When there is sexual assault on a woman, it is bizarrely the woman who is accused, admonished, examined and put on trial in a sense. Where was she, with whom, at what time? Though it is the woman who is attacked, it is her character, her actions that come under scrutiny. The way a woman is dressed at the time of attack becomes a major talking point. Some men decided to shed light on this – because typically, in a patriarchal society men listen only to men; even if the subject matter is crimes against women.
The Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) launched a unique protest, where men came out to clarify a few points about the commonly held view about the causes of rapes. The men came out in shorts and little else with messages scrawled across their bare chests to send out some important messages about consent and more: clothes don’t cause rapes, and what a woman wears cannot indicate consent.
I feel safe in these Boxers. How much fabric does she need to feel safe? Asked one placard. A Delhi University man pointed out that as a man, he feels safe walking about half naked but if a woman so much as wears a sleeveless top, she is leered at.
Questioning the actions of the victim instead of the perpetrator of the crime is seen not only in India but in many other places to a lesser or larger extent. It holds a woman responsible for being attacked because of where she was, with whom etc. Her behavior at the time of the assault and at all other times comes into question. Her job, her lifestyle, her habits and her beliefs all come under scrutiny and any or all of them may be blamed.
Victim blaming not only makes it harder for a woman to survive and recover from her ordeal, it actually makes it harder to prevent future rapes as well. Knowing how traumatic the experience as well as the aftermath is, would deter other women from coming forward and reporting rapes and assaults. The attitude of the police and statements by political leaders which also shame and blame victims adds to the problem.
Babies and infants are sexually assaulted. Women in burqas and ghoonghats are raped. Women from socially or economically depressed groups are raped and assaulted when in the poorest and most non-enticing of garbs. The fact is that morals or character of the victim are immaterial. Victim blaming is a cowardly cop-out, just convenient ways for those in positions of authority to absolve themselves of responsibility. The fact is that in a majority of cases of sexual assault, the perpetrators are not strangers; they are known to the victim.
The fact is that ‘she was asking for it’ or ‘she didn’t really say no’ are excuses that just don’t hold up to scrutiny. For every man who says that the drunk state of a woman indicated willingness; would he pardon a man or a woman taking his expensive watch while he was drunk simply beacuse he didn’t or was in no shape to say ‘no’? For every predator (or his sympathizer) who says he couldn’t control himself because he was provoked by how she was dressed; would they think that a swanky car is provocation enough for a poor person to vandalize or steal that car?
In our patriarchal society, there is yet another stick that is used to beat up sexual assault survivors – westernization or ‘western values’. The attitude being that Indian culture is good, if bad things happen it is down to the westernizing influence; particularly on women. For instance mass molestation of women on New Year’s Eve was blamed squarely on westernization: it is a western observance, women were wearing western clothes and were out late at night (copying westerners presumably), so women, more particularly ‘westernized’ women are to blame.
What twisted logic is this that fails to place blame squarely on the perpetrator of an invasive, violating, violent crime; choosing instead to excuse this behavior or to pin part of the blame on the victim, the circumstances, modernization or anything else? How is ‘No means no’ ambiguous in any way at all? Why are concepts of consent still unclear? Survivors deserve support not scrutiny.
To my mind it is quite simple: rapists cause rape, not clothes, makeup, character of the victim or the perceived lack thereof. If a dog bit someone, do we blame the person for being at the wrong place at the wrong time or for having provocative legs or an irresistable rear end or whatever? And if we do say that the human provoked the dog, surely we should hold men up to a higher standard than an animal with an instinct to attack? Should a man not have better self control than a dog?
Do you have something interesting you would like to share? Write to us at [email protected]
