Again with the Gendered Minimization and Generalizations

Pragya Sharma, Director of Public Education, Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton, and committee member of the Sexual Assault Voices of Edmonton, writes in a letter to the editor on "Don't expect women to curtail men's behaviour":

"On Nov. 28, Grant A. Brown commented that both sexes face pressure to engage in sexual activity. Of course men are sexually assaulted. At the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton, about 20 per cent of our clients and crisis line callers are men. However, regardless of who experiences sexual assault, the vast majority of perpetrators are male — which is precisely the reason this campaign is targeted toward men.

Clearly, targeting men is important to the committee because most perpetrators are male."

Hmm, interesting how she mentions "targeting men" rather than "targeting men who commit rapes."  There is more than a subtle difference between the two concepts.  Sharma goes on to say:

"However, men are the subject of "Don't be that guy" because we believe in the potential of men. As a public educator, mothers often ask me, "What can we tell our daughters to do to avoid sexual assault?"

By expecting women to alter their behaviour to avoid experiencing sexual assault, our culture holds women responsible for what they wore or didn't wear, what they drank or didn't drink, where they went or didn't go, what they said or didn't say.

Expecting women to curtail men's behaviour is not only puzzling for its ineffectiveness, but is offensive in assuming that all men are offenders."

The following quote is both good and bad for same reason: "Expecting women to curtail men's behaviour is not only puzzling for its ineffectiveness, but is offensive in assuming that all men are offenders."  Sharma is correct in asserting that expecting women (specifically those who have been targeted) to stop rapists from raping them is indeed offensive as it puts the responsibility on would-be victims AND commits sexism in making the assumption that all men are offenders. However, the portion of the sentence referring to "men's behaviour", should have been written as "SOME men's behaviour". It is the behaviour of rapists, some of whom are men (and women), not just "men" in general terms. Is it safe to assume this was simply an editing mistake and not intentional?  Should I really have to point out that rape is not "men's behaviour", but rather the behaviour of rapists?  Sadly, I must as I don't think certain people get it.

Grant A. Brown, writing to the Edmonton Journal on "Both sexes face pressure" regarding the "Don't Be That Guy" campaign:

"Men and women are both sexual beings, and surveys of college students show that young men are as likely to be pressured into having unwanted sex as young women are.

In the majority of cases where a women has sex while she is drunk, her partner is also intoxicated. Both participated; neither legally "consented," yet only the man is deemed legally or morally responsible — and only if she suffers buyer's remorse."

Brown goes on to raise some valid points later in his letter regarding the manner in which sexual assualt by females against males is ignored or excused in general and especially when the man has consumed alcohol prior.  It has been my own experience that when not ignored or excused by law enforcement and survivor advocates, it is outright mocked or turned into the butt of sexist jokes by both men AND women.

That said, his letter offensively uses the phrase "buyer's remorse" in a victim-blaming manner, which is something that has been directed at me in the past and with which I take great issue.  I certainly would have preferred to see that comment answered in Sharma's response and that of other respondents rather than the minimization by statistics that occurred instead.

In her own response to Grant A. Brown's letter to the editor, Vanessa de Jong, said:

While it is in no doubt that all sexual assaults are heinous, it can be noted that, according to Statistics Canada, 97 per cent of sexual assaults that were reported to the Canadian police departments in 2007 were against women.

To focus on sexual assaults as a crime of equality and have campaigns focused on men and women is to disregard blatant statistics which show that women are far more likely to be victimized.

As a male survivor of a female rapist, I will say the campaign, while important and slickly executed, does leave me feeling like I've been thrown into the "potential perp" box based soley on my gender and ugly guilt by association politics. While I understand statistics, it does sting given that my own experiences fit the campaign scenarios, only with the genders flipped.  Of course, acklnowledgment of male sexual victimization is begrudgingly made and then simultaneously dismissed as less important based on gender (supported by numbers). (sigh)

While I assume/hope it was not intentional, it certainly feels invalidating and callously minimizing given my own experiences.  Even though I support the campaign, I believe some concerns are valid and should not be dismissed based solely on numbers on a page, as both Sharma and de Jong clearly do in their letters to the editor.

Let's try to remember that real individual survivors are the targets of predators, not numbers on a page and genders in general.  I lived it and it hurts.  Sexual violence survivors in general have enough to handle without adding minimizing commentary from survivor advocates and organizations.

Relevant Links:

• Don't Be That Guy Campaign: http://www.sexualassaultvoices.com/our-campaign.html
• Letter to the Editor by Pragya Sharma: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/expect+women+curtail+behaviour/3972962/story.html
• Letter to the Editor by Vanessa de Jong: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Women+victims+more+often/3910140/story.html
• Letter to the Editor by Grant A. Brown: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/letters/Both+sexes+face+pressure/3895728/story.html