Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

I recently read one of several articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education about the debate on  whether or not firearms should be permitted on college campuses.  At U. Texas at Austin, for instance, the absurdity of the debate was illuminated in people carrying dildos around campus and tweeting with the hashtag #CocksnotGlocks.  Silly as it was, it made me think.  With all the hoopla about mass shootings at universities, which are extremely rare in relation to other acts of violence involving guns, why has there not been a similar uproar about sexual assault on college campuses, which are far more frequent and have been problematic for many years, that entails the more-guns-equal-more-safe’ mantra?  Well, I found a NY Times article that addressed this very point.

Some of the points made by people the article quoted are quite telling of our national attitude toward violence against women.  Some people are critical of university policies that forbid guns on campus.  “‘If you’ve got a person that’s raped because you wouldn’t let them carry a firearm to defend themselves, I think you’re responsible,’ State Representative Dennis K. Baxley of Florida said during debate in a House subcommittee.”  Or, “[t]he sponsor of a bill in Nevada, Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, said in a telephone interview: ‘If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them. The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.'”  The article made reference to “Amanda Collins, who in 2007 was raped on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno; Ms. Collins has said that had she been carrying her licensed gun, she would have averted the attack.”

Each one of these statements, and others like them, suffer from the same shortcoming: in no way do any of these statements reflect a desire for men to change their attitudes and perceptions of women.  In each instance, men are given free reign to think what they want about women, believe what they want about how women dress, act, and talk in relation to misconceptions about promiscuity or how “she wants it” though she says “no.”  In each case, the burden is on women to change the behavior of men, who, I suppose, people think are incapable of changing their sexually-driven natures and uncontrollable urges, or whatever, as the reductionist arguments go.

The question is never ‘why do men hurt.’  Rather, it is ‘why do women not do more about the problem.’  The onus is always on women to empower themselves, not walk anywhere alone, carry some form of protection such as mace or a gun, and to constantly check their image to ensure they are not sending the wrong message (to men and other women) or monitor their words to make sure what they say is not interpreted as a come-on (to men who presume themselves to be desired by any woman who so much as lays an eyeball on him for even a split second).

Am I saying women should not do these things?  Hey, do what ever the hell you want if you think that is going to help you!  I see no reason why women should not continue to advocate for education, defense classes for women, etc.  What I am saying is that public and political responses should not just be about what women can do to make a difference.  The responses should give attention to how men think about women, on the dynamics of gender relations in our society, and how the power differential between men and women place women in a vulnerable position.  She is always having to defend herself as the victim, explaining why she was doing whatever she was doing, wearing whatever she was wearing, or saying whatever she was saying.  She was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  She should not have been alone.  She should not have trusted him; they only just met that night.  And so on…  The response never suggests that men have to explain why they think they feel a right to have something from women just because… , well, just because.  They do not have to explain their intentions, why they refuse to listen to what women say when they say no, or monitor their own behavior and expect women to do that for them.  That is, men are never held accountable for how they interpret relations between men and women.   Women have to define the boundaries; men are only expected to respect them once established.  Men do not have to explain how they treat women as sexual objects that exist for their pleasure.  They do not have to explain why they coerce or shame women into sexual relations, either through peer pressure or alcohol.  They never have to explain why they think it was okay for them to assault her.

Our response?  Send the offending men to jail, because of course that is where they will learn how to treat a woman, or anyone, properly, and learn non-violence as a way of life.  The rest of us have to take sexual harassment training courses or read educational materials about how to prevent rape, and such, though they seem to have no real impact, as rates of campus assaults have changed very little if any over the years according to Elizabeth A. Armstrong’s work.  I have no problem with either of these solutions, but they do not get to the root of the problem.  It is not the policy that forbids guns on campus; it is policies that segregate men and women and prohibit alcohol on campus, policies that free fraternities, where the party scene and alcohol are more likely to take place, from university control.  It is the party culture of some schools, too, but I am not sure how colleges should address that.  Ideas?  In other words, there are organizational and institutional factors we must consider.

Though I am in agreement with Armstrong on most of what she argues, I am not sure if getting rid of fraternities is the answer, as that does not address the root of the problem, namely men’s understanding of gender relations, but it might at least remove an enabling factor.  Of course, I know, the frat boy stereotype is invoked here, but it is true that men in fraternities are more likely than those who are not to engage in sexual violence against women, though perhaps the difference is not so overwhelmingly stark to warrant a negative stereotype and a vilification of fraternity men.  Most fraternity members do not rape, but that is not the point.  It is the nature of the institution that is the problem.  Men retain power over who gets to have fun in these settings, the presence of alcohol, and norms of parties.  The issue in this instance is not really the men themselves, but the institutional context of fraternities and the related party scene.

And herein lies the real issue: gender relations and power.  Until policymakers and publics put the responsibility on men to change their attitudes, by addressing such attitudes directly or by changing institutions, I do not think there are enough guns in the world to make men stop doing what some of them do.  It is erroneous to believe that a man will stop and think rationally, ‘does she have a gun’?  I think that assumes to much about how people think and is a bit unrealistic.  In fact, as research points out, women are most likely to be assaulted by someone she knows, someone she feels safe with, and in the context of intimate encounter that starts out as consensual but turns ugly, not the boogeyman sicko hiding in a bush.  And does anyone think that perhaps just because a women might have a gun to protect herself that a perpetrator would not have a gun, too?

So the issue might not be so much about just women empowering themselves but men losing some of the power they have enjoyed for so long.  Perhaps that has been the obstacle all along.  That policymakers and institutional leaders tend to be men might imply the last place they are going to look for a solution to this problem is at themselves as men.  If men are the ones with the power to make such changes, perhaps it is about time we put our power to good use for a change.   And that does not mean propagating a culture that says guns are the best means to resolve problems.  That means changing ourselves, holding men in general accountable for gender inequality, and no longer tolerating the notion that women are simply objects of men’s desires, that they are not for the male gaze.  Chivalrous nonsense will not help either, because women are not helpless creatures that need a man to rescue them.  Rather, we must unlearn centuries of hegemonic masculinity and learn a new masculinity that is empathetic, compassionate, egalitarian-minded, and less prone to value violence and aggression over kindness and humility.  Easier said than done and lofty, I know, but if we do not even entertain new ideas, no one can expect much real change.