anti anti-rape backlash

I thought that paying $70 for a haircut would have been the 2nd most annoying thing to happen to me this past week. But then I was reading at Peet's tonight, and this dumbass decided to start a conversation about the book I was reading, Fraternity Gang Rape. When he asked about the book, I explained that I was studying the anti-rape movement. Then he asked if there was there ever a pro-rape movement. (this is the usual follow up question) This guy said that everyone agrees that rape is wrong. I told him that the anti-rape movement emerged in the early 1970s, when rape was a taboo subject, violence against women wasn't necessarily wrong, and it was believed that women did not have the right to bodily integrity. So then the guy says that if he had been alive fifty years ago, he would be able to rape women. He said this quite seriously. I'm not sure if he was sorry that he wasn't alive fifty years ago. I gave him the evil eye and returned to my book.

Okay, so there isn't a pro-rape movement, but in the early 1990s, anti anti-rape backlash emerged. I just finished reading Katie Roiphe's "The Morning After: Sex, Fear, and Feminism on Campus." She (poorly) critiques feminists for creating a culture of fear and date rape hysteria on college campuses. Roiphe is skeptical of statistics that report the number of women who are victims of rape and sexual assault, and she says that women are responsible for their actions and must be held accountable. She actually says that one woman's version of rape may be another's bad night.

So while nobody may explicitly condone rape, it's not so clear cut. When we conceptualize rape as an act committed by a stranger, jumping out from behind a bush, attacking a woman, we are likely to perceive this as "real rape." But, the line gets more blurry when the rapist is an acquaintance, a date, a spouse or when the woman is drinking, wearing revealing clothing, out late at night alone, etc. The anti anti-rape backlash isn't a necessarily a phenomenon that emerged in the early 90s; rather, society has always been critical of rape accusations and has placed some degree of responsibility and agency on the woman. Society and the legal and criminal justice system place the onus to prevent rape upon the woman. Consequently, many rapes go unreported.

In other news, I saw the Vagina Monologues this weekend, which was lots of fun, empowering, and pretty cool. Um, what else? I cleaned my apartment and I did some yoga. I'm pretty excited that I can do the full wheel now and headstands too. And, I bought a big bag of Sour Patch Kids tonight. That is all.

To Vote or Not to Vote? The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory by Andre Blais

This week we read To Vote or Not to Vote? The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory by Andre Blais for my Political Participation class. Basically, Blais is trying to figure out why we vote.

According to Anthony Downs, citizens engage in a "calculus of voting" model when deciding whether or not to vote. This model says that a citizen will decide to vote if the benefits of voting outweigh the costs. However, if the costs of voting outweigh the benefits, then the citizen will not vote. The expected benefits are those that the citizen would presumably gain if his/her desired candidate wins the election or just the benefits that the citizen gains by simply casting a vote. The costs of voting include the time it takes to register, go to the polls, and obtain information to be an informed voter. According to the rational choice model, citizens must also consider the probability that they will cast the deciding vote in an election. So when deciding to vote, a rational citizen considers the costs, benefits, and the probability that he/she will cast the deciding vote.

This is the paradox of voting: The probability that citizens will cast the deciding vote is extremely small, yet many people still vote. According to rational choice theory, rational actors would not vote. Many scholars have tinkered with the rational choice model and contributed their amendments to the theory. Blais starts with the notion that rational choice inadequately explains why people vote.

Blais explores where, when, and which people vote. Drawing on cross national data, Blais finds that voter turnout is linked to economic development, literacy, population, number of parties, and electoral system. Turnout in national elections is higher than in local elections, and turnout is higher when elections are close. Turnout increases as economic development and literacy increases. Blais also finds turnout to be higher in small, densely populated countries and in countries with proportional representation. He also finds that as the number of political parties in a country increases, voter turnout decreases. Blais moves on to explore voters themselves. He finds that voters do not overestimate their vote, and they do not think that they are casting a decisive vote. Instead, many talk about voting as a sense of duty. Blais finds that this sense of civic duty is stronger among women, as well as older and more religious persons. Finally, Blais finds that the costs of voting are considered to be minimal.

I enjoyed reading this book, but I had two problems with it. This is what we do as political scientists: We read the literature and then look for the flaws. All right, here goes. Blais looks at the number of political parties and their competitiveness to determine their impact on voter turnout. I would have liked it if he had looked at the scope of the parties. According to Blais, we should have a pretty high turnout rate since we have only two political parties. However, this is not the case, especially compared to other countries. Blais finds that turnout is lower when the number of parties increases because voters are overwhelmed with the number of choices, but in the US case the parties are so broad that we seem to lack choices.

My second problem with Blais concerns his methodology- how he went about conducting his research. When he looked at the costs of voting, he surveyed students and voters. This is problematic because we would assume that the costs of voting are going to be low for those who actually vote. Surveying students is also problematic because we know that income and education are linked to voting; hence, costs would also be minimal to this group. It would have been interesting to explore whether or not the costs of voting prevent some from casting a vote.

Books I'm Loving: Gender Vertigo by Barbara J. Risman

I recently finished Gender Vertigo, recommended to me by KB. The underlying research question that Risman seeks to answer is how we explain gender differences and inequalities in society. Gender organizes our society, and it is socially constructed through childhood socializations. Gender is a social construction because the definitions of "being a woman" and "being a man" are not necessarily based upon biological differences. What does it mean to be a woman or a man? Traditionally, women do more housework than their male counterparts. Is performing this labor part of being a woman? When a woman vacuums or prepares dinner, is she "doing gender?"

Through case studies, Risman contends that gender is a structure that perpetuates inequalities in society. We learn this structure in the family, in formal institutions, and through cultural rules and images. This structure constrains our choices and expectations. First, Risman compares single mothers to single fathers to determine that men are just as capable of "mothering" children as women. Nurturing and caring for children are socially constructed as "women's" work with no biological bases. Second, Risman analyzes couples who have constructed egalitarian marriages in which the woman and man share child rearing and household responsibilities equally. These couples are able to do this because women are not economically dependent upon their husbands, families are redefined so that breadwinning and domesticity are the responsibility of both partners, and the definition of masculinity is redefined so that nurturance and emotional sensitivity replace domineering attitudes. Finally, Risman analyzes the children that are raised in these households. Although these children adopt their parents' egalitarian attitudes, they still become gendered due to the cognitive images and knowledge learned from their peers and in formal institutions. Consequently, moving into a post-gendered society is an extremely slow process.

This book is valuable to my personal research interests because it debunks the dichotomous conception that masculinity and femininity are based upon biological differences. Instead, the socialization of females and males occurs in the families and in formal institutions. Most importantly to me, Risman demonstrates that children raised in egalitarian households are well-adjusted and happy, and being raised by working mothers and nurturing fathers is not detrimental to their well-being.