One of the great weird open secrets of American society is how much less crime there is than there used to be. Serious crime has fallen dramatically in just about every category since the early seventies — robbery is down 69%, assault by 62%, theft by 74%.
But even in the context of this overall decline in crime, one statistic stands out:
Rape is down 88%.
Yep. Eighty-eight percent. And this isn’t a shift in reporting to police — the figures come from the Bureau of Justice National Crime Victimization Survey, which interviews Americans directly about their experience of crime each year.
Now, there are a lot of reasons for the overall decline in crime, from advances in police work to simple demographics. And yet rape stands out. Of all the major crimes tracked by the NCVS, rape is the one where we’re seeing the most progress.
And what has changed in American society since 1973? We’ve begun to take rape seriously. We’ve started to move away from “blaming the victim.” We’ve moved in the direction of sensible and humane approaches to policing and prosecution. We’ve moved toward treating rape as the crime that it is, even in circumstances in which we previously shrugged it off.
And we’ve also moved toward a healthier, less furtive, more open attitude toward sexuality and gender. In a world in which women can say without hesitation that they have had sex, the rapist has far less power to shame and to silence. In a world in which people talk sensibly and publicly about sexual ethics, better sexual ethics emerge and propagate.
Finally, we’ve moved toward a world in which cross-gender socialization is the unremarkable norm. We’ve moved away from sex segregation in schools, in dorms, in the workplace, in social settings. Men and women (and boys and girls) now interact casually to a degree that would have been unimaginable a few generations ago, and that interaction has had a profound effect on how men see and understand women.
What’s changed? What’s changed is that we’ve become a more feminist society. What’s changed is that feminism and allied social movements have transformed the way we live, have fought and won battle after battle to make this country a better place.
There’s still a long way to go, obviously, but we’ve come far enough to know this:
Feminism works.
studentactivism.net 
30 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 24, 2010 at 12:24 pm
jesse jane
It’s interesting. I came of age in the early 90s, first generation after women’s liberation. My mother was very active in the late 60s through the 70s, but rejected the word “feminist” and the self-identified “radical feminist” movement that argued stridently for primacy of contradictions between men and women, not of men and women against patriarchy. She saw feminism as a militant, liberal movement of privileged white women who had little interest in the lives of real people. Example: Susan Brownmiller’s racist diatribes and the refusal of reproductive advocates to include forced sterilization of Puerto Rican, indigenous and African-American woman as a “woman’s issue”.
Very few of the politically active women I’ve known called themselves feminists. There’s a reason. The same way socialists aren’t just “for the workers” or how tensions developed between black liberal politicians and those who wanted (and did not get) change from the bottom up.
[Remainder of comment deleted. –AJ]
December 24, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Angus Johnston
Two things, Jesse.
First, it’s true that some of the people responsible for the cultural and legal changes I’m describing above didn’t (and don’t) consider themselves feminist. I’ve actually edited this post slightly since publication — in response to a conversation I just had on Twitter — to reflect that.
But having said that, the fact remains that feminists and people influenced by feminism have had a profoundly transformative effect on American culture in the last half century — so transformative, in fact, that it’s easy to lose track of how much has changed, and how rapidly.
I’ve snipped the remainder of your comment, as it repeats the discussion we had a few days ago in another thread, and I’m not interested in duplicating the debate we had there.
December 24, 2010 at 12:44 pm
jesse jane
One more case in point: during the build-up to the “war on terror”, the Fund for the Feminist Majority launched a national campaign to “stand up for the women of afghanistan”. Meanwhile, the rest of the activist groups on campus, overwhelmingly led by women (and generally women of color) were working to, gee, NOT GO TO WAR.
That was a perfect example of the kind of “privilege feminism” that is entirely defined by the worldview of middle-to-upper-class white girls, and their belief that everything boils down to women’s victimhood. Did the Fund for the Feminist Majority invite speakers from Afghanistan like the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan? Nope. They were more interested in demonizing Muslims and putting women’s issues in league with US imperialism.
Not a new problem.
If you are a historian of student activism, the history of how identity politics and issue-baiting jacked the campus left in the 80s might be a worthwhile exploration. Naomi Klein did a good write-up of it towards the end of No Logo, that might be a good place to start.
December 24, 2010 at 12:45 pm
jesse jane
Oh, you moderate like that?
Well, good luck circumscribed discussion in the real world. No doubt that is a type of “activism” — but one that made “activists” a fucking joke.
December 24, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Angus Johnston
Jesse, you misrepresented the debate that took place between Wolf and Friedman in exactly the same way you’ve misrepresented it before on this site. We’ve been over this ground, and neither one of us is making any headway with the other.
December 24, 2010 at 12:48 pm
jesse jane
One last thing: “we” aren’t safer. There are two million people in prison. Apparently your “we” don’t include black people, immigrants, Muslims. Carry on. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House and Clinton Secretary of State. Apparently all is well.
December 24, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Angus Johnston
That’s a fair point, Jesse, and I’ve edited the post accordingly, though it’s worth noting that people of color are disproportionately those who are harmed by crime, and that the declining crime rates the country has seen have had a major effect on those communities.
I certainly did not endorse, and do not endorse, the transformation in prison policy that we’ve seen in recent years. I believe it to be both morally wrong and practically indefensible.
December 24, 2010 at 1:31 pm
khiu
It would be interesting for you to address Jesse’s point that the political project of Euro-American feminism, as defined, staged, and controlled by white women, is a white imperialist project that erases the differing experiences of U.S. women of color and Third World women; and, as a result, obstructs the benefits these majority of women could feel from Euro-American feminism. Future blog, perhaps?
December 24, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Angus Johnston
That’s a good, big question, Khiu, about which I can say this immediately:
First, the feminism that I claim kinship with is not a feminism “defined, staged, and controlled by white women.” There are plenty of — a huge number of — self-identified feminists who reject that, who are fighting against that, strain of feminism, and I stand with them.
Second, I consider that fight to be an absolutely crucial one, as I do the project of building bridges from feminism to other social movements that feminists have been too often estranged from, or dismissive of, in the past.
When I say that “feminism works,” I believe it. I believe that feminists have, working as feminists, achieved great things in the United States, and I believe that understanding, recognizing and, yes, celebrating those victories is essential to future progress. But I certainly say it with an awareness of feminist movements’ limitations, flaws, and deficiencies — and with an awareness that those limitations, flaws, and deficiencies have at times been grave.
December 25, 2010 at 12:51 am
jesse jane
My grandmother was a social worker in Scandinavia who counseled prostitutes during the Nazi occupation. She stopped their persecution after the war, when their heads were shaved as collaborators – while the police chiefs and true quislings got a free pass. My mother helped bring girls from the Midwest to New York in the days before Roe v. Wade to access abortions.
I first began personal involvement doing defense of abortion clinics when religious extremists were waging what can only be described as terrorism. Then, I watched as so-called “mainstream” feminists opposed clinic defense as “polarizing” while they pushed for laws to make anti-abortion protests criminal — putting yet more power in the hands of the state. This is “privilege” understood in the rawest sense. They opposed organizing women for collective action and supporting relying on a state that was otherwise the enemy of people.
If feminism means women are human beings, citizens, invested in full human rights both public and private — then there is no argument. But the very particular, bizarre and destructive ideas still being pushed by the remnants of the self-identified, quite coherent “feminist” movement do more to dismiss the legitimate struggle for recognized humanity than anything the right-wing could think up.
You may insist I’m misrepresenting what Friedman was saying, but I don’t think so. She manufactured “fear” — when the women in Sweden gave statements that explicitly denied fear or coercion were factors. She continued to say that the women pressed “rape” charges when they in fact did not. They complained to get the state to force assange to get an HIV test after they had consensual sex with them, and he ignored them (like a jerk).
There was then an international smear campaign of historic proportions. Jumping into that fray, Naomi Wolf quite courageously used her personal stature to bring some light to the heat. Friedman insists that ambiguity be treated as a criminal matter. She wants consent agreements re-written so that even non-forceful, non-coerced sex be classified as “rape” — which is a capitol offense. She seems to believe that even if the women involved did not themselves ever once claim they were raped, that they were STILL raped.
No. Women are, as Naomi Wolf said, “moral adults”. That means that when they get naked in bed with a man, it can be fairly and reasonably assumed by all parties that consent was given. Friedman both ignored the facts of the case, spread disinformation, and trivialized rape in fundamental ways.
I don’t want to have to say it, but I will. Assange’s behavior was cavalier, irresponsible and rude. He is in the spotlight, doing the lord’s work as it were — and that makes him desirable. He has chosen to engage in promiscuous sex, and these women sought him out, feted him and did not (again) ever claim violation of consent.
Friedman believes in something called “affirmative consent”. That’s a good idea. I personally practice it. That said, it is NOT the line between ambiguity and rape. Instead of saying, “hey girl, take some responsibility for your own actions and stop calling the police for bullshit”, Friedman took the opportunity to literally manufacture “fear” where none was reported. When Wolf read through the transcript for confirmation — and mentioned that being held down during sex and initiating intercourse while “half-asleep” followed by a consent discussion is ABSOLUTELY not rape. It is actually a model of behavior. They talked, then CONTINUED consensual sex.
The infantalization of women, victim mongering, remnants of “campus code” eminism are as reactionary as they were in the 1970s and 80s. That brand of feminism was utterly rejected by women, and most women who are feminists. “Feminism” stole feminism from women. That’s just true. And if you’re a historian, it might be worth again considering why the most important, transformative movement of the 20th century became a laughing stock. Because the situation is right here.
Naomi Wolf is saying if feminism means anything, it means moral adulthood for women. Friedman is arguing that the police should be involved in clearly consensual matters, that the state is the arbiter of justice and that women can’t be bothered to say no and choose who enters their bed.
I am not for a second questioning women’s actual liberation, how far we have come and how far we have to go as men and women. I’m arguing quite directly that what Friedman represented in that interview was reprehensible. And I’d appreciate it that if I take the time to write serious engagements on your blog, that you not edit to suit the discussion. This is deadly serious. I won’t stand for Friedman’s kind of disservice to women, to feminism and to reality.
Amy Goodman deserves respect for that compare and contrast, because I believe it will put the victim brand feminism in the ground. Neither I, nor any of the strong, upright, courageous women I’ve known believe that nonsense for a second. And if that’s not “feminism” then who the hell needs it?
December 25, 2010 at 12:54 am
jesse jane
And Julian Assange, who’s life is in quite literal danger, remains under state custody. he will be tarred as a rapist for the rest of his life, though he will never be convicted of any sexual assault. Charges are in fact unlikely, as they should be. So my question: where is the justice in that violation. It’s not rape, per se: but he was cut down in his very humanity for mildly inappropriate behavior. Who will answer for that? Certainly not the type who feels at ease scoring points over someone else’s life. There’s an actual victim of injustice here, and it’s not the women who engaged in consensual sex.
December 26, 2010 at 7:21 am
Nic Haptik
Hands-down, the most meaningful and well-stated comment among hundreds I’ve seen anywhere online about the Assange assault charges. You’ve done a better job than Wolf herself in articulating a similar viewpoint.
Given the deep complicity of the state in the real epidemic of prison rape in the United States, any argument to extend its role as arbiter of ambiguity should be seen as highly suspect and borne of very particular privilege. Envisioning full moral adulthood is also envisioning greater autonomy for all individuals. Even when they do shitty things to one another or aren’t up to the task of only having sex when “enthusiastic” about it or even should they fail to meet the utopian standard of mandatory “affirmative consent.”
December 26, 2010 at 8:50 am
Angus Johnston
I’m not going to try and catch up on everything that was said here while I was celebrating Christmas with my family, but I do need to reply to a few things:
Friedman insists that ambiguity be treated as a criminal matter. She wants consent agreements re-written so that even non-forceful, non-coerced sex be classified as “rape” —
As far as I know, Friedman is a supporter of the consent standard currently in place in Minnesota, as am I. If you have objections to my, her, or its legal definition of rape, a response to that specific standard would be welcome.
which is a capitol offense.
Rape isn’t a capital offense in the United States, and hasn’t been for more than thirty years.
She seems to believe that even if the women involved did not themselves ever once claim they were raped, that they were STILL raped.
A person may be raped and not understand that they were raped, just as they may be defrauded, or stolen from, or otherwise betrayed and not understand it. The idea that you may be the victim of a crime and not know it isn’t remotely a bizarre or controversial one.
No. Women are, as Naomi Wolf said, “moral adults”. That means that when they get naked in bed with a man, it can be fairly and reasonably assumed by all parties that consent was given.
You surely can’t believe this. Surely. Consenting to one sexual act does not imply consent to any other sexual act, and consent may be withdrawn at any time. To say otherwise, as someone memorably put it in another thread recently, is to say that Robert DeNiro’s brutal assault on Ileana Douglas in “Cape Fear” was consensual.
December 26, 2010 at 1:23 pm
jesse jane
I’m not a lawyer, I’m a human being. And treating women as helpless wards of the state, and sexual ambiguity as a police matter is truly dangerous. No one is arguing that consent can be withdrawn. But it would have to actually be withdrawn. Using a case where there is no claim of rape, force or coercion to make an example out of not trivializing rape claims would seem to be an obvious foolishness, which only makes sense within a peculiar, rigid definition of “affirmative consent”. As I mentioned, I personally practice affirmative consent — but it is not at all the line for “rape”.
Capital offense does not mean simply that which faces execution, but the most serious category of crime which exists. It is a violation of a person’s sovereignty, not a gray area of consensual sex. That is why the standard must be absolutely clear (no means no), and why responsibility exists to say what you want and not simply what you don’t want.
The reason privilege enters into this discussion is because it is exactly in that gray area that men without privilege will actually be jailed. As this case also neatly demonstrates. It means that in, say, the Duke Lacross case, the woman was abused (clearly) but because she was a sex worker and of color, her claims of consensual violation are ignored and belittled. She said no, but they said “no privilege”.
Of course I believe getting in bed with a man naked is consent. Especially if its my bed and he’s invited. If I revoke consent, I would say so, push him off, etc. But to treat women as moral children is to say “how could I?” The women did not report a rape, consent violation or anything of the sort. Why this is controversial then becomes an ideological problem.
A person can be raped without knowing they were? Did they say no? Were they forced? Drugged? Made to fear?
Not in this case! So why is there even an argument? Why is there zero outrage that this man is under state custody with no charges, smeared before the world as a sexual predator? Why would anyone committed to taking rape seriously, challenging rape culture and so on take part in such a farce?
December 26, 2010 at 1:27 pm
jesse jane
The Cape Fear situation is absurd. He abuses one girl who is below the age of consent and engages in systematic terror against the poor, middle class white family. If you think about it, the way the movie presents it the burden of proof is too high, and must be lowered to keep the lower class sociopathic scum in check. It’s a thoroughly reactionary story, if a fine movie. He uses force, animal abuse, weapons and fear.
That has ZERO bearing on a case with no force, no coercion, no report of rape or abuse. By defining rape in a way that trivializes actual abuse of consent, Friedman did a profound disservice in that interview — which is what I’m basing her opinions on. She manufactured rape charges, which the women in sweden NEVER pressed, she manufactured “fear” which the women explicitly denied.
So again, what’s the argument?
December 26, 2010 at 1:29 pm
jesse jane
I’m not trolling, by the way — I am trying to take this seriously, and truly shocked at how easy it is to manipulate people in a smear campaign.
No means no. Rape is serious and should be stopped. All kinds of confusion, pressure, ambiguity may be problematic, but they do not rise to the threshold of crminality or involvement of police in private affairs. And yes, I believe a woman should not get naked in bed with men (especially those they don’t know well) without the expectation of sex. That’s common sense, and how we actually live. Participation is in fact consent, for those not inclined to write legal briefs before copulating.
December 26, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Angus Johnston
Jesse, a lot of what you’re doing here is arguing against what you think I mean rather than what I’ve said, and arguing against how you think what you think I mean applies to this case rather than the principles I’m laying out.
And no, a capital offense isn’t just a serious offense. It’s an offense that is eligible for capital punishment. Look it up.
Finally, before we go any further with this, I’d like to suggest you read the following:
http://weretelling.tumblr.com/
It’s a collection of women’s [edit: and men’s] first person descriptions of sexual assault. Note that several of them didn’t define their experiences as assault at the time, even some of the ones whose experiences clearly fit any legal definition of the crime. Note also that several of the people writing were too stunned, too scared, too drunk, too upset to resist.
As you’re reading those stories, I’d like you to not approach them from the perspective of a police officer, an assailant, or a prosecutor. Put yourself in the shoes of the women talking about their experiences. Listen to what they’re saying about what they experienced, how they responded, and why.
And again, I’ll ask you to step away from the Assange allegations. Let’s not talk about those for a while. Let’s get ourselves clear on fundamental principles first, and then, if we succeed in that, come back to the question of how they apply here.
December 26, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Angus Johnston
And yes, I believe a woman should not get naked in bed with men (especially those they don’t know well) without the expectation of sex.
Why on earth not? If a woman is interested in fooling around with a guy, but isn’t interested in intercourse, why shouldn’t she get into bed with him naked?
Isn’t the only possible answer to that question “because he might rape her”?
December 26, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Nic Haptik
Why not – because I want to be responsible for clearly communicating to my partner what I do and do not want to do with him/her and would not want to create a confusing or unpleasant situation for anyone? That seems like a very good example of what Naomi Wolf called full moral adulthood – taking shared responsibility for the reality that when two adults who are sexually oriented towards one another get into bed naked together, it very, very often implies that sex is going to happen. Sometimes, not doing so is a really good way of making clear that I am not interested in sex, but not a strategy for evading rape.
December 26, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Angus Johnston
Again, though, Nic — what if I want to be in bed with you, want to be naked with you, want to fool around with you, but don’t want to fuck you?
That’s far from an unheard-of situation. It’s one that I’ve been in — on both sides — myself, and I can assure you it was anything but “confusing or unpleasant.”
Quite the opposite, in fact.
December 26, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Nic Haptik
All this suggests again, the absurdity of using any axiom to codify boundaries and consent. Because, for example, having sex or “fucking” above sounds like it means penetration. And I assume we all know rape might not mean forced penetration but some other act altogether.
I take your example as a clear statement that sexuality is rich and ambiguous and I think this inherent complexity means axioms about boundaries will almost never work in situations that are anything less than black and white . This is what is at stake between JF and NW on DN – two models for healthy consensual sexuality – one that is negotiated by rules (more or less) and one that is processual. The former implies a state or similar body to enforce it, the latter does not.
When I have sex with someone, it’s because I’m comfortable that I’ve read their desire and willingness properly not because I’m comfortable they have demonstrated it in a way the state would recognize.
December 26, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Angus Johnston
You’re fundamentally misreading the affirmative consent position, Nic. As I’ve written before (https://studentactivism.net/2010/03/28/more-on-consent-and-sexual-assault/):
“When you initiate sexual contact, you have an obligation to pay attention as you go to whether your partner is receptive.
“And no, this doesn’t mean you have to get a verbal “yes” in response to each act. It just means that if one person is doing all the initiating, that person needs to be responsive to their partner’s reactions. An overt affirmative response, whether verbal or non-verbal, constitutes an opt-in. In the absence of such a response, you back off or you ask what’s up.
“That’s it. That’s all there is to it. If you don’t know whether your advances are being well received, you don’t keep advancing. Pretty simple.”
December 26, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Nic Haptik
Thanks. I was actually responding to the kinds of statements JF made on DN, not the book or related writings.
December 26, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Angus Johnston
Okay. But if “what’s at stake” in this debate is anything but a game of gotcha, it makes sense to look beyond each party’s spontaneous utterances to the actual positions they’re holding and defending in their published work and their activism.
December 26, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Nic Haptik
I find the piece of JF’s writing cited above to be so deceptively simple that noone in her right state of mind could disagree with it. Which sometimes means such a piece of writing has great wisdom but other times means it actually says nothing. I lean towards the latter as it says, in so many words, don’t do something to someone else that they don’t appreciate.
Well, of course.
But the process of negotiating consent is naturally much much more complex. Condom use is a fairly good example – purely speaking of pleasure, noone wants to use a condom. But alot of the time, many of us decide doing so is a good idea. Each partner may have strong internal conflicts about such a thing or about having sex at all. Or about having oral but not penetrative sex, etc. There are numerous such internal conflicts on both sides, often, and far and away the best way to navigate them is to encourage people to be responsive and to communicate openly.
Thus Naomi Wolf has a very good point – when we look at the testimony and see that 1) Assange stops trying to initiate sex when he is asked to and 2) a conversation ensues about risk, etc. we are seeing the very hallmarks of active negotiation of consent. (Though I have the good sense to not describe their sex as “making love”). That is exactly what we should see in the healthy expression of sexuality.
And the accuser *did speak.* She did say to him “you better not have HIV” when she apparently needed to say again: “stop now – even though some time has passed and I am now half-asleep I still do not want to have sex with you (without a condom).” Which sucks. It sounds dark and sad.
I have been in the *exact* same situation as the accuser before (wrt someone asking repeatedly for unprotected sex) and I simply sent the person in Assange’s position out of my bed and home, not out of fear of being raped but because it was creating a miserable situation in which our bodies and desires, and willingness to use protection were not aligned.
I’m also very troubled that the difference between saying she was “asleep” and “half-asleep” is not a matter of percentage. In the parlance I am familiar with, “half-asleep” is the sort of phrase that means – I was sleepy, distracted, not all there. IE I missed my exit on the highway because I was half-asleep. Or I can’t do that right now – I am half-asleep. And that is a world of difference from “he penetrated her while she was asleep.”
December 27, 2010 at 12:37 am
Angus Johnston
Nic, have you read the posts at the “We’re Telling” site I linked above?
December 27, 2010 at 1:00 am
Nic Haptik
Yes, some of it. I think it’s a powerful thing but am not clear if you ask for a specific reason?
December 27, 2010 at 9:18 am
Angus Johnston
I ask because in the stories told there, it’s not uncommon for a woman to give up on (or not summon the presence of mind to) utter a verbal “no” to unwanted sex. It’s anything but a rare event. Which indicates to me that the law of rape (and, setting aside law, the ethics of sexual interaction) need to have a response to that situation that’s more coherent than “if she doesn’t say no, it’s not rape.”
I’m not saying that every man must be a mind-reader, or that every uncommunicated misgiving renders sex non-consensual. What I AM saying, though, is that there are many many situations — and again, I’m not taking a position right now on the Assange allegations — in which someone who you would say “needed” to say no does not say no.
It’s essential that we understand those situations and address them in a real-world context rather than just dismissing them as not fitting the script that they “need” to fit, and I’m not seeing that from you.
December 27, 2010 at 9:31 am
Angus Johnston
Or, to come at it another way, imagine this scenario:
A guy makes a sexual advance on a woman at her home. She doesn’t resist, but doesn’t respond — she freezes up. She’s silent, compliant, but unresponsive and visibly traumatized. She goes to the police after he leaves, saying that she was unwilling. Police question the guy, and he readily admits that he knew she didn’t want him to continue, could tell she was hating what was happening, but notes in his defense that she never actually said no.
Is that guy a rapist in your eyes — not in the eyes of the law, but in your moral judgment? If not, what’s the moral difference between what he did and rape?
December 27, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Nic Haptik
I have more than passing personal experience working with sexual assault survivors and I am very well aware that the absence of No does not mean Yes and that “giving in” does not imply consent.
And yes, absolutely the situation you have described is rape. It should be made very clear that, agree or disagree with us, there are people representing roughly the same general opinion of this scenario as myself who genuinely see this case in a simply different light.
I guess I cannot personally make the case effectively enough but my opinion is certainly based on anything but antiquated misogyny, insufficient nuance in my understanding of consent or lesser commitment to feminism.
I chose the word “need” strongly suspecting it might be construed to imply something altogether different and it feels like it was. My point was this — she demonstrated working agency in communication and negotiation and given that there is no report in which she claimed a freeze-reaction, fear, threat, etc, and there is a report in which Assange did stop when she asked, I am prone to believe what she said to him could reasonably be interpreted to imply consent.
If she really was asleep and he inserted his penis into her, well, I’m not interested in defending that. It’s definitely sleazy and disrespectful and probably would constitute rape legally. But, again, for me, if what was actually said was “half asleep” literally the entire incident then changes.
But, to be honest, after reading Assange’s yucky reference to the “Saudi Arabia of feminism” and the “hornet’s nest” into which he has fallen, my enthusiasm for so much as discussing this case has shriveled up and died.