As the world awaits what happens in Libya and seeks diversion from gloomy predictions about the global economy, it preoccupies itself with the most recent development in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn saga. This week, prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office moved to drop rape charges against the former chief of the International Monetary Fund.
Strauss-Kahn was arrested from his first-class seat at the JFK airport in New York in May, barely hours after he allegedly raped a Sofitel New York employee inside his suite. He did not deny the sexual encounter but insisted that what had happened was consensual.
The accuser, Guinean Nafissatou Diallo, certainly gives the term “Maid in Manhattan” a new twist. Years ago, there was a romantic comedy starring Jennifer Lopez and Ralph Fiennes. She is a hotel housekeeper; he a senatorial candidate. They fall in love amid initial confusion. It turns out well in the end—Fiennes gets the girl and wins the elections besides while Lopez rises from her working-class, immigrant roots to become a hotel manager.
But that’s Hollywood. There seems to be no happy ending in sight for Diallo, 33, whose credibility the prosecutors doubt themselves. They say she has lied about being gang-raped by soldiers in her native country. She has also lied about not wanting to make money out of the incident.
“If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt,” state lawyers tell The New York Times, “we cannot ask a jury to do so.” In the meantime, Diallo’s impassioned lawyer insists justice has been denied to his client.
This reminds us of another Hollywood movie from years back, “The Accused,” starring Jodie Foster. Foster’s character was a happy-go-lucky girl who gets gang raped in a bar. But because of her “easy” reputation, her actuations before the actual assault, even the way she talks and dresses, it is she, the accuser, who finds herself on trial. Who’s to believe that what happened was against her will?
On one hand, and owing to the intimate nature of the crime, the strength of a rape case does hinge on the credibility of the accuser. This is especially difficult for Diallo, who finds herself against a very powerful man. Strauss Kahn is perceived as an able chief of the IMF, a former future president of France. She is a housekeeper—what is the weight of her word against his? On what should prosecuters base their decision to take her word except her previous conduct? And if that previous conduct does not look good, should she be allowed then to ruin a man’s reputation (not that it was Strauss-Kahn’s first time to be accused of anything)?
On the other hand, should not rape stand on its own? Regardless of how a woman dresses, talks or walks, whether she smokes or drinks alcohol, and whether or not she has lied in the past, it could be that she really was raped, i.e., forced to engage in sex against her will at that particular instant. In such case, there must be justice.
Rape is not so much about sex but assertion of power. One is decidedly physically stronger, more influential, and richer than the other. He has the audacity to impose his will on her—and then think he can actually get away with it.
***
In January this year, a police officer in Toronto named Michael Sanguinetti said at a forum that in order for women to remain safe, they should “avoid dressing like sluts.”
This thoughtless remark has sparked protests in Canada and in other countries. The first Slutwalk took place in April. Thousands of women, dressed provocatively, protested the fact that they had to dress in a certain way in order to be respected or to stay safe. They said that the way a woman dresses should not determine people’s response to them. Much less should their appearance explain or even excuse rape.
Sonya Barnett, founder of the Slutwalk movement, tells The Toronto Observer that they want to re-define “slut” as someone who is in control of [her] own sexuality.
“We really want to push the idea that nobody is worthy of any kind of violence,” she says. The group claims that Slutwalks have been the most successful feminist action of the past 20 years.
On one hand, it’s a feminist thing. Of course women should be able to wear what they want without being treated like sex objects. Why should we worry about how our outfits influence the thoughts and actions of the opposite sex and their response to us? That is their problem, not ours. Nothing excuses violence, and victims should never be blamed for what befell them.
On the other hand, there is one reality we must live with—and it is that men can get irrational when they are visually stimulated. They cannot help it; that’s just the way they are. It also does not mean that they should not try to rise above this tendency, or that they are not struggling to.
In May 2009, in a column called “Incentives to being a victim,” I cited the study of California psychologist Ofer Zur who published an article called “The psychology of victimhood: Rethinking ‘Don’t blame the victim’”. We respond to such acts of violence in either two ways: blaming the victim or totally absolving her. Zur says both extremes perpetrate and exacerbate the abusive environment. Neither really helps the victim at all.
Zur adds: “alleviating all women and any victim from any and all responsibility to predict, prevent or even unconsciously invite abuse is to reduce them to helpless incapable creatures and in fact re-victimizes them.” I agree.
I do not demand that the exact same options available to men (like dressing however way they want) be made to women as well. That would be simplistic and impractical. The two sexes are fundamentally differently wired, and coexisting means taking into account the strengths—and the vulnerabilities—of each, so that no one ends up taking advantage of the other. –Adelle Chua, Manila Standard Today
adellechua@gmail.com
#WearMask #WashHands
#Distancing
#TakePicturesVideos
