This is a guest post by Echo Zen. Echo is a feminist filmmaker, animator and women’s health advocate, currently deployed in the States to counter the influence of Tea Party moppets. When ze’s not doing ad consulting for birth control, ze tries to blog semi-regularly for Feministe (partly to set a good example for zir sister).
“Paul Ryan is a ****ing rapist. Sorry for stating the obvious,” she said.
That was my mate’s (politely paraphrased) reaction when Romney chose Paul “rapists have rights” Ryan as “the next President of the United States.” That was before Rep. Todd Akin managed to one-up Ryan in the Honest Misogyny department.
Naturally her friends – or spouses of friends, rather – reacted by throwing a hissy fit over her unflattering description of Paul Ryan. Their quibble wasn’t that Ryan is a pathological violator of women’s bodies. Heck, if anything, they approved of his brave attempts to endanger women’s lives, in the name of restoring America’s moral foundation to benefit rapists, child molesters and other institutions of 1950s patriarchy. No, their gripe was that her language was “too extreme” – i.e. Ryan’s description of rape as just another “method of conception” didn’t qualify, but holding a taxpayer-funded official accountable for his violence against women was going way too far.
And of course, who were the ones crying over this trivialisation of “rapist”? All were men, without exception or irony. Because while claiming pregnancy is a blessing for rape survivors has become a legitimate career path for aspiring women politicians like Bachmann and Barnes, it’s no secret the majority of legislators – the ones attempting to force ultrasound wands into women’s vaginas, or coerce rape survivors into bearing their rapists’ babies – are men living in an alternate universe where women having the same rights as males is what’s destroying society, not corporations or assaults on healthcare access.
Yep. These men, offended by our insistence on calling them out for their actions, expect us to take them seriously – even as they silence our elected women officials and dismiss their human rights concerns as “tantrums”, between stripping women of lifesaving healthcare and refusing to reauthorise laws against sexual assault, all the while claiming they just want to protect women. Yeah, we’re totally going to take you seriously while you claim that women should carry dead, rotting fetuses to term because that’s what livestock do, and everyone knows a woman’s proper role is to pump out babies, alive or otherwise.
Much has been made in the media over the GOP’s “War on Women,” a characterisation that Obama himself wasn’t even willing to touch till late into this electoral season. As recently as June, his own Director of Communications couldn’t give a straight answer during a Netroots interview on whether the War on Women was real, nor if his boss had a strategy for fighting the thousands of legislative attacks of women’s bodies across the nation. And this was a year after the Tea Party Congress nearly shut down the federal government over birth control pills, and months after legislators who wouldn’t even say the word “vaginal” attempted to force transvaginal ultrasounds into sinful pregnant women seeking abortions to protect their health and families.
Then again, given the administration’s willingness to compromise on protecting women’s lives (remember Plan B?), maybe we should be thankful Director Pfeiffer didn’t liken the War on Women to caterpillars. President Obama for his part never publicly addressed the GOP’s politicisation of rape, whether it was Rep. Chris “forcible rape” Smith’s crusade to strip abortion access from impregnated rape survivors, or Del. Todd Gilbert’s belief that abortion patients shouldn’t mind being violated with ultrasound wands since they’ve already allowed themselves to be “vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant.”
Or at least Obama didn’t make a peep till Akin accidentally publicised his party’s “sluts deserve rape” family values. Perhaps the administration never commented on the GOP’s violations of women because misogynists have historically done a fine job of masking their anti-women policies behind the veneer of “limited government” and “protecting the unborn,” impulses to which many Americans have a knee-jerk favourable response. Alas, with the GOP feeling unstoppable in its grip on the country, they’ve become slapdash with fronting that veneer. And with the GOP’s latest ideological leak, they’ve made unmistakably clear to the entire world their belief toward 51% of the population – namely women are liars and sluts who deserve fewer rights than rapists.
Maybe the entire vernacular around the War on Women is becoming dated. War as a metaphor has lost much of its impact over the years, as pundits have exploited the word to claim war on everything from Christmas to cancer. So let’s call the GOP’s agenda for what it really is: state-sponsored violence against women. The rest of the civilised world has figured out forced impregnations are “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.” And predictably, the GOP sides with the rape apologists and war criminals of the world.
Most dictionaries define rape as “an act of violation.” Mr. Ryan, you are a rapist of women’s bodies and lives. Heck, feigning concern for either requires you at least refrain from advocating the deliberate killing of women, and you haven’t even bothered doing that. So, sorry for stating the obvious – maybe this bloke’s postcard will put things in perspective.
Suck my whore pills.
I can get behind a lot of this post, but not calling Ryan a rapist. Using the word rape in the generic sense of “an act of violation” is precisely what pissed us all off when Johnny Depp or Kristen Stewart or some other celebrity did it. Rape has a specific meaning that is too often trivialized or dismissed, and its made worse when people use it to refer to things that are in no way comparable to sexual assault.
You were not raped when a horde of paparazzi took your picture. You were not raped when someone beat you in a video game. You were not raped when you did badly on a test. And you were not raped when shitty social conservatives said shitty, shitty things about women and tried to pass shitty, shitty laws.*
*I understand using the word rape when a woman is forced to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound because a law requires it, though even there it makes me uncomfortable. (And also, my understanding is that those laws, while very badly intentioned and horrific invasions of the doctor/client relationship, are often of little practical effect because for medical reasons most abortion providers generally require a transvaginal ultrasound for first trimester abortions.)
This. Ryan and his ilk support policies that violate women’s bodily rights and make comments that promote rape culture. As far as we know, Ryan is not actually a rapist. Please do not trivialize rape.
See also politicians (usually of the Teabagger/GOP variety) complaining about how such and such government policy is “raping” them and everyone else, or how they have to bend over and take it from someone who disagrees with them.
Disgusting, disingenuous, and trivialization of the realities of rape, all in one horrible package.
Thirded, thank you. I cannot get behind this post’s insistence on analogizing offensive speech about rape with rape itself.
I don’t want to look like we’re splitting hairs, but Akin and his mates have engaged in a lot more than offensive speech. As Rebecca mentioned, this is about their attempts to force policies that will cause women to die. I’m no fan of rape analogies without major qualifiers, but the response I got from survivors after Akin pulled his publicity stunt was… visceral, to put it mildly. It’s one reason I completely rewrote this post to support their sentiments (as indicated in a below comment). But I’m also aware many other survivors have visceral reasons for not comparing anti-women Teapublicans to rapists, because it trivialises the term.
It’s not about splitting hairs if you’ve been victimized in said fashion, which I have. I imagine I’m not alone. And “the other side is much worse” isn’t an effective justification.
Interesting fact: there have been a number of cases where unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds have been performed on women without medical necessity and primarily for the gratification of the doctor/quack/technician (it varies), and in the majority of those cases courts in the common law world have held that they do not amount to rape.
The most ridiculous thing was that a slippery slope argument was used.
Well, given the long history of OB/GYN medical students practicing their physical exam skills on unconscious women undergoing surgery, often without their knowledge or consent, color me unsurprised.
Echo Zen, you are ♥-ed. Thank you for putting this to words (and links).
I appreciate that, miakoda. But the consensus seems to be that this post was a failure, if not a disgrace. :-/
I wouldn’t say Akin and Ryan were/are rapists, but I would suggest that they are rape enablers.
I agree. Rape enablers, not rapists.
How is he a a rapist? Has he been accused by a woman of rape? I couldnt find anything in the media. Confused now.
I’m tempted to reply with snark, but given that this commenter has a track record of commenting on posts without so much as reading the article, or even skimming the first paragraphs (including that time he assumed a post with “twilight” in the title was about vampires and made a totally non sequitur comment as a result)… well, I think I’ll avoid embarrassing him unnecessarily.
Except in this case, he’s right, and your post was fucking abominable. Paul Ryan has done some shitty things and said some shitty things, but he is not a rapist. When you use words like that to describe “someone who did something bad in a way related to reproductive rights,” you strip them of some of their meaning, just like when people say “the Red Sox totally raped the Yankees.” If you’re a survivor, than I think you just need to think harder about your language. If you’re not, seriously, check your privilege.
Balls. Working on not doing the pile-on thing. Sorry for posting my response a minute later than what amblingalong had said, esp since it more or less says the same thing. Please ignore comment below.
“…he’s right, and your post was fucking abominable.” Yeah… no, this post was about calling out misogynists who get their pants in a bunch when their favourite politician is labeled a predator, while saying nothing when said politicians attempt to coerce rape survivors into forced pregnancy. I agree with you on most things, but the above post makes clear that I don’t use “rapist” without qualification — a point clearly lost on the original reading comprehension-challenged commenter.
Yeah, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, right?
Here’s the thing: if we call every asshole who perpetuates rape culture a rapist, even if zie has a helping hand in shaping that culture, the word is utterly meaningless. Why choose “rapist” instead of any of the milieu of descriptors that won’t be dilutive to the experiences of people who have been raped?
I like that we’re giving attention to the war on women. This needs to happen. It needs to be talked about a LOT, now through November. But why can’t we just call them misogynists? Is it literally only because they’re scared of the label? Because they stupidly think that getting labeled a rapist could be damaging to their careers (even though this has statistically never happened)?
I agree. Not to mention that every time you use deliberately hyperbolic language like this to emphasize your point, you’re INVITING people to turn this into a discussion of Paul Ryan’s specific history with sexual assault (or lack thereof) rather than on the broader picture of the GOP as a rape-enabling organization actively trying to diminish women’s liberties and choices.
But the article doesn’t call him a rapist, it is about the hypocrisy of the writer’s friend’s husbands who were outraged when their wives’ friend called him a rapist but not outraged by the violence the republican party does to women. I THINK.
@ Nadine
It does in the final paragraph:
I think people are confusing me with my friend. The post examines the disconnect between men being offended over their favourite politician being called a rapist, and their refusal to call out half of Capitol Hill for violating women’s autonomy. I only call Ryan a rapist in the “act of violation” sense of the word, in the last paragraph.
Nadine – first, I agree with the writer’s partner’s friends being outraged at the incorrect use of “rapist.” Those are two separate points, though. Their attitudes are really shitty when it comes to their indifference to women in the US. But when it comes to calling Paul Ryan a rapist? No, totally. Rock on, friends. I still think you’re probably more than a bit misogynist, but you got this one right.
But – happy to be corrected, EZ – it seems that you’re arguing your partner was right in her usage when you say
I don’t want to pull a “gotcha” – but at the very least, dictionary.com doesn’t say that. It’s a lot more specific. If it weren’t, this morning when my niece hugged me and I really wanted to be left alone, I could say she raped me because she violated my autonomy. And when I equate my four-year-old niece hugging me to the sexual assaults I endured, it renders my speech completely meaningless.
No, you’re right, PrettyAmiable. I was using the loose, tertiary meaning of the word — which is exactly what trivialisers do when they say, “Oh, that exam raped my brain” or “Being chased by paparazzi is like rape.” That wasn’t right. Admittedly I got a different response when I asked survivors about “forced pregnancy as rape” while getting opinions for writing this post, but I think it was shaped by Akin having just exploded into the news a day before.
Some background: When I originally wrote this, it was expressing skepticism over whether words like “rapist” and “state-sponsored rape” are effective in public discourse. Talking to other survivors, I heard similar sentiments — that while they may agree with the message that GOPers are violators of women’s bodies, they wouldn’t necessarily refer to them as rapists, at least not without qualification (which I did in my final paragraphs).
A lot of that changed when Akin went public with his party’s beliefs about pregnant sluts lying about rape. Afterward people reacted much differently when I asked the question, with responses along the lines of, “The guy is a ****ing rapist, pure and simple. He wants to rape me once with some predator’s penis, and then again with 9 months of pregnancy. **** him.” (I’m paraphrasing politely, of course.)
Referring to Ryan as a rapist is still not something I’d do without major qualification. Obviously “rapist” has been trivialised to where Kristen Stewart can liken paparazzi to rapists, without the media batting an eye. But referring to paparazzi as rapists is multiple magnitudes different from vagina-obsessed politicians abusing their power to force medical instruments into women, or coercing them into forced pregnancy.
One last thing — forced, raped-induced pregnancy has been recognised by the global community as a crime against humanity, i.e. folks like Pres. Charles Taylor have been convicted of war rape for this reason, despite the contention that Taylor didn’t personally rape anyone. So there are grounds for arguing that the GOP’s anti-women bills, should they become law, would constitute human rights violations. But then we’re talking about a government that refuses to ratify CEDAW, so it’s doubtful they care.
I’m still not remotely convinced. Rape is rape. It’s not “thing that is incredibly harmful and bad for women and related to reproductive rights or slut-shaming.”
I’ve got no quibble with the idea that Ryan, Akin, and the like are advocating for offensive, terrible, harmful policies that are rooted in misogyny. But the fact that they’re doing bad things doesn’t make the thing they’re doing rape. Killing people is bad, but executing a prisoner is not raping their life. Verbal abuse is terrible, but screaming at or threatening your partner is not raping their mind. And trying to outlaw abortion or saying that no one gets pregnant from rape are seriously fucked up things to do, things that make things much worse for survivors, but that doesn’t make them rape.
And even aside from that, I think that it’s a terrible strategy or talking point to adopt. Because Paul Ryan is not, in fact, a rapist, and when you call him one you way more difficult and less effective to call out actual rapists. And you completely undermine the argument that we are still having to make to the world at large that the word rape shouldn’t be used whenever something you really dislike or disagree with happens. Because yes, there is a mile of difference between being accosted by a swarm of paparazzi and being told you can’t have an abortion or that you lied about being raped. But it’s not all that easy to draw (or explain) a line between “things it’s okay to call rape even though they aren’t rape” and “things that should definitely not be called rape because they aren’t rape.”
Yes. If we demand verbal precision about the term “rape” we likewise have to exercise precision about the term “rape.” Unless the dude has actually had sex with a person who didn’t/couldn’t consent, he’s not a rapist.
Yeah, I think Etsi’s comment is the most reasoned response I’ve seen to the original post. In fact it’s probably how I’ll respond in the future to people who say, “So-and-so Teapublican is a ****ing rapist.”
Okay, well, that’s kind of the problem here. You seem more interested in argumentation about bodily autonomy than the realities of it. It’s been almost 20 years since I was raped, and I’ve only had recent, vivid flashbacks to it twice: when Akin made his comments, and when you made yours. Maybe I didn’t win your argumentation prizes but guess what? You’re about to win my most callous poster on a feminist website prize. At what point do you care more about suffering than scorecards? You sound like a very, very well meaning person, so it’s depressing to see things break down this way.
“I’ve only had recent, vivid flashbacks to it twice: when Akin made his comments, and when you made yours.”
I am so sorry. I don’t have anything I can say to make up for that. (“I apologise” doesn’t really cut it.) I didn’t write this post because I think I have the most correct opinion — it was because I wanted to get some discussion and feedback going on possible messaging strategies. But it wasn’t worth triggering the other people who come here. That was selfish.
This is a nice post to link people to when they want to argue the GOP isn’t really that bad or really hates women, etc. All the links a really useful (though it sometimes makes it hard to read your post as a whole instead of backtracking from reading the links).
One minor detail; I can’t read that postcard’s text.
Thanks, konkonsn, but I think you’re the only one who doesn’t think this post was a colossal misfire (for understandable reasons). Anyway, if you want to read the postcard, just right-click “Open image in new tab” or your browser’s equivalent.
Just wanted to jump in to say that this post wasn’t a misfire imo – you made great points and are keeping the conversation going on a hugely important topic. I do disagree with that one word, but appreciate the content of the post.
If Paul Ryan literally raped a woman, would your opinion of him change?
Pretty much as much as my opinion of Bush would if it were revealed that he literally and personally tortured somebody himself.
Oh, has Ryan directly ordered women raped that I didn’t hear about?
Oh for Christ’s sake Bagelsan, you know what she means. EG, correct me if I’m wrong, but I read that as less of a direct analogy and more just as an example of a situation where your opinion of someone changed from ‘very shitty’ to ‘extremely shitty.’
I do know what she means, and I’m disagreeing with her. Bush ordering people to be tortured is different than Ryan indirectly enabling rapists.
Then you don’t know what she’s saying. She’s not comparing Bush to Ryan, at least I don’t see any comparison in her comment. All I see is her using Bush as an example to show that you can have a negative opinion about a person, and then have a worse opinion of that person when you find out more about their actions.
Sure, he’d be an even bigger scumbag than he is now, but it wouldn’t change the fact that esposing the views he does makes him an asshole, but not a rapist.
I definitely understand the sentiment of using rape to describe a lot of these things, but because we still live in a world where the very definition of rape is still up for debate and that debate is used to marginalize rape victims it’s important that the term not be appropriated or trivialized in such a manner.
Sorry, I actually agree with you here, and I wasn’t clear. Calling Paul Ryan a rapist is idiotic. That’s because if you call him that, seeing actually rape someone shouldn’t change your opinion of him. Whereas to any sane person, it obviously would. I thought about this when Aaron McGruder called Condy Rice a “murderer”. If Rice started shooting people in press conferences, I imagine McGruder’s opinion of her would become more negative.
So the consensus seems to be that attaching the “rapist” label to misogynist legislators trivialises rape. That I can understand.
But what about referring to anti-women laws as state-sponsored violence against women — which was the original point made in the title? Since the War on Women literally endangers women’s lives, and since the forced pregnancy nonsense they keep pushing in Congress is explicitly recognised by the international community as a category of crimes against humanity, it stands to reason that “state-sponsored violence” is a brutally apt descriptor for what they’re attempting to force on U.S. women — and successfully so, on the state level. Or is it going too far to compare rape enablers like Ryan et al to war criminals, even if forced pregnancy is categorically recognised as a possible war crime?
I’m pretty sure the term ‘war criminal’ is specific to actual war (e.g. World War II, Rwanda, Franco-Prussian, Peloponnesian, etc.) and not applicable to metaphorical war (e.g. War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Poverty, etc.)
Your male privilege allows you to see it as not a “real” war, Fat Steve. It’s way different from this side of the gender aisle.
I’m a woman, and I find a distinction between metaphorical war and war. Which I learned to do from my mother, who was in a (non-metaphorical) war.
Tinfoil,
I didn’t use the word “real,” which makes it all the stranger that you put the word in quotes.
Metaphorical wars can be ‘real,’ you only have to look at the ones I gave as examples. I wasn’t denying that there is a war on women in the way that I would deny there is a war on Christianity, I was merely saying that war crimes legislation appears to be written with combat type wars in mind.
There’s one part of the definition of “crimes against humanity” you keep forgetting, that actually helps your case. The crimes have to be “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.” And, well, that’s what outlawing abortion completely would be.
Now, the other parts of the “War on Women” don’t rise to that level of violence, but are still bad, whether it’s the various attacks on birth control, condoms counting as evidence for prostitution, encouraging health care disparities, etc. (Other things do approach that level of violence in my opinion, such as shackling prisoners giving birth, or the treatment of trans women by much of law enforcement.)
Yeah, I meant in terms of messaging, not so much legality. Even if Gov. McDonnell’s forced ultrasounds had become law, it’s doubtful he’d have ever seen a day in court for state-sponsored violence against women.
Echo,
Did you mean to say ‘disapproved’ in the second sentence? If not, could you clarify what you meant by this?
One of them believes rape is a myth because, for instance, if a woman consents to sex once, then she has no grounds for withdrawing consent after being penetrated, even if it becomes painful and violent. And he said this in front of his partner, which encapsulates a lot about his attitudes toward half the population.
Indeed. He sounds like a thoroughly deplorable human being.
I thought you were talking about liberal men who disliked Ryan’s comments but acted like her ‘extreme’ language was far far worse.
Based on solely on his marital rape comments, I can say it doesn’t surprise me at all this guy is a fan of Ryan. I may be naive but I do hope there are a good number people out there who vote Republican purely on conservative economic principles, and that straight up right wing sexist jerks only make a small percentage of people who would support a ticket with Ryan on it. I’d hate to think that 40% of the electorate actually thinks these things are okay.
[...] Paul Ryan is a ****ing rapist. Sorry for stating the obvious,” she said.www.feministe.us/…/akin-ryan-championing-state-sponsored-… [...]
So you mean it in the same way like somebody who torrents a song rapes the copyright of the owner. You know, a violation.
So you consider illegal music downloads to be in the same category as rape-by-ultrasound laws. You’d do well in Virginia, bud.
Yes, because that was exactly my point…
I believe his point was that we don’t.
[...] Paul Ryan is a ****ing rapist. Sorry for stating the obvious,” she said.www.feministe.us/…/akin-ryan-championing-state-sponsored-… [...]
Okay, I agree that we shouldn’t use the word “rapist” except when talking about someone who has actually committed rape, but can we just appreciate that this post was excellent other than maybe the last paragraph or so. It’s important to refuse to allow misogynists to define support of forced pregnancy and victim-blaming as just differing political opinions.
Actually raptus comes from the Latin word abduction. So the origin of the word is the abduction of the woman. The sexual violence in that scenario was a give I guess.
Who are you talking to, and why do you think this is relevant to the post or the discussion that was had?