Ninety percent of survivors are women and 99% of
perpetrators are male. This is a
statistic one could use to explain why one might use the female pronoun to
describe a survivor or a male pronoun to describe a perpetrator. This statistic also highlights the gendered
aspect of sexual violence. However, this
statistic often covers up the stories of the other 10%. Adherence to the idea of sexual violence as
being gendered, as identified by this statistic, dangerously excludes the
experiences of those who do not conform to a gender dichotomy. This discussion is brought up on Feministing in
the article, “The dangers of a gender essentialist approach to sexual violence." The article explains the dangerous effects of
using binary language that excludes many people and perpetuates a narrow-minded
thinking of sexual violence.
It also presents an underlying difficulty. One needs to remember
that sexual violence is a gender-based crime while realizing that genderless language
to describe sexual violence has the potential to promote change in our society
on many levels. One example of where
more conscious use of language could improve thinking would be in the realm of
decreasing stigma or misunderstanding associated with those who do not conform
to a gendered binary and its consequent translation to policy. Sexual violence should not pin a gender on the
survivor or a perpetrator. A two-sided
way of thinking about sexual violence perpetuates homogeneity and undermines
the individual’s story. One way of
gaining empowerment is through validation of an individual survivor’s story
(something SAPAC and the NPA’s promote every fall!). As suggested in the article, one way to hold
on to the recognition that sexual violence is a gendered crime is by looking at
the deeper cultural aspects of it related to gender norms and masculinity. This is absolutely true. Change occurs by changing culture. The
effects of hyper-masculinity are a component of culture worthy of examination.
On another note related to language, the article on
Feministing went back and forth between using “survivor” and “victim.” This was surprising for me, because through
my volunteering at SAPAC, survivor is the only term I use and hear. It has become so much a part of my thinking
now, and here’s the reasoning why it is this way for me.
The link I’ve just given brings me to another point related
to this whole idea of using language that promotes a gender binary. The article on SAPAC’s site says, “We, along
with many other experts in the field, use the term “survivor” because it is a
more empowering term. Because so much power is taken from a person when
she or he is raped, the idea is to restore that sense of power.” Did you notice the use of “she or he”? This also represents a gender binary. English grammar rules would tell me everything is right in this sentence. However,
I am so glad to have been given permission ( Contact Robin Queen, UM linguistics professor)
to now use “they” instead of “he or she” or their instead of “him or her”, much
to the dismay of my high school English teachers. This is one small step I am taking to be gender-inclusive
in my language.
-Lindsay
No comments:
Post a Comment