By now, most of you will have heard of the “Stanford Rapist” — real name Brock Turner. Turner was recently convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious girl outside a fraternity party held on campus in 2015. Media attention surrounding the rape of this woman had, until recently, focused on Turner’s elevated position at the esteemed American university: Turner was a member of the college’s swim team, and apparently had aspirations to compete in the 2016 Olympic Games.
In the aftermath of Turner’s conviction and sentencing, which despite being a paltry 6 months in prison is still more time than 97 % of convicted sexual assailants serve, even more evidence of the existence of rape culture has come to light.
The concept of “rape culture” is not new in feminist circles, and despite protestations from groups determined to continue with the dominance of the white, middle-class patriarchy (particularly “Men’s Rights Activists” and the like), is a glaringly simple concept to understand and is evident throughout almost all facets of life. Put simply, “rape culture” is an environment where misogyny, particularly sexual violence against women, is excused, normalised and even glamourised. This is done through the use of derogatory language, visual media and also via the socialisation of gender norms, particularly the social discourse surrounding women’s sexuality.
The amount of inherent misogyny in the various rulings, statements, opinion pieces and the like specifically about this case is huge, and despite my best attempts would be impossible to unpack in one post. So instead, I will focus on the most blatantly obvious manifestations of rape culture: the myth of the “typical rapist”, male entitlement and the notion of victim-blaming.
The “Typical Rapist” Myth
“Turner may not look like a rapist”, prosecutor Alaleh Kianerci stated during the closing remarks of the case. This statement in itself is exceptionally problematic — it assumes that perpetrators of sexual assault have a particular “appearance”, which we know both anecdotally and through various data analyses, where researchers have found that that sexual offenders are a “diverse and heterogenous group”.
The truth is, growing up in the Western world during the 20th century, most of us have been conditioned to subscribe to the “stranger danger” fallacy — that is, that we are trained to become most wary of people we have no connection to or relationship with. This education was designed to protect children in particular from harm — however, we now know that the majority of perpetrators of child abuse and violence are people well-known to the children themselves, people who they have a sense of trust in. The same goes for sexual assault — at least three out of four rapes are committed by someone known to the victim, whether it be a family member, spouse, friend or date.
Turner’s friend Leslie Rasmussen cited the “typical rapist” when giving her personal reflection on Brock pre-sentencing, stating “this is completely different from a woman getting kidnapped and raped as she is walking to her car in a parking lot. That is a rapist. These are not rapists.” It would be easy to dismiss Rasmussen’s statement here as somebody who is just looking out for the best interests of her friend. However, to do so would be simplistic, and ignores the construct ingrained in people, described by Rasmussen herself, of the “actual rapist”.
It is perhaps understandable that this narrative has been created. To recognise the truth, that your “typical rapist” looks like somebody you have known for a significant period of time/have a sense of trust in/is somebody who in all other aspects of their life is a reliable and reputable person, is a daunting and scary thought for people. If you can’t trust somebody that looks like your best friend, who can you trust? This is the predicament women face, and that the “not all men” brigade seem incapable of understanding.
Male Privilege and Victim-Blaming
If we are to recognise the fact that perpetrators of sexual assault are not easily identifiable as a homogenous group, understand that the majority of rapes and sexual offenses either go unreported or do not make it to the stage of conviction (let us not forget the disbelief survivors face when reporting or recounting their experiences — but more on that another time), and also accept that the majority of rapes are committed by men towards women and children, it would be irresponsible to not demand that the factors that fuel the issue be addressed. While it is impossible to address them all in one post, two issues central to this particular case (and “rape culture” in general) are the notion of male privilege, and the insistence of greater society in blaming the victim for the crime.
“Male Privilege” is perfectly showcased in Turner’s case via the release of a letter his father, Dan Turner, had penned in a plea for leniency for his son’s criminal sentence. You can find the letter in its entirety linked at the end of the article, however we will look at a couple of blatantly entitled statements in a demonstration of said privilege. Firstly, Turner Sr. describes how the “verdict” has been of great detriment to Turner Jr., namely that he has lost his appetite, his title of “sexual offender” means he will never be able to achieve the potential he was once capable of, and the now-infamous “steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action”.
There is absolutely no consideration for the effects of Turner Jr’s crime on the victim (who eloquently described this herself — link at the end of the post). There is no discussion around the potential that she herself had the capacity to reach. There is almost a sense that his son was entitled to this “20 minutes of action” with no consequence, as no criminal nature is mentioned. There is no discussion regarding the heinous nature of his son’s criminal actions and how he violated a woman who was incapacitated and incapable of consenting to sexual relations. Instead, any vague reference to the survivor is related to “alcohol consumption” and “sexual promiscuity”. The last two points in particular are often used to excuse male sexual violence against women, by shifting the blame onto the victim rather than having the perpetrator take responsibility for his actions.
Victim-blaming is certainly an easy approach to take when the perpetrator fits into the description of the trusted, up-standing member of society with great potential, described throughout this post. We cannot comprehend that somebody who seems so “normal”, so “not the stranger in a dark alley” that we have been conditioned to believe is the true threat to our safety. Instead, we look for reasons that this regular person was coerced, nay forced, into this position. It is easier to do this than to accept that somebody that looks, acts and behaves like Brock Turner is a potential predator.
If we are to truly address the issue of sexual violence against women, we need to accept the realities that this case in particular has highlighted, as uncomfortable as it may be.
Sources:
https://rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence
http://www.csom.org/train/etiology/3/3_1.htm
Victim’s letter: https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra?utm_term=.lcR72a652#.fyN2qdGDq
Dan Turner’s Letter: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2852614-Letter-from-Brock-Turner-s-Father.html#document/p3/a300156
Image credit: Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune.