Sexual harassment

Journaleque has written "I'm Not An i-Feminist, I Swear", where she responds to a piece in The F-Word about sexual harassment. I like her blog and don't want to crash into it, leaving a critical comment. But I need to offload some of my reactions. (Journalesque does say emphatically that she doesn't deny sexual harassment exists. It's just this particular incarnation of feminism that I believe she's objecting to.)

1) Sexual harassment does not only happen to attractive women; this is a myth supported by the patriarchy. It places blame on the woman and is deeply misogynistic. It's the same mentality that blames women for getting raped. It's the kind of mentality that says women cannot move freely in public spaces if they're too "this" or "that". The list is entirely subjective and seeks to give men an excuse for their abusive behavior. For instance, a man can claim that a woman he raped was dressed too sexy. What is "too sexy"? Not only that, but this argument is insulting to men, treating them as if they are mere animals who can't help themselves. Finally, this argument acts as a distraction from the real issue, which is holding the abuser responsible for his actions.

Therefore, whether journalesque is considered beautiful, ugly, or somewhere in-between by the current standards of beauty (which also vary regionally) is not the point. The point is that sexual harassment can happen to all classes of women, of all ages and all ethnicities. Don't conflate the meaning of this last sentence with meaning, "all women are sexually harassed." Re-read it if you think it says that.

2) Just because you feel you haven't been sexually harassed, do not trivialize other women's right to publicly speak out about sexual harassment. If you are reading an article and the author uses evidence based on personal experiences (e.g., "me and my circle of friends"), do not trivialize such evidence as not being based on fact. Those women were harassed, that's a fact.

If an author's factual evidence doesn't jive with your experiences, your experience doesn't automatically discount or invalidate that author's experience. You've just had different experiences.

Note: rape statistics and sexual harassment statistics are in short supply and usually guesstimates. This is due to the shame that is heaped upon women in our society surrounding these two events. It is not the woman's fault, it is quite clearly the perpetrator's fault; he is responsible for his actions.

It is in the best interests of the patriarchy to keep reports that include statistics about rape, sexual harassment, men hitting women, etc., unpublicized or not easily accessed by the public, vague, out-of-date, and/or incomplete. This way, these problems can continue to be seen as individual problems requiring simple, individual solutions, not complex social problems of a woman-hating society. (A recent example of this is the Laci Peterson case.)

Because of the above, women writing and speaking publicly about such events is an attempt to rectify this. It is also a brave act. When other women trivialize those women speaking out, it helps the patriarchy.

3) Just because a woman complains about sexual harassment, and seeks to publicize it and give voice to the problem, and perhaps call men on it and ask for it to stop, that woman is not necessarily a "victim feminist". That woman, or group of women, is not "sitting around telling stories about asshole men who've done us wrong". She is calling men on their shit. Women receive abuse from men in a variety of ways under the patriarchy; there are many disincentives for women to speak out publicly about this abuse. Talking about it doesn't make women victims, not talking about it makes women victims. Speaking about it is often an attempt to break out of the victim position. It is a call for justice. That's the best kind of feminism, in my opinion. If you doubt this, read War on Error's "Personal & Political, Part II".

Incidentally, the term "victim feminism" is often used by anti-feminists in an attempt to shut them up about injustices and abuse that the patriarchy would rather be invisible, such as pay discrepancies based on gender, and the other examples given above.

Editorial Decisions

I do agree with journalesque about the first sentence in the second paragraph - it makes a sweeping statement that may alienate some readers who have not experienced much sexual harassment, thereby undermining the integrity of the piece as a whole:

"Ask any woman and she'll have a hundred stories of harassment by strangers that happened to herself, to her friend; last month, last week, yesterday. Street harassment of women happens every day, turning what should be public neutral spaces into areas we travel through as quickly as possible, head down, avoiding eye contact, pretending we didn't hear it even though they know damn well we have."

With a few editorial tweaks, it could've read more accurately. I would've either cut the first sentence and just opened with "Street harassment of women happens every day," or, better yet, put men into the sentence with, "Men harass women on the street every day"; or edited the first sentence to read, "Ask any woman and she'll probably have a story about either herself or a friend or relative being sexually harassed."

And journalesque doesn't mention that the very next paragraph reads:

"This isn't to suggest all women are all petrified victims of this form of harassment; of course not."

As the article points out, "the point isn't how women react but why we have to put up with this in the first place."