Rape as an aggressor-less crime

There has been much uproar about the new Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board advertisements to reduce binge drinking in teenagers. The Feministing blog has already published an informational piece about the piece:  Feministing PLCB article

What I would like this blog post, though, is to analyze the image surrounding this message, Burke's pentad, and what it means for constructing feminist forms. From the text and the woman on the floor, the advertisement paints the picture of a party-goer who has had too much to drink and now is making bad decisions that has lead her to this "underwear around the ankle" predicament. The outstanding factor for me is not the relative crudeness of the picture, but about how all of the focus in the text and in the image is on the woman and not the possible aggressor. It is highly unlikely that a woman, even when intoxicated could manage such a position without assistance, whether wanted or unwanted does not matter, for consent cannot be given while intoxicated. Despite the legal hypocrisy that the woman could not "say no" because of her condition, the actuality is that she could not say yes. For, it is a crime, known as "date rape" to perceive drunkenness as consent in any situation. The absence of someone to help her get to this state and the absence of any other person or player in the larger text paint a picture that the woman has done all of these actions to herself and is responsible entirely of her own imminent rape. This removes any blame from the other half of the rape equation and scapegoats the woman as the sole actor.

 It is clear in the text on the poster that the implications of the picture is that every decision made, even while heavily intoxicated and unable to control one's own actions, is the actor's fault. This focus on the actor as is explained above, has interesting implications in Kenneth Burke's pentad, the five parts of dramatism: the actor/agent, the scene, the act, the agency, and the purpose. Focusing or favoring one of these aspects over another leads to a changing lens of victimage and blaming. (Burke, 1945). When the actor or agent is favored as the dominant spoke of the pentad, there is a break away from the surroundings or scene and the mitigating circumstances, but places all of the agent that performs the act. In this scenario, these implications are especially offensive, as this paradigm would allow for the woman to be the performer of her own rape, leaving the aggressor completely blameless in the act. For it was the agent, the woman, as a drinker, party-goer, and bad decision maker that brought her to this point, and thus, she acts as the scapegoat for the crime committed. The advertisement even goes one point farther to implicate the friends of this woman, presumably more women, as agents in her rape for not intervening and correcting her bad decisions. This advertisement tells nothing of the man's responsibility to make good decisions, to not over-drink, and to respect, not rape, women. It says nothing about the man's friends who may have intervened to stop him from committing the act, but instead implicate the females for refusing to do what the law says they cannot: say no. These opinions are standard and can be related to the myth of man sexuality as strong, dominant, and overpowering and that man is weak when it comes to the fairer sex. Women, on the other hand, can control this urge, use it against a man, so thus, in any sexual encounter, the man is acting as expected, the woman is truly the one in control, and thus the one to blame.

If the scene had been the more dominant focus, the ad might have looked like a party, where people were standing, chatting, perhaps dancing, and drinking. The words over the image might have said, "don't let the party get carried away" or a phrase about the party getting out of control, or leading where it shouldn't. That would be an implication of the scenario, the situation as playing a large part in the act. It is the drinking, the party atmosphere, the fun-loving, free-spirited, and trusting nature of trying to have a good time, that leads to the impairment of judgment that can lead to date rape. This is opposed to the agent-focused view where the drinking is a conscious bad decision made by a female that leads to her own victimization.

In terms of constructing feminist forms, the advertisement offers a few conflicting views on the power of women. First, it perpetuates the stereotype of the woman as the Jezebel, as the sexual being that controls sexual encounters, and as the one to blame for her sexual conduct. There is something slightly empowering about the idea that woman are the actors and make their own choices and are not subject to the will of peers, the party atmosphere, or insistent males, but this lens forms cracks when judgment is impaired, for it allows for this same constructive view to destroy a woman's chance of avoiding victimization. Yes, a woman should be in charge of her own decisions, but this is a scenario where choice and judgment are taken out of the equation, and decision-making becomes not an aid, but a hindrance to one's safety. When constructing the feminine form in this ad, it is an obvious focus on the underwear as the only clothing visible. Is the woman wearing nothing but underwear? Or, more likely, is wearing something provocative, so that one might assume that her dress and manner of action is consistent with that of a seductress, an agent with a clear motivation.

In all fairness, this advertisement has been published with good intentions: to limit and discourage binge drinking. This is a goal that one would hope Liquor Control Boards would be worried about controlling. But, the larger issue here is that by trying to cut down on underage drinking, only one half of the equation, the woman, is blamed and scapegoated in a rape fantasy, portrayed by her pose on what appears to be a bathroom floor. Men are not implicated as having control over their actions, as being responsible just as the women are expected to be, but appear to get a pass on being blamed for rape and the guilt that comes from committing such a heinous and damaging crime. One could wonder about the amount of women who believe these fantasies, that they themselves are responsible for their rape, and thus do not report it. Is the production and expansion of these myths of feminine hyper-sexuality and responsibility for rape harming the reputation of women, creating leeway for men to free themselves from blame for committing rape, and destroying the possibility for prosecution of these crimes? I would say yes, completely and utterly yes.

Burke, Kenneth. 1945. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969

Five Evil Faces

Looking at the TIME Magazine archive, there is much to learn about the changing of cover images over the years. A comparison between images, especially of political figures, can lend themselves to historical analyses of the time period in which the magazine was published and what the main article’s view is on the topic or conflict in question. For this blog post, I will analyze similarities between five images of five world leaders regarded as “negative” or “evil” world leaders at the time of publication of the TIME Magazine cover (and arguably before and after). The ideas I will highlight are the similarities: faces, shadowing, layering, and angle and discuss the implications for further research about one of the lleaders that strayed drastically from the other four. The five leaders are Gaddafi, Hussein, Khomeini, Jong, and Ahmadinejad.

Chronologically, the first image is one of the Ayatullah Khomeini during the Iran hostage crisis published in 1979. The image of Khomeini is a cartoon drawing with heavy shading, a large black turban, sinister yellowed eyes, and a three-quarter profile. What’s noticeable about the angle of Khomeini’s face is that although the face is directed away from the viewer, the eyes are looking directly at the viewer. This depiction is a created one, so this small decision was still a decision made by the artist to express some type of peripheral awareness and slyness on the part of Khomeini. An additional artistic choice was to place a smaller photograph (not cartoon drawing) of Jimmy Carter, who was president during the crisis to the side, on Khomeini’s cheek. Carter’s angle mimics that of Khomeini’s, but his eyes are directed away from the viewer, possibly looking at Khomeini as a sign of aggression or imminent confrontation. 

The second image is one of Saddam Hussein in 1997. The similarities between this image and the Khomeini image are the direct gaze of Hussein into the viewer, the placement of a competing figure blocking part of the face, and shadowing that discolors the face. The person in front of Hussein is Bill Clinton, president during the time when Hussein was kicking weapons inspectors out of Iraq, in a “showdown” of power struggle. Again, the image of the “evil” dictator is much larger than the US counterpart, and the US counterpart is not looking threateningly at the viewer, but at their nemesis.

The third image is of Kim Jong Il in 2003 at the beginnings of the 6 party talks about disarming North Korea’s nuclear program. This time, instead of having a US counterpart blocking the face, there are missiles (in some ways replacing an enemy with an ally) that block portions of his face and dominate the picture by being much larger in scale and number. The similar angle of the face is differentiated by a look away from the viewer. This variation may occur for many reasons, possibly because there was no direct “showdown” imminent as in the other situations with clear allies, but simply an overarching threat to many people, hence the multitude of weapons to symbolize the importance of the threat to people who may not think of him to be so.

The fourth image is the one that detracts most from the other similarities, the image of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2006.  Although there is a bit a text calling for a war, there is no US counterpart image, such as of George W. Bush, blocking the face of Ahmadinejad.  Additionally, the top of Ahmadinejad’s head cuts off the word “TIME” which no other image does (except for the missiles in Kim Jong Il’s image) and he is an obvious focal point with no competing images, people, or words on the cover. Even the text in the corner is of a different shade of red than the background red that fades marginally into the background. The gaze of Ahmadinejad is towards the front, but up and over the viewer, giving the entire image a tone of reverence to the leader as opposed to direct conflict, although the cover calls for a description of what a war with this man would look like for America. The implications are as the text indicates, that war is not inevitable and that this man should not be seen as an enemy quite yet.

The final image is from 2011 and is an image of Gaddafi after he was removed from power in Libya.  Although the gaze is not present in this image due to the dissolving of Gaddafi’s face, the face is directed forward and it is implied that the gaze would be forward as well, indicating a disappearing enemy and risk to the viewer. Like the Ahmadinejad image, there is little competing with Gaddafi’s image, but in this circumstance, Gaddafi’s face is not given importance in the sense that it only half appears, implying that what was once an enemy is now no longer a threat, emphasized by the empty space surrounding the image.

Each of these images share different representations of leaders and dictators considered enemies of the US in a national American magazine over the span of 30 years. Additional research should be done concerning these archival images to include other leaders represented on Time Magazine covers, an analysis of even more similarities and differences (too extensive to list in an essay of this size), and the additional background (such as the articles within the magazine themselves) to determine the exact points and view and purpose of each of the images. Especially considering some of the stark differences between leaders, there may be some insight through further research into why some images are similar and others deviate strongly from the others.

Marriage by the Numbers: Sister Wives and Identity

Season 1 Promo

This blog post will look at the above image and the text of the 2010 TLC show, Sister Wives,
about a polygamist family in Utah, the Browns, who subscribe to the fundamentalist Mormon
faith. The symbolism in the above image is simple and mirrors the implications of the show for 
women both in and outside of the polygamist community. Using a feminist lens, the analysis of 
the image mirror the show's emphasis on the patriarchal system of the Brown family and the 
dominance of men over women in the form of polygamist marriage. Although the show hopes
to portray this implementation of faith in a positive and compassionate light, there are many 
flaws in this representation that ignore obvious gender inequalities.

One of the more obvious elements of this image is the golden symbols of men and women. 
These are meant to be wedding bands that symbolize the women being bound to the men through 
the interlocking rings with no room for escape. Within this image, there is also the overwhelming 
indication that the women are dependent on the man and are being supported by him, lest they 
fall. The male sign, though, appears to support itself and is the stronger unit that is able to carry 
the three female symbols easily, while the female signs dangle beneath him, vulnerable and weak.

The female symbols are also indistinguishable from each other, reducing their uniqueness and 
individuality and reducing them to only their gender stereotypes. Their position in the household 
is not matriarchal or valuable, but is instead defined by their function as a wife, given importance 
through marriage to a man. The role of Kody's wives is merely that: they only have value as a wife, 
a hanging wedding ring, a child-giving, and homemaker. This is reflected in the show's repeated 
subscript of the wive's names with their corresponding number (wife #1, wife #2, wife #3, wife #4) 
while Kody's subscript labels him as “the patriarch.” There is a scene in the first season where 
Christine discusses how she only ever considered joining a family as wife #3, a position she feels 
provides balance to the sisterhood.  Statements such as these reinforce the idea that the women 
are active members in creating their own dependence and obedience to Kody.

Big hugs for everyone sleeping with my husband!

An aspect of community is created between the women, where they live in the same house, 
share chores,  cook, raise each other's children, and two of them have full-time jobs. There are 
many sentimental scenes where the women describe their sister wives as their best friends and 
are glad that they can go through the world with their friends by their side. In the traditional sense 
of friends, though, one would think of a friend who sleeps with your husband as the worst friend, 
not the best. Outside of the polygamist lens, these women are keeping their enemies closest, but 
within the polygamist structure, Meri, Janelle, Christine, and later, Robyn, view each other as the 
best support system, best friends, and mothers to each others' children.

The show puts heavy emphasis on the Brown's family as an alternative lifestyle, but an acceptable 
one and almost always begins and ends each episode with an attention to the benefits and positive 
aspects of living as “sister wives”. This image, through a feminist lens, can be seen as offensive to 
women and subjecting them as only as important as the man who supports them and marries them 
and that their position is solidified by the inevitability of getting married. It also capitalizes on the vulnerability of women and the process of marriage solely as an identity-forming action.

In playing devil's advocate to myself, I tried to image a show that had various forms of family 
make-ups and what their corresponding logos might look like. In each other couple I could imagine, 
female with female, male with male, and female with male, the idea of the partnership creates two interlocking rings that are on equal fields and connect, both strong and upright, working in tandem 
as a union, as I would expect a union to operate. So, my issue is, would I be equally offended by the 
female symbol supporting three male symbols? The answer is, on a fundamental level, that the issue 
of inequality is the largest hurdle that the Sister Wives image portrays and one that would be equally offensive in any of the above scenarios if even one ring was shown as being beneath any other. This 
idea of support and dependence creates the idea of an unequal marriage, which is an idea central to 
that of the show and the fundamental faith that purports this type of union. Why, then, does the show 
not have interlocking rings that more represent Olympic rings, strong on their own, but still creating 
an even stronger structure by being connected? Why do the women have to hang on their husband, 
weak, dependent, and vulnerable?