It's In The Interest Of Academic Feminists To Create Perpetual Clients
Feminism, as of late, is too often a way to unearned power over others -- and part of that involves getting all women to believe they are victims and ruined for life by whatever happens to them. I write about my views on how pernicious this is here, at Quillette:
Feminism now regularly calls for women to be treated as eggshells instead of equals. And through this, it does something pernicious to the women it claims to advocate for: Feminism has become a movement for female disempowerment, or what I call "encouraged helplessness" (from psychologist Martin Seligman's "learned helplessness"--the feeling that there's nothing you can do to escape your fate).In fact, feminism, bizarrely, has morphed into paternalism--instructing women that they are fragile, passive, powerless victims who need authority figures to advocate for them.
Also at Quillette, Irene Ogrizek (apparently a teacher at a college) writes of diverting one young woman -- one who'd suffered a sexual assault -- from this path:
When she showed up, she told me she'd been sexually assaulted several days earlier. We'd established a good rapport over the semester, and so I did my best to console her. She seemed convinced her life had been ruined, but did not want to go to the police. A visit to a rape crisis centre had left her shaken.Her new view of herself was distressing. I'm not sure what inspired me, but I asked her how old she was. When she said 21, I asked her if she wanted to do some math. I reached for a pen and paper. Together we calculated how many days she had lived so far. After that we calculated the hours in those days, then the minutes. When we arrived at that last, astronomical number, I asked her how long the assault had lasted. She estimated it had been 20 minutes. We then calculated how many more minutes she would need to reach my age, which at the time was 44.
That's when I drew a timeline on a sheet of paper. It was made up of three parts: the minutes of her life to date, the 20 minutes of her assault, and then the 23 years of minutes that would take her up to 44. I was putting the assault into temporal perspective, stressing that one bad event lasting a few minutes wouldn't diminish her life before it happened and didn't have to diminish her life afterwards. I also said that despite the assault, most of her life was still ahead of her, and that she had a certain amount of control over they way in which it would unfold. As such, I said, she could choose to recover--when she was ready--because "women do it all the time." I added that this was a perspective that victims rarely heard but was nonetheless valid. Her eyes lit up when I said this.
If this student had been any younger, or any less assertive, I might have spoken differently. But she was plucky and athletic (she had both mental and physical confidence), and I shuddered at the thought of her receiving "politicized" support. What I mean by that is the narrative extolled by university trained feminists that implies assault victims are victims for life and have been irreparably damaged. It's a pernicious double-whammy, a child, metaphorically speaking, of over-zealous Neighbourhood Watchers and feminist victimology. That's because installing the idea of permanent victimhood into the minds of those freshly victimized is powerful: despite the face of kindness that comes with this support, it can be as chauvinistic and as disempowering as the most boorish, sexist man. It's one thing to help a young woman use her anger as a source of strength; it's quite another to allow a group to use it to advance an ideology. We've institutionalized the latter to the detriment of far too many women.
I first had a guy -- an older man -- get handsy with me at 15. It was disgusting, and when he put his hands on me, I ran out of there like somebody had just lit me on fire.
However, I looked at what happened as a creepy, unpleasant event and a learning experience. (I'd stopped by his house, at his invitation, by myself on my bike. Hmm, for future reference, bad idea, Ames!)
Looking at it this way -- not irrationally thinking one man's bad behavior said anything about all men -- allowed me to be a little smarter and not have it be something that continually took bites out of me or made it impossible for me to have relationships.
There's a lot in life that's creepy, unpleasant, awful, and even violent. But by teaching women (and all people) that they are resilient and shouldn't give their lives over to the person who already stole from them in some way, we allow those who have bad stuff happen them to move on and get the most out of their lives.
That's what feminism should be about -- along with concern for equal rights for all. Until it is, I encourage women to join me as humanists (and people determined to get on with life) -- and ignore those telling them the stuff that will allow some perp to own them forever through one awful experience.
"In fact, feminism, bizarrely, has morphed into paternalism"
Nothing bizarre about it, just Marxism in a dress:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulamith_Firestone
Their goal 50 years ago was the same as it is now - to frighten women into believing that only the all-powerful benevolent State can protect them from the evils of men.
Martin at November 27, 2017 10:26 PM
that only the all-powerful benevolent State can protect them from the evils of men
John Conyers thinks this is a great idea!
I R A Darth Aggie at November 28, 2017 6:31 AM
However, I looked at what happened as a creepy, unpleasant event and a learning experience. (I'd stopped by his house, at his invitation, by myself on my bike. Hmm, for future reference, bad idea, Ames!)
__________________________________
If he had been your employer or a close family friend, I don't see why it would automatically be a "bad idea."
But again, of course, maybe it WAS automatically stupid just because...he was a man and therefore couldn't be trusted? If you don't mean that, explain.
Or is it the idea that we don't trust strangers and we're more likely to be assaulted by people we know anyway, so again, women can't trust men?
In the meantime, I would hope that ANYONE who has a relatively low-grade experience like that would TELL everyone (though not necessarily the police) so that the perp would be less likely to do anything WORSE to someone else! Just as we shouldn't be charitable and let one-time housecleaners (or other temp workers) get away with it when we find out, days after the employment ends, that they stole something. What if they steal someone's identity next - and the victim finds out about the prior offenses which you didn't prosecute? How would you feel if you were that victim?
lenona at November 28, 2017 9:20 AM
John Conyers thinks this is a great idea!
The likes of Conyers and Franken only want the state to protect women from the evils of other men.
Seems like some of the biggest advocates for "protecting" women from men are harassers themselves. I wonder if there's an evolutionary explanation for that.
Ken R at November 28, 2017 9:47 AM
lenona: But again, of course, maybe it WAS automatically stupid just because...he was a man and therefore couldn't be trusted? If you don't mean that, explain... Or is it the idea that we don't trust strangers and we're more likely to be assaulted by people we know anyway, so again, women can't trust men?
Amy Alkon: Looking at it this way -- not irrationally thinking one man's bad behavior said anything about all men -- allowed me to be a little smarter and not have it be something that continually took bites out of me or made it impossible for me to have relationships.
Ken R at November 28, 2017 9:54 AM
It's not clear whether she only thought it was a bad idea to be alone with HIM in the future or whether she felt she should have known In Advance that it was a bad idea, as well. It would help if that were cleared up.
All we know about him as an individual is that he likely wasn't a stranger. For all we know, he may even have been alone with her before and behaved like a gentleman - but not at his house. Was the "lesson" that you shouldn't meet that particular man at "his house, at his invitation, by myself on my bike" or that a young woman shouldn't do that with ANY man?
That's the question.
lenona at November 28, 2017 4:30 PM
And, just to clarify, resilience and choosing to recover are perfectly good, but that shouldn't HAVE to mean choosing to be silent. See my first post. When it's a clear-cut case of rape, all the more reason to go to the police so the perp will be less likely to attack someone again.
If the community is highly misogynist, staying silent won't necessarily feel any better to the victim, since it's too easy to blame oneself for the crime as a result of staying silent.
lenona at November 28, 2017 4:43 PM
The problem goes beyond rape or sexual assault. Feminism encourages women and the left in general encourages everyone to be traumatized by everything. Civil war statue? Traumatized. Man holds the door for you? Trauma. Guy pinches your butt? trauma trauma trauma. But the world is full of scary and terrible things. Your friends and family members are going to die. You may get cancer. You may get mugged or lose your job or divorced. College students who think that going to a safe room with playdoh and puppies is the solution to life's scary moments are going to be shivering wrecks as life beats the sh*t out of them. Building resilience is what one needs to do, not wallow in self-pity.
cc at November 30, 2017 11:00 AM
Leave a comment