Ultimately, I have quite mixed feelings about this book. It wasn't awful but some of it really wasn't great either.
I thought the first half of the book started out really strong, some of the discussion on the role of not just rape but the fear of rape in women's lives was very captivating and compelling, and it was a quote relating to this topic that pulled me towards reading the book in the first place. The historical analysis on consent "no means yes", the role of honour, value, and possession of a woman('s body) was also very, very interesting.
The discussion on victimhood was also one I found quite important and necessary, as I've pondered upon similar discussion and questions asked by Sanyal; the pinpointing of one event as defining everything there is to a victim, and how this informs our view of victimhood, how there is a certain "cultural script" that survivors of sexual assault are socially expected to follow, and if they don't, there is doubt and question to whether or not the event had even taken place. We demand absolute, almost lifelong, brokenness of SA survivors in a way we do with little else.
"We have yet to see criticisms of James Bond on behalf of traumatised veterans. It would seem absurd to do so. Why? Because we do not treat any other experience that might result in PTSD the same way we treat rape. Rape is a special case, always. While we can only understand the things that happen to us in our lives - even life itself - as a process, rape is supposed to be the only essentialist story, the last elemental truth"
I thought this discussion was very powerful, and it challenged and made me question a lot of preconceived notions and beliefs I've had, whilst also affirming other thoughts and beliefs I've had for a while without having really been able to put it all into words.
"A participant in one of my workshops confessed: "for a long time I didn't think I had really been raped because I didn't show the appropriate symptoms." Another added, "Oh, I do think I am traumatised, but I am not just traumatised by the rape - and I'm not allowed to talk about anything else..."
The discussion of race and racism was also very interesting. The topic of rape within military occupying forces, such as the case with female soldiers in Abu Gharib against Iraqi men, and the discussion the weaponisation of rape accusations against black men in the U.S. and against African and Arab refugees in Europe as a political weapon to uphold and protect "the frail innocent white woman" was very interesting and I think it is necessary and important to contextualise rape within the imperialist - white supremacist system it exists in. The neglect to discuss the imperialist-white supremacist machine behind sexual violence is extremely indicative of the state of white feminism.
Where Sanyal completely loses me is in the last two chapters of the book. One being on men and masculinity and the other on reconciliation. I think one of the biggest weakness in this book for me is that Sanyal never locates her discussion within any structural or systemic political framework. She questions why do we assume that men rape and women are raped? Why do gender rape? Why do we let gender stereotypes of male aggression and female frailty dominate how we view and discuss rape? I don't think I am ever satisfied with the conclusions and answers that Sanyal comes to. I don't feel like I have an answer that has shifted the "why's" of these questions. There is a reason why these frameworks exists, and it is not because we simply haven't moved on from antiquated gender stereotypes. To bring it all down to that conclusion seems like a huge cop-out to me. We exist under a capitalist-patriarchal system which seeks to keep women, particularly poor,/third world,/women of colour, under the boot of capitalism, under the boot of patriarchy. It is the individual male - as a direct benefactor of systemic+structural violence against women - typically within the household, but also within the workplace, that benefits from and typically chooses to uphold that role. Sexual violence is one of many apparatus that keeps women within this framework of power and control. It is the result of such frameworks, and continues to sustain it.
To me, Sanyal seems to take a 'vibes n all' approach, talk of individual feelings and thoughts and behaviours rather than systems and structures, and although Sanyal directly criticises liberalism, it felt to me a very liberal approach at times. An example of this:
"A 2015 study found that even the five year difference in life expectancy between men and women had nothing to do with biology and everything to do with "toxic masculinity". "Men have a cultural script that tells them they should be brave, self-reliant, and though. Women don't have that script, so there isn't any cultural message telling them that, to be real women, they should not make too much of their illnesses and symptoms" -
- Well yes, instead we have doctors constantly minimising and dismissing women's pain as "psychological", or that they are trying to seek attention, or that they are overdramatic and overreacting, that they don't understand their own bodies and what is happening to them/what they are experiencing. Women are constantly dismissed and gaslight by doctors, I have experienced this myself multiple times. Diseases, medication, tests, and so on, were almost all typically researched on male bodies instead of female ones, leading to doctors severe lack of knowledge and understanding of the female body and how it reacts to disease, pain, and medication in comparison to male bodies. It is to the point that doctors who completely specialise in ob/gyn, even then, seem to know very, very little about women's bodies and the common diseases that can take over them (e.g. in the case of endometriosis). The best case scenario, you leave the doctor's appointment feeling a bit upset and angry (been there!), the worst case scenario is you end up dead because your pain wasn't taken seriously enough. This is nothing but structural violence against women, we do not get ANYTHING out of "not making too much of our symptoms" like men.
So... yes, maybe women don't have a cultural script that tells us we must toughen up when it comes to illnesses, but instead we get gaslighting and neglectful treatment at the hands of doctors who think we must just toughen up, because us crazy women are just.. so crazy and dramatic!
Another example:
"In the discourse of sexual violence, it is important to not disregard how men are disenfranchised from their emotions and feelings, because people who are in contact with their feelings - and that includes "unmanly" feelings of sensitivity and neediness and fear - are better able to notice feelings in others and consequently respect their boundaries"
Honestly, some of the stuff that Sanyal says in this chapter genuinely had me raging, like me wanting to pull out my hair and shit. Here, the discussion of sexual violence is reduced to a matter of * feelings *........... feelings........... I'm sorry - what?
As if the issue of sexual violence hinges upon men being "disenfranchised from their emotions and feelings". Like all we need to do, to get men to stop raping women, is to just let them feel their feelings. Again, this is what I mean by the 'vibes n all' approach. All vibes, feelings, no systemic or structural analysis of HOW and WHY these things happen in the first place; what creates them, what and who sustains and upholds them.
Another one, and this one really enraged me:
"Just as hetero women are often forced to choose between the images of the virgin and the whore, modern straight men are caught in the cultural tug of war between the Marlboro Man and the Wimp" - original quote by Jason Schultz
It's analysis's like this that make me scream with just how out of touch those living in the Western world can be. Whilst straight men are "caught in the cultural tug of war" between being all macho and being a whip, this will very, very unlikely result in any real harm endured within their lives. Meanwhile, woman as VIRGIN, woman as untouched, woman as a being untouched, is something that can determine life or death for her in many parts of the world. Having just finished "Sex and Lies" by Leila Slimani, there are countless stories of the importance of virginity in a Muslim/Arab woman's life, from the mundane to the decision of marriage, your behaviour and actions hinge upon you being the good, virginal, respectable, daughter/wife. Those who choose to be "whores", aka, not perfect virginal to be wed wives and daughters, are ostracised, treated as social outcasts, and deal with even further sexism and even abuse as a result. Where is the material, structural harm being done to men because they are expected to be macho or they are wimps, and how is it on any level comparable to the virgin/whore complex women must struggle against. Whilst this is only one short quote, it speaks volumes to the lack of clarity and direction sometimes found in this work as a result of lack of systemic + structural analysis.
Honestly, going through some of my highlights and bookmarks now and there is so much more I can add to this but I am going to stop there.
And lastly, the final chapter. I thought the story on Elva and Stranger, and their reconciliation, was very interesting. Whilst an extremely unusual dynamic and series of events to follow, I appreciate the fact that Elva found healing through reaching out to Stranger. I appreciate and understand the difficult yet necessary question of "what to do with rapists", besides like... ostracising them from society (which to be honest, I have no problem with!). But I get how this is not a sufficient answer for some... However, the story of Elva and Stranger barely leaves anything left to be inspired. Whilst it is an interesting story, no doubt, I think extremely few people will find an even somewhat similar response and series of events to follow had they got in touch with someone who had raped them. I don't know... again, we are left with 'vibes n all' analysis, I don't really understand the conclusion one is meant to come to through Sanyal's analysis. Whilst she very clearly states that she does not openly recommend people to get in touch with someone who has SA'd them, she speaks of reconciliation and the healing of abusers as something we must work on together.
She says:
"Fortunately for me, evil isn't relevant for this book. What I mean when we say "evil" is usually psychopathic rapists who have no feeling for their victims whatsoever. Luckily, these kinds of perpetrators are rare" - is it? are they? According to who? According to what research and evidence is this type of rape "rare"? Sanyal offers no citation to back this claim up (again, vibes n all!)
Another quote:
"Some people severely lack empathy and humiliate other beings using sexual acts; some people misunderstand sexual communication and some preform their sexual gender roles to the detriment of other people and themselves. Rape takes place in the vast field between these poles - and sometimes beyond them"
Now, I don't disagree with this quote. But I also seriously question the phrasing of people "misunderstand sexual communication"... a "misunderstanding" usually does not lead to trauma. A misunderstanding is quick and short, something I probably will not be thinking of much afterwards. A "misunderstanding" does not consist of severe dehumanisation of one person by another. Whilst a part of me, due to my own experiences, appreciates the idea of "rape as a spectrum", I think use of words such as "misunderstand" is... pretty shocking to say the least.
All in all, the first half of this book mostly came out pretty strong. The last two chapters... are questionable. The thing is, I know Sanyal likely knows this. To me, she purposely plays the role of a somewhat devil's advocate, taking a popular narrative on its head and spinning it to argue the other side of it all. There is this very liberal feeling of "we should listen to both sides" "both sides are important" "both sides must be heard and must be healed" that is led with this air of stoicism and detachment. But to me, it just reeks of laziness sometimes. It abandons everything that surrounds the structure of sexual violence. Sexual violence does not exist in a bubble, it is not going to be done with if we stop gendering rape, or if men got in touch with their feelings, or if victims and rapists decided to make up after the crime (I know, a bit of an exaggeration of the point she's trying to make). My point being is that it abandons the systemic, the structural, flips individual notions on their head as if to make an intelligent remark that would simply solve the issue of sexual violence. Her short analysis of consent and the political subject via John Locke was very interesting, and could have extended to a very interesting extended discussion on sexual violence from a systemic framework, but Sanyal quickly just jumps to talking about something else entirely. She tries to make her point but I feel like it's not totally there. However, I will give her credit for this quote:
"[At the same time] we know full well that not all decisions are free. So it seems obvious that preventing abuses of power must involve reducing inequality. This means understanding that policies we might not ordinarily associate with sexual violence may have far-reaching consequences- for instance, granting people a living wage, access to education, health care, and safe living conditions increases their access to self-determination and allows them to make freer choices"
I wish I saw a bit more of that in this book.
So, interesting read. I don't regret reading it at all, I got a lot out of it especially in the first few chapters of the book, but it really fell short in certain aspects towards the end. Basically, when the book is good, it's good, and when it's bad, it's bad.