Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 7, 1993 TAG: 9304070357
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JUSTIN ASKINS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
SEXUAL EQUALITY WOMEN SHOULD TAKE THEIR PART OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR `DATE RAPE
THAT WOMEN have long been repressed by men is a given. Reading works like Mary Wollstonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of Women" and Virginia Woolf's "A Room of One's Own" show the history of patriarchal dominance.Numerous contemporary authors - Riane Eisler, Adrienne Rich, Annette Kolodny - illustrate how patriarchy continues to prevent equality. Male domination of women must end, and I applaud almost all efforts to break the patriarchal stranglehold.
However, I have problems accepting the extremes of feminism, particularly any forms that exclude equal male participation and rights. I much prefer a more equitable arrangement, like the partnership model espoused in Eisler's "The Chalice and the Blade."
In the section on early Cretan society, Eisler writes about "a frank appreciation of sexual differences and the pleasure made possible by these differences. From what we now know through modern humanistic psychology, this `pleasure bond' would have strengthened a sense of mutuality between women and men as individuals."
In Eisler's view, Cretan sexual liberation and equality form the basis for an attractive and sustainable society.
This seems a sensible arrangement. Equality and difference is at the core of a lasting relationship, and if Eisler is right and harmony - with the Earth and with one another - can come from sexual equality and enjoyment, then a major force of the feminist movement may be misguided. As Camille Paglia writes, "Feminism, coveting social power, is blind to woman's cosmic sexual power."
Instead of radically changing society, many women seem to be embracing patriarchal values. This is apparent in politics and business, but especially in buying into the worst aspects of the legal system as a strategy to fight sexism.
I agree that women must fight, but by challenging sexism through an overwhelmingly patriarchal legal establishment, women are in danger of losing the feminine powers - of intuition, of sensuality, of emotional commitment to life - that have been repressed so long and will continue to be if the patriarchal legal system is favored.
One might respond that I am just trying to keep women down by victimship is aterrible fate. not allowing them to fight for their legal rights. But I have rejected the legal system for what it is - a method for rich people, corporations and governments to plunder the Earth. I doubt it can be bad for the Earth's rights and good for women's.
When a person is killed by another person, the context of the situation determines the charge.
If it is self-defense, then the person is innocent of any criminal action. If it is done accidentally, then a manslaughter charge might occur. If the killing goes beyond manslaughter but is not premeditated, a second-degree murder charge is placed. Generally, only a premeditated event can result in a first-degree murder charge.
That seems fair, and though I am not arguing that the legal system treats each person or race fairly, the distinctions concerning murder are reasonable.
With rape, there is no variation in charges: A young man who stalks a stranger, drags her into the woods and brutally forces her to have sex is undeniably a rapist.
But can the same be said about a young man who - after spending an evening with a young woman, being invited to her apartment, finding her receptive to his initial sexual advances, undressing with her - has sex despite her decision at the last minute that she would rather not?
What a weird situation. I am not saying that the second young man is not guilty of something. He is. But is it rape?
I would have problems with both accusing him and convicting him of that very serious crime. The simple accusation can label him a brutal criminal for many years.
What would seem more applicable in many "date rape" cases where the woman has clearly been involved in arousing the man - which is perfectly natural to most people - is a charge of "understandable assault."
Such a phrasing would make the woman responsible for her own actions. This is keeping with most precepts in modern law: If a measurable and substantial culpability can be established on the part of the defendant, then the charges - and penalty - are mitigated.
While the legal analogy carries weight, a more important reason for changing the rape definition involves the victimization of women. Women are victims in many instances - pay inequality and inadequate representation in politics to name two - but not in every one. To embrace victimship is a terrible fate - a no-win proposition where women remain subservient and patriarchy endures.
Paglia notes, "In dramatizing the pervasiveness of rape, feminists have told young women that before they have sex with a man, they must give consent as explicit as a legal contract's. In this way young women have been convinced that they have been victims of rape." What a terrible illusion.
In cases of "understandable assault," women are not complete victims; they are complicit. They must take responsibility for their actions - the only basis for real equality - and not use the legal system to degrade themselves and unfairly attack men.
Rape is a terrible crime and should be punished as such. But "understandable assault" is not rape, and until we can get rid of the discriminatory legal system, any misuse of it - by men or women - should be cautioned.
I think it time, in Woolf's words, to attend to "killing the Angel in the House" (that stereotype that sees women as gentle and endlessly supportive domestics). However, it might be worse for that deadening Angel to be replaced by an even more insidious "Lawyer in the House."
Justin Askins is an associate professor in the English department at Radford University.