As the saying goes, violence toward a woman
begins when the doctor says “Congratulation, you got a baby girl”
Conventional demographic administration
categorizes human species in a dichotomy set of sex type, male and female.
This dichotomy is used to attribute norms, expectation, and even more
regulation. It eventually brings this world like now: lace doll for girl and
army figure for boy. Woman is expected to present herself in a graceful and
non-violent way, while a man is understood for behaving like what a man is
supposed to be, that is placid and ferocious enough, not to confuse with the
gracefulness of woman (or other might perceive him as a gay). Take a look at
the commercials for perfume, cars, cigars, and oh gosh do not forget those popular
Hollywood movies. How woman and man are described publicly, mostly through
media, will definitely build a certain consensual opinion about what they are
supposed and expected to do. This gives birth to the filter of personal interest
based on the consensual norms. A girl might have a huge interest on aviation
engineering, but it is likely her family would disagree as it is considered as
a man’s toy. Now we know that one soul has just been taken down.
The more significant contribution comes from
political sphere. We are in the middle of what can be perceived as the Phallic
Reign. Since the human population grows massively, people start having the need
to entrust their civil rights to a licit entity, in the form of government or
people’s representative, to manage the entire community system including the
laws, education, economy, health, and other societal matter. It is the reality
we need to concern that despite the conventional administration has already
applied this sexual dichotomy, the political system rarely considers the ratio
of woman and man on the reign per se. If government really is the people’s
representative, how that explains and is accounted for the possible discrepancy
between women’s interest and men’s interest being accommodated? That might as
well explain the reason behind hundreds of local legislation in Indonesia that
discriminate women, specifically, ranging from prohibition of a woman being in
public area at night, prohibition of women sitting astride on motorcycle, and
other preposterous clauses, certainly arranged by those who were born with
penis. Sex-based regulation indicates the presence of unequal degree between
woman and man, in this case, man is assumed to have power over woman until
today.
Make it concise this way: since the acclaimed
crown is on the phallus, he begins to ensure that the reign will never be
dethroned. From the perspective between the scrotums, woman as non-phallic
constitution is perceived as the object that needs to be made regulation to
control the possible unwanted occurrence leading to heresy. Woman’s life is now
defined, regulated, and incriminated. Woman is always one point less than man
for being non-phallic. Phallically speaking, it takes a penis to possess the
real freedom of life.
As they are talking about rape, the saying goes
like this: it is not the intention that leads to crime, but the presence of
opportunity
The rape incident rate might be various across
different nations with their own cultures. However, high or low incident rate
number of rape will not change the fact that rape factually exists. Especially
rape toward women, the incident has been experienced by women from varying
ages, baby to granny, different races, and different social background. Look around
you pertaining to this phenomenon, isn’t that disturbing? Under the Phallic
Reign, woman is the victim, not only by political manner, but also by being
physically attacked and bearing the dishonor.
There are too many forms of violence against
women. Sexual abuse is the blatant discord symbol of man toward a woman. Woman
is raped or sexually dishonored because she is a woman (non-phallic) and perceived
as an object. He attacks the very special female organ that is distinctive.
Several views try to explain about rape, such as the relation of
superordinate-subordinate, control and authority, and others like religion and
cultural approaches. In reality, each time rape occurs, not a few people see
rape as merely the result of negligent conduct by the rape victim herself for
dressing too seducing or letting him (the perpetrator) catch the opportunity to
do so. Indonesia has several online news media that occasionally report a rape
case. Read the public comment below the article and you will understand what
commoners deduce on this matter. Let me put how common reaction toward rape
this way: a woman was raped and yet, it is her mistake for making man rape her
by dressing with what is available at the local store.
Man has been long forgotten in the discourse of
violence against woman whether it is domestic rape or rape by stranger, while
in fact man is the perpetrator who should be the main matter, the bull-eye
target. This information distortion results in victim blaming like “Why did she
wear that revealing dress?” or “Why didn’t she fight back?” or “Why did she
have to get drunk?” or other why-did-she-do-that kind of question, and
ridiculously, the main role of man as the perpetrator is gone with the wind
like Macarena song, amidst the victim blaming feast.
Similar reaction is often found in property
crime, when friends lost their wallets in public bus for example. They heard
thing like this “Why didn’t you keep your wallet inside your bag and hold it
tight?” and “Oh poor you. Next time don’t use public transportation. Bad people
are ubiquitous”. Reaction toward property crime is also victim blaming. They
suggest their friends avoiding to do something that is not even a crime. Is
taking public bus a crime? Is using your pocket to keep your wallet is a crime?
I thought stealing was the crime, so why don’t they remind the neighborhood to
stop taking other’s belonging without permission? For other situation in the
field of property security, such suggestion might be useful. A way to prevent a
crime through environmental design is called as target hardening. If the
environmental design has missed to harden the weak spot (opportunity), theft
(crime) might occur. But viewing rape toward woman as property crime only
accentuates the object status of woman. There is a missing link here regarding
the Phallic Sovereignty: If in the first place woman is viewed as object and
regulation is made to control non-phallic creature, so who owns the
proprietary? Who should feel the loss of woman being raped? Who is that loser?
Consequently,
the loser is them who were born with penis. They failed to create secure
environment that can prevent rape. Please be reminded, woman cannot be
perceived as property/object and therefore, victim blaming on rape cases is not
applicable in any way. The blame is always on the perpetrator. Wearing clothes
is never a crime. If wearing a certain type of clothes is considered as seducing
to then seen as a crime, banning the store to sell products like that might be
highly advised as the solution to prevent rape. Please be reminded, but to rape
is wrong and that is the crime.
For rape is the crime, instead of judging the
rape victim for wearing such revealing clothes or with other blaming statement,
it is the time for people to start questioning the perpetrator himself with:
why did you rape? Why couldn’t you control yourself, strong man? Why didn’t you
keep your sight?
For rape is the crime, instead of only telling
unmarried woman to keep her virginity, to restrict the curfew, and to dress
with solid clothes, it is the time to realize people the need to teach their
sons and nephews to keep their sight politely, to avoid thinking heinously
about woman, and to treat woman respectfully, because she has a bless to bear a
life and deliver it into this world.
For sex organ is naturally given not
chosen, for human is equipped with intelligence, thus being a woman is never a
curse. Discrimination is the crime that we, phallic or non-phallic
creature, should together fight, because violence toward woman is violence
toward humankind.
Some researchers categorize victims into some categories such as innocent victims, but there are also victims who have contributed to the crime events. It is better to consider this classification in order to get picture more accurate. As everyone knows society has educated citizen not to rape or not to steal, but the fact shows us that such crime still occurs nowdays. So, it is better for woman to take care theirselves to eliminate opportunity of crime in their daily activities in public area. Some regulations have made by the authority to protect citizen, especially woman, from predatory crime.
ReplyDeletePada dasarnya "tell women not to get rape" dan "tell men not to rape" keduanya bisa digunakan secara bersama-sama sebagai prevensi perkosaan. Dari sisi korban potensial, prevensi bisa dilakukan dengan cara mengeliminasi kesempatan. Dari sisi pelaku potensial, prevensi bisa dilakukan dengan cara edukasi. Bahkan, "tell women not to get rape" lebih utama ketimbang "tell men not to rape". Terserah apabila pelaku memiliki niat untuk memperkosa, kalau tidak ada kesempatan (baca: korban potensial memiliki pertahanan yang kuat), pelaku mau apa? Pelaku tidak bisa berbuat apa-apa manakala tak ada kesempatan.
DeleteYou are starting it well by saying both "tell women" and "tell men" might be used as prevention simultaneously, but eventually you are stating that "tell women" is the prime one, which is baseless since you are not providing the reason. According to your point, opportunity apparently becomes the main factor of rape cases so does it mean that women should be all transformed as men to prevent men having thought of raping? Or should women be banished from this world so men wouldnt ever imagine about woman and then to rape one? Because potential crime is always present as long as there is a woman, wherever they are, with a man.
DeleteSecondly, I see the point you deliver that "terserah apabila pelaku memiliki niat untuk memperkosa" as condonation of rape, which I also view in my article (if you have read my article and got the point) as the thing that is supposed to be absence to prevent rape. However, this is the era of phallacy, so yeah, it produces mainly people like you. It's ok, I get it.
Alasan "tell women not to get rape" lebih utama adalah "tell men not to rape" tidak selamanya dapat membentuk konformitas. Niat yang ada pada pelaku potensial di luar kuasa kita. Sementara pelaku tak bisa berbuat apa-apa apabila tak ada kesempatan.
DeleteMaksud dari "terserah apabila pelaku memiliki niat untuk memperkosa" adalah pelaku perkosaan akan selalu ada di dunia ini. Niat dari pelaku di luar kuasa kita sehingga yang bisa kita lakukan adalah target hardening.
I take it that you have not read my article, or perhaps you are incapable of grasping the idea. It's ok. Thanks for trying. Try again.
DeleteIntinya korban itu tidak hanya bisa dilihat dalam satu gambaran saja yaitu gambaran konvensional bahwa korban semata-mata dipandang sebagai pihak yang dirugikan pada sebuah peristiwa kejahatan, tetapi korban itu ada pembagian-pembagiannya seperti pada situasi tertentu korban memiliki andil pada peristiwa kejahatan. Misalnya, ketika terjadi kekerasan antara dua pihak maka posisi pelaku dan korban bisa saja tertukar mana pelaku mana korban. Pada situasi yang seperti ini, pelaku dan korban sama-sama salah. Demikian juga pada perkosaan sebagaimana yang diteliti oleh Menachim Amir bisa dianalogikan dengan tindakan kekerasan seperti di atas. Tetapi ada juga pada kejadian lain dimana korban tidak bisa disalahkan sama sekali. Misalnya, seseorang tidak apa-apa kemudian tiba-tiba ada orang lain yang menyerangnya. Maka pada keadaan yang seperti ini korban tidak bisa disalahkan.
ReplyDeletePenelitian tentang adanya korban yang berkontribusi pada peristiwa kejahatan bukan semata-mata untuk menyalahkan korban tetapi sebagai kajian obyektif mengapa sebuah peristiwa kejahatan terjadi. Ketika telah mengetahui penyebab atau alasan terjadi kejahatan, maka bisa sebagai cara mencegah terjadinya kejahatan itu. Misalnya, kekerasan bisa jadi terjadi akibat provokasi dari korban maka supaya terhindar dari kekerasan hendaknya menghindari provokasi. Perkosaan bisa terjadi akibat adanya kata-kata yang berkonotasi mesum maka supaya terhindar dari perkosaan hendaknya menghindari kata-kata atau gesture yang berkonotasi mesum.
Aturan agar perempuan tidak berada di ruang publik terlalu malam itu bersesuaian dengan teori kejahatan yang menjelaskan bahwa kejahatan itu sering terjadi di tempat publik daripada di tempat privat dan di malam hari daripada di siang hari. Jadi aturan itu bisa dipahami sebagai aturan yang bisa mencegah perempuan dari viktimisasi kejahatan.
If I were provoked by someone's bad mouth, would it be acceptable for me to shatter his head? If you are proposing an argument that the guilty victim should be considered to (adopting your term) "get picture more accurate", you have failed due to the absence of (at least) statistical data which can exhibit the significance consideration of guilty victim in rape cases. I was discussing rape cases where women become the victims of discrimination arranged by the Phallic Reign. I wasnt discussing manipulative rape cases. However, if my friend stole my wallet, being the victim of stealing doesnt justify me whatsoever to do the crime as well. If I chose to return the bad deed by stealing his life, he would be my victim and I would be the perpetrator. I was the victim by having my wallet stolen by him, while he was the victim of my crime. The cases are related but 2 different things. As simple as that. Justification of doing harm to other is only in the term of defending one's self. Are men threatened enough to then rape? Is raping the act of defence?
Delete"If I were provoked by someone's bad mouth, would it be acceptable for me to shatter his head?" secara moral tidak diterima, tetapi kenyataannya pada kasus kekerasan situasional, provokasi adalah prediktor utama terjadinya kekerasan.
DeleteApabila argumen victim blaming tidak didukung oleh semua data statistik maka tidak mengapa karena memang victim blaming tidak bisa diterapkan pada semua kasus.
Iya "phallic reign" atau yang lain asalnya kan dari cara pandang. Oleh karena itu, kita ingin agar regulasi yang ada berdasarkan pada cara pandang yang didukung oleh kenyataan dan penelitian sehingga bisa mencapai tujuan yang diinginkan.
So you are saying that being provoked is a good reason to commit violence/rape or what? Please be firm and clear in delivering an argument
DeleteWell, the rest of your argument is not pertinent and pointless. Thanks for trying.
Provokasi tentu saja bukan alasan yang baik untuk melakukan kekerasan atau perkosaan, tetapi peristiwa kekerasan atau perkosaan seringkali terjadi karena adanya provokasi dari korban. Peristiwa kekerasan dan perkosaan biasanya terjadi dimana pelaku dan korban saling mengenal.
DeleteYour argument doesn't relate to my article because you are forming a new case "tetapi peristiwa kekerasan atau perkosaan seringkali terjadi karena adanya provokasi dari korban" that is totally different from my explanation on my writing, therefore, I dont have comment for that. Please do make your writing about it. Secondly, your opinion "Peristiwa kekerasan dan perkosaan biasanya terjadi dimana pelaku dan korban saling mengenal" is questionable that can lead to another phallacy, and that is another new argument irrelevant to my writting (if you have read my article in perusal). Thanks for coming by here. It's glad to inspire.
DeleteSebetulnya tidak ada masalah dengan blaming the victim asalkan memang kenyataannya korban memang salah. Masakan sesuatu yang salah kemudian dibenarkan? Selain itu, victim blaming bukan berarti membenarkan pelaku. Sebab pelaku tetap pada posisinya sebagai orang yang merugikan orang lain. Hanya saja victim blaming itu untuk menjelaskan bahwa sebagian korban itu ada salahnya juga meskipun pada akhirnya korban tetap pada posisinya sebagai pihak yang dirugikan pelaku. Yang jelas orang biasanya akan memperlakukan orang lain sebagaimana orang lain memperlakukan orang itu.
ReplyDeleteMotivasi orang memperkosa tentu ada bermacam-macam tergantung kasusnya. Menachem Amir telah mengungkapkan sebagian kasus perkosaan yaitu bahwa perkosaan yang ia teliti disebabkan oleh penafsiran yang salah oleh pelaku terhadap kata-kata yang dinyatakan korban. Yaitu ketika pelaku menafsiri kata-kata berkonotasi mesum dari korban sebagai kesediaan untuk berhubungan seksual tetapi ketika hubungan seksual itu nyaris dilakukan, korban menolaknya dan akhirnya terjadilah peristiwa perkosaan itu.
Oke bang. I have one question for you. So, the point of your explanation in relevance to my perspective is......?
DeleteI clarify my statement and yours, lady.
DeleteIntinya ada kebenaran faktual dan ada pula kebenaran pengadilan. Kalau dilihat kasus perkosaan yang diteliti Amir itu rupanya pelaku salah dalam memahami kata-kata dari korban tetapi bisa saja terjadi, meski tidak bisa dibuktikan di pengadilan, korban tadinya melakukan muslihat kepada pelaku yang justru kemudian merugikan dirinya sendiri yaitu diperkosa oleh pelaku. Dalam keadaan seperti ini, secara kebenaran faktual korban memang salah. Namun hal tersebut tidak termasuk ke dalam kebenaran pengadilan. Sebab kebenaran pengadilan berdasar pada bukti nyata dan keyakinan hakim.
ReplyDeletePenelitian Amir di atas tentu saja dipahami pada konteks sekularisme karena sekalipun perempuan pada akhirnya bersedia berhubungan seksual dengan orang asing maka tetap disalahkan pada konteks agama.
Let me paraphrase my question bang "in relevance to my writing, what are you trying to infer actually?"...or you're just sharing? Oh, nice share bang. Thank you.
DeleteI'm just sharing to clarify mine and yours above. You're welcome.
Delete