On Rape Culture

We have understood for two hundred years that human beings, along with all other living organisms, are the result of millions of years of slow evolution where the species that remain are the ones best adapted to their environments, whether that environment be the subsaharan desert or the concrete walls of our cities. Those whose physical traits and behaviours are most adaptable to said environment, fare better than those who do not. We are fundamentally mammals.

Now, in the case of all animals, but humans more spectacularly, these behaviours come together in communities to be called "cultures" - ways of life that helped us to survive now adorned with myths that lift them beyond a mere need for survival into an air that gives life meaning. In other words, the reality that in many (though not all) prehistoric tribes men were the hunters who brought home meat while women gathered berries and made the home, got assumed into a myth that says men are supposed to be the bread winners and women are supposed to be homemakers in a family structure. This, in a very brief analysis, is the source of gender roles.

In the 20th century, we find a human species that is more self-aware and critical of the cultures that our ancestors built. We question whether there is any rule book that stipulates what each gender should or should not be and we have acknowledged that such a rule book does not exist in reality, it is but a hypereal simulacra hiding nothing.

The basic moral philosophy of the age (and I do mean basic) is that every man and every woman should be able to be/do whatever they want to be/do, the only limitation being that what they are/do does not bring harm to other people. In searching, we discovered that some aspects of our culture brought harm to sectors of our society. We saw that Africans were human beings too and so should not be enslaved or denied drinking from the same fountain as white people, that they should be allowed to vote. We saw that women were not half-humans, walking robots responding to whatever men initiated, but human beings with minds capable of volition and charting their own path. That they could be capable managers and mothers and soldiers and lawyers and teachers. That they are not less than men.

Today, the aspect of our inherited culture under fire is an ancient patriarchal one which teaches that women are subordinate to men. This culture enables many forms of explicit and subtle abuses to women and excuses abusive men by saying "this is how it is supposed to be." It is passed down by our parents, churches, poems, music, movies, games, internet discourses and all other media we use to express our ideas. The culture in question is "rape culture."

Rape Culture

"Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving (but not limited to) sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent."

Rape culture refers to a culture that makes rape normal, or condones it or even excuses it and very often this is done without the knowledge of the society. We have built a culture that teaches women that they should be available to do men's bidding regardless of their own desires and it teaches men that if a woman doesn't do so, something is wrong. The culture is transmitted like any other. Many men would disagree that this is the case, however, this is so because we are so steeped in the culture that it becomes difficult to see.

There are actions committed by both men and women which are interpreted differently when looked at through the lens of our culture. The "friendzone" comes to mind. When we here this term, the scenario that quickly surfaces is of a male trying to win the affection of a female but is getting turned down and relegated to the status of "friend" instead. Men ask, why is it that if I am such a good friend to this girl that she doesn't like me back? It is a legitimate question and the answer is simply because she is not attracted to you. Perhaps there are other more complicated reasons, like, she is not ready for a relationship or she's a lesbian but it boils down to the fact that the female (I hope) has made it clear that she does not want to have a romantic relationship with you, whatever her reasons be.

These manly men respond by creating the "friendzone" and vilify women for being "foolish" for choosing men who are clearly not as good as they are. Don't get me wrong, this may be wholly true. The guy she is attracted to may very well be an asshole. But let's take a look at another, less spoken about, reality. Literally all of these men have female friends who they are not attracted to and see nothing wrong with this. Why don't men get with girls who are obviously better friends to them than the women they are attracted to? Could it be because...men are not attracted to these women? In the same way that that modelesque beauty is not attracted to you? Could it be that very few human beings do impartial cost/benefit analyses of our prospective romantic relationships?

So why then is it that the popular image of the friendzone always places the woman as the object of foolishness and blame? Why aren't there many cultural representations of the scenario where a guy has a female friend who he can trust and tell anything to, who builds shrines of him in her room, but he doesn't see her in that way? When one does slip through the cracks, they are usually portrayed in tones where the female is seen as the foolish one regardless. Women just can't seem to win. We sympathise with the male and we tell the female she's a bitch for not liking the good guy, or we laugh at the female and tell her to move on because he's just not into you. However we spin it, the male is always the power player.

Patriarchy. A heavy word for so light a subject, yes, but it is the same word that informs other much more serious subjects. The same attitude that informs men that women should want a relationship with them for being good guys is the same attitude that informs men that women should want to have sex with them for being good guys. So a rejected girl is told to suck it up and move on while a guy is told to try harder because she'd come around one day. It is the same attitude that leads to victim blaming. Where a female rape victim is blamed for being raped instead of a man being blamed for raping. It makes us ask questions like, "what was she wearing?" as though a woman who dresses appealingly only does it because she wants to have sex, and though it may not do so knowingly, excuses the man for simply doing what he was made to do.

Blaming a rape victim for being raped by referencing her clothes doesn't align with reality, where statistics show that most rape victims are raped by acquaintances, not when walking down a dark alley. It also says nothing about women who are raped in Middle Eastern countries.

As I said earlier, rape culture is passed down through expressive culture. The disproportionate representation of men in the media give men the opportunity to share this culture unchecked, whether knowingly or ignorantly. It leads to advertisements like the one below:

What is this advertisement attempting to say? That if a girl only sees you as her friend, give her this rum for her to see see you differently? I'm disturbed by men who feel the need to inebriate a woman to make her more sexually willing. Men like this are the type of cowards that I am afraid of. It's disgusting, really. And Trinidad and Tobago has a party culture basically built on this idea, hence the market manager's belief that the ad was harmless enough to print.









It leads to songs like this:




"If she front door lock and you cah get in...kick in she backdoor," is 'sung' over a track of a female's voice screaming and yelling 'murder.' I've been to parties where this Antiguan song is played and men and women can be seen dancing, doing the action for the song with joker-like grins across their faces. Scary.

We celebrate to these songs, not knowing that their are little boys who are soaking it up like sponges who will grow up to believe that Sarah should like him and if she doesn't, he should take what he wants from her anyway. And everyone dismisses the seriousness of it because it seems so light and harmless when it stands on its own. Our culture seems almost wholly incapable of seeing anything in a serious light. It may make us less stressed as a society, but what right, then, do we have to complain when shit hits the fan? And shit hits the fan very often in our twin island Republic. "It's just a song," cannot continue to be our lackadaisical answer to anything requiring us to think more deeply, because we are just as quick to cry "chop off he balls!" if any man is found to have raped a woman.

When understood in the context of a patriarchal history and rape culture, we see that these images and songs not only reveal our rape culture but help to perpetuate a harmful cycle that shatters our ability to deal with the very real problem of rape.

This leads to an interesting discussion on censorship. Acknowledging that these songs are harmful, do we ban them? I wish I could say yes, but I see potential abuses in giving the power to ban creative material to any government. Akilah Holder argues that the song should be banned but she lumps it along with other songs she considers to be "oversexed." I like songs about sex. The ideal would be to place the responsibility of regulation on private society and not the government. Do not enable these rapey songs by dancing and laughing at it and drive them out of the market in the old capitalistic way.

While we debate fiercely on how to best regulate creative content, in the mean time, if you are an artist, take time to critically look at the work you produce. Are you perpetuating a destructive culture or are you providing a more healthy myth for people to draw meaning from? You may not think it is that serious until you have a daughter of your own. Produce work that is rich and meaningful but also of good quality. I think many good hearted artists fail in this regard. Yea, you're a good guy, but your song is shitty. Come good like Macklemore and we may listen to you (I don't like his music, but many people do, and that's all that matters here).

The Conversation

Now that I have dealt with rape culture, I feel a strong need to critique the way the conversation about it is had. Usually, on one hand, we have the progressives who understand rape culture and are passionate about changing it. They petition and debate and use any means necessary to get other people to understand it in the hope that the culture will change. It is quite possible that the culture will change and if it does it will be an achievement worthy of acclaim. On the other hand, you have victim-blamers who do not know that they are victim blamers. And somewhere in the middle, there are those who agree with the progressives but who also understand the need for personal security. I'm in this latest category, and in my experience, progressives, ripe with passion, see any thing I say as an antithesis to their passion and push me far across the room in the company of victim-blamers.

I fear that the passion of the above mentioned progressives sometimes tips its hat to some shoulds of its own which can itself be harmful. For instance, men should never rape. People should be able to live in a world without fear of ever being victims of rape. Women should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not bring harm to other persons.

Passion is necessary for any movement to be successful. However, this passion should never lose sight of the fact that we do not live in an idealistic world. It sometimes leads progressives to be on the edge of their seats to bash in the virtual heads of anyone who dares to suggest that women should do things to protect themselves. This is born out of an admirably acute awareness of the fact that women have been told what to do for centuries by men and it is about time we start talking to men. I wholeheartedly agree. But are we really going to place all the blame of rape on rape culture, forgetting that cultures do not fall out of the sky but are born out of human desires and the human capacity to act on those desires?

I have friends who are feminist and I love them for it. The problem I've always had with ideology, though, is that it blinds us very often to reality. I've seen these friends behave recklessly in the name of individual freedom and gender equity. Are we willing to place our bodies on the table for a potential Pyrrhic victory in the name of feminism?

I enjoy getting high in much the same way that others enjoy getting drunk. For me to say that people should not have the right to drink and get drunk would be hypocritical. However, I have grown to be more aware of the fact that both these substances diminish the value of my consent, impair my judgement, and make me more willing to say and do things I would not ordinarily say and do with a sober head. I would love to live in a world where I did not have to be afraid of what I might do or another person might do to me in an inebriated state, but that world does not exist.

So instead, I try to mitigate the possibility of harm by finding a healthy balance between doing whatever I want and acknowledging that the people around me are mammals. Really. They are mammals. And for all the ideologies we have constructed, people can do some fucked up things. The Catholic Church's ideology is obviously against pedophilia, but that does nothing from stopping grown white-frocked men from inappropriately touching minors. For this reason, I would prefer that we change the culture while wearing safety belts around our chests.

Write songs that empower women - like Lady Saw. As crass as you think her music is, it puts women in a position where their desires are considered in the politics of sex. Criticize the destructive culture - like Kick in she back door and Blurred Lines. Advise people to take care of themselves while having fun and not put too much trust in the goodness of human beings - like avoid getting blindly drunk, regardless of whose company you are in.

A note to my friends

Statistics show that the majority of rape victims are raped by men that they know, are intimate with, or are relatives. Media exaggerates the reality of rapists luring in bushes to the point where we feel overly safe amongst our peers. I'm not saying to be paranoid when with friends, I'm just saying that we should try as much as possible to avoid behaviours that impair our judgement and make us less able to protect ourselves.

Placing this in our Trinidadian context, it harshly criticizes our highly alcoholic culture. I have gotten drunk in parties. I have gotten drunk around tables in flat common rooms. Trust me, I am no high-brow moralist. However, how serious can we really claim to be about changing things if we think the only legitimate way to enjoy ourselves is by losing our cognitive faculties?

Is this really the height of our creativity? Do we have nothing more to offer but shallow firework thrills? Do we really find life this meaningless?

For some reason, I do not think so.

Moral Objectivity, where art thou?

1) If  God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.

It is possible for me to conceive a creator god that does not lose sleep over the way we live our lives. What makes my conception less plausible than the Christian God? My conception actually seems more plausible when we take our moral experiences into consideration. However, implied in the argument is the idea of a God who is the ground for moral values. This argument is found in the ontological argument that God, by definition, is the greatest conceivable being. It is taken for granted that 'goodness' and 'existence' are great making qualities. Many, including myself, disagree with this wholeheartedly because 'great' is a subjective description of a thing and different people would have their own ideas of what makes a thing great. But hey, thank God that we have an accurate definition of God to work with.

Today, I make two arguments:
1) Divine Command Theory does not make morality objective.
2) Objective moral values do not seem to exist.

What is your name?

But, do you drink though? I know a cheap bar. 

Today, I gave myself a pat on the back because I think I am finally growing up. Last October, I became an atheist. By that I mean I stopped believing in the god that I used to and was left without a known deity that I could square with my knowledge of myself, others, and the universe. When a person gains a new identity, some new signifier that tells them what they are but also what they are not, they go through particular phases while growing into their new clothes.

There is the transitional stage where you are tempted to isolate yourself from everyone else. It seems as though we have a psychological bias toward believing we are alone in our existential problems. If fortunate enough to survive this desert period, we may happen across an online group of people who share unbelievably similar experiences with us. And so begins the adolescent idealism and group pride. We create an us vs them - us being the atheists, they, our enemies, theists. Fists are raised in the name of reason and war is waged on anything remotely resembling faith of any kind.

I am reminded of Erik Erikson's stages of psychosocial development. We enter unwillingly into these stages and we are not guaranteed to emerge in favourable psychological states. How we respond to all that each stage has to throw at us directly affects how well equipped we enter into the coming stage. For my fellow, heathens, how well have you been progressing?

I know an unfortunate few who have been atheists longer than I have, yet are more worked up about the thing than me, the newbie. I am not devoid of source material enough to burn fires of disgust and hatred toward religion myself after having been dealt an unfair hand by the godly institution. Though it was seldom been said to me directly, many believe that it is this unfair treatment that lead to my 'falling away' in the first place and not any intellectual reasons at all. I won't be naive or arrogant to say they are completely wrong. Still, they are not completely right. My conversion was the result of an unholy concoction of hurt and intellectual curiousity. Either way, I am here now and I do miss the emotional connections I had with the divine as a believer, but I cannot bring myself to bend a knee because I think doing so is foolish.

Some people may disagree with me and, of course, all are free to do so, but I no longer care for the label 'atheist.' Now, I find it and its definition tawdry, thin and glaringly unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Atheism is simply non-belief in a deity/deities. An atheist feels the same way a Christian feels about Allah, just this feeling is directed toward all gods. This is apparently an unimaginable fact to people who see the world through the eyes of faith. Even though their bosom buddy may not believe in their own god, at least he/she believes in some god and that seems to be enough. But to believe in none is ludicrous. But what does it matter, really?

There is a sub-community within the atheism camp that advocates the proclamation of the title 'atheist' from the rooftops. I was never comfortable with it, but I was never against it either. Today, I am still not against it, but I have grown enough to distance myself from it. The word 'atheist' says nothing that I consider important about me or anyone else. After all, the basic idea behind atheism is that theism has not yet presented persuasive evidence for their claim that their gods exist. But to think that I only possess this attitude toward the divine is misleading and the title 'atheist' does not help in bringing clarity.

Here is what I think causes this problem. Theism can be narrowly defined as a belief in a deity/deities. However, a belief in a deity hardly ever comes independent of a host of other things, eg. morality, philosophy, history. It is to be expected, then, that although atheism narrowly defined is non-belief in a deity/deities, atheists are lumped together on matters of morality, philosophy and history as well. This I am afraid of.

I have a skeptical eye and I look at all claims within my reach under the microscope of reason. Both gods and fossils have to make sense to me before I have anything to say about them. I am concerned about the future of the world. Questions like, how would religion and non-belief co-exist? Should I really be against the death penalty? What is important and how do we know? Should I lend my hand in the development of Trinidad and Tobago? If so, what is the best way to do so? These seem vastly more important than which side I stand on the thin line of belief. 'Atheist' just does not seem to do an effective job in conveying so deep a commitment to reason. I'm certainly not afraid of the term and if asked whether I am an atheist I would respond positively. But what am I going to call myself? By what name do I go? Do I need a name? I grow tired of the politics and label-gerrymandering and just wish to go on reading and writing.

Call me whatever you like. Ask me, however, and you may be met with this standard response.

"I'm batman."

The God of Intellectuals

Most of us have met our fair share of strange people, but each of us treats with these encounters differently. It is fortunate, then, that I have also met my share and I happen to be a collector of anomalous stories.

Let's call my friend Jim. Jim was not a very sociable person, but strangely enough, he was extremely likable. He would be invited to parties, limes, to play on the best football teams for the lunch time 'sweat', all without muttering more than a few inconsequential phrases and bad jokes. Once, during our weekly 'in -depth' classroom discussions, Jim shared what was his own religious philosophy. Jim believed that God was energy, and he referred to the Newtonian law of energy being un-created and indelible, but transformable. If I had the mind that I have now, then, I would have asked him if this energy desires our worship.

Now that you've met Jim, meet Suzy, whose story is more interesting. At the age of 16, around the time when the pouis trees were blooming or, more poignantly, CSEC was around the corner, she started having paranormal experiences. While folding her clothes one evening, her grandmother outside on the porch, she felt a 'thing' coiling around her left hand. This 'thing' was invisible. It slowly moved up her arm and eventually, the entire left side of her body. She rushed outside to tell her grandmother what was happening to her, and that's as far as she could remember.

Fortunately for my story, a memory was constructed for her by her grandmother. Her grandmother said that she, Suzy, fainted and began foaming at the mouth and trashing about on the floor. A doctor said, after all the checks and balances, that they could not find anything really wrong with her. Doctor after doctor said essentially the same until one finally diagnosed her with epilepsy. She got medication and returned to her 'normal' life.

The Arrogance of Philosophy(ers)

I'm not sure why we separate 'philosophical truths' from 'empirical truths'. Both epistemological systems are based on the same foundation of experience - our own existence and the usefulness of our five senses. All that we know, we know through our five senses. We have developed words that represent things we have experienced through our senses in order to communicate those experiences to other people and even communicate them to ourselves. 'Philosophical laws' like the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity and the validity of syllogisms, and even 'mathematical laws' of association and distribution have been discovered through our experience of the natural world, an experience that continues to grow. These laws do not come from some special, isolated part of the brain that reasons independent of experience.

I am not a linguist, nor have I studied the development of language in a university. However, from observing my own linguistic development and the development of people around me and having a bit of knowledge about the development of language as it relates to our brain, I have learnt a few things. When young, much of our experience is jumbled together in a few words. All trees are trees and trees alone. If you tell a child that this tree is a portugal (puteegal) tree and the other is a lime tree, it may be slightly confusing to them at first. They would either think that all of them are the same thing, or that they are all completely different. It is difficult for a child to appreciate subtlety. The ability to discriminate and categorise, analyse and synthesise are skills that develop with us as we grow and are aided by education. As our experience of the world increases, we create new words, and we apply the discovered laws of reasoning to these experiences to make sense of them.

Now, our brains have been able to take concepts from the natural world, combine them with others, expand them, twist them, turn them inside out to make them into something 'new'. However, these things are not new, but re-worked or re-done, exaggerated or reduced, old things. We call this ability 'imagination'. The end results of our imagination - like Superman, Batman, Pokemon or the Perfect Spouse - are built with old colours and concepts we have experienced but are not things we have experienced in themselves.