove from the listener.

It's pretty interesting how these things never occur to you, and then when they are pointed out, they seem very clear.

[redqueen]

20. Reminds me of the Sinfest comic about the patriarchy.

We are all agents and collaborators, reinforcing it unconsciously.

Even after you know it's there, some aspects are still almost invisible. As the man said, the last thing a fish would notice would be water.

[gollygee]

23. That is a very good observation

and you're right.

[Nikia]

24. I know what you mean because I know men that put women into one of two categories

1. Women who are family members or part of their social community. They are deserving of respect and protection.
2. All other women who they objectify, discuss sexually, sometimes sexually harass, or worse.
Even as a woman, I have witnessed this and as a man, my husband has to a greater extent because men hide it less when talking to other men. It has really bothered me when I realized that I had male friends like this.

[redqueen]

25. There's a comment in a thread right now, mentioning the distinction between violence and 'domestic'

violence... between rape and 'molestation'.

I am biting my tongue so hard it's bleeding. It is ownership of women (and children). This is yet another symptom of patriarchy.

Women have more value and are more worthy of consideration and empathy if they're YOUR women. Violence and rape done to YOUR property BY YOU is not as bad as violence done by someone else to someone else's property.

I just want to scream... it is the patriarchy... wake up.

[Kalidurga]

26. I think you have a great point..

I don't know if perpetuate is the way I feel about it though. I think the phrasing can only happen because of rape culture. If women were already seen as fully human it probably wouldn't be a popular meme But, I don't think that is the same as that meme perpetuating the culture. It might just be the only way to work within the culture to get empathy for victims of rape, abuse, and assault. I would like to see more of an effort aimed at men to have them think about if it was them that was being raped. They might understand how they would feel if they themselves were violated. But, I am thinking many would just believe that can never happen to them because they are men.

[MotherPetrie]

27. K&R -- and I hate when Obama does that in speeches, too -- he did it in the State of Union recently

As if his speech is addressed solely to men and women are just peripheral.
It's just patronizing.

[Moonwalk]

28. Though true of how women were/are viewed, I think it's extended out to all victims in the U.S.--

----think of Trayvon Martin who's killing was defended to the point where Obama felt he had to say, "he might have been my son" or those cops that Doner killed and no one seemed to care until it was emphasized in the newspapers that they were married and had families.

Which is to say, I agree wholeheartedly that we, as a society, don't see women as people and the primary job of feminism is to make sure both men and women see women as people, not as things or extensions of men or second class citizens. BUT, I wonder if our society hasn't extended out from women--and minorities come to that--and instead of including all in personhood gone in the opposite direction. We've become highly narcissistic, infected by the GOP way of thinking (if it doesn't affect them personally it doesn't matter), as well as that of Hollywood action movies where the hero(ine) won't fight for the right unless he/she has lost someone that mattered, personally, to him/her.

I see this as starting in the 80's and developing to epidemic proportions till it now seems to have infected most of America. No one, not even the little kids of Sandy Hook are people if they're not personalized. Unless you ask, "What if it was your kid/wife/father?" and make the one you're talking to feel it personally, then any victim, be they man, woman or child, seems to be a non-person these days.

Which puts us in a Catch-22. If we don't use the "what if it was your kid/wife/father?" we don't get the narcissist on our side. But if we only use that, we're catering to the narcissist's way of thinking and making sure that no one is a person until personalized. How do we clean out what I estimate to be at least thirty years of reinforced, national narcissism?

[pansypoo53219]

29. golden rule, do unto others....