Wednesday, February 8, 2012

A shot in the arm?

Every time I begin to like Ron Paul's no nonsense attitude, he is bound and determined to ruin it.  I like that he is straightforward and has mostly good ideas, except when it comes to women and children. He just can't seem to shake the crap he is a product of.  This time it is over what he calls Honest Rape. I just kinda sat there for a second when he said that because I am still not sure what that means (as opposed to dishonest rape?).

As a woman who loves language, I am stymied by this one.  What DOES that mean?  A rape that really happened, and not in the woman's imagination?  A rape that is professed to be just that by both parties?  Or a woman who is strong enough to be honest about the fact that she was raped?  Sorry to  perseverate on this wording, but if someone like Paul is to be a lawmaker than wording is everything.  And this means nothing.

And if we are to call it it this: An Honest Rape, how do we decide what is honest and what is dishonest?  And who will have to do the proving of it? Will it be the victim of the rape?  Will she be subjected, again, to be vilified by the men who subjected her to their power the first time? Because I promise you, it won't be women who have had any experience with rape who will be a part of this travesty.

Will she have to go to court to prove it, thus delaying the right to abort until it is too late, therefore nullifying the original intent, and only submitting her to more anguish and, well, rape, by the courts? (Remember that rape is about power, and this idea of an honest rape is clearly about power).

My question is, why should she have to prove it at all?  Isn't enough that she went through the trauma in the first place?  It seems that this is just another way to create women as extensions of infants who cannot discern between an honest rape and one that they somehow brought upon themselves.

Let me be clear here.  NO ONE BRINGS RAPE UPON THEMSELVES.  Didja' get that?

It reminds me of Susan Estrich's book:  Real Rape.  She was raped in the back of her brownstone when she was at Harvard Law.  By a stranger.  And that is what people meant when they said to her, "oh, then you were really raped."  (yes, they said this to her face - kind and compassionate souls that they are).  As opposed to imaginary or pretend rape? Or even more damning, an acquaintance or a date.  or even a  spouse who doesn't want to and says no, not tonight, but is forced into anyway.

If a victim says no, then it is rape (see caps above).

Back to Ron Paul: His remedy for woman who gets raped?  Send her to the Emergency room and give her a shot of estrogen?  Um.  What about a man?  What about woman who wasn't Honestly raped, just assaulted? Free estrogen shots for all!

Now I am not a doctor, and I am not a former Ob/Gyn like Paul is, so I am really unclear about this shot of estrogen.  What exactly will that do?  Boost my period so I will have a really bad one?  Support my internal female system in the event that I am pregnant?  Help my emotions that are associated with my hormones so I won't feel abused, violated, and, well, raped?

This just does not make sense.  Not any part of it.  Not when you are female, not when you have worked with rape victims, simply know someone who has been raped, been raped yourself, or are aware of how much power men still have over women.

Or, can think for yourself, make decisions about your own body and life, and use your vote to get politicians out of a woman's uterus.

1 comment:

  1. It's yet another brick in the wall of stranger-rape-is-the-only-real-rape and if-you-don't-say--no-hard-enough-it-doesn't-count.

    This is yet another reason I subscribe to the Enthusiastic Consent school as opposed to "no means no." The second is great, but the first puts the onus on the potential rapist rather than the victim. Did your partner give excited, un-coerced consent? Great! S/he didn't? Guess what? Time to stop.