I've updated the post below, but just so everyone knows about it I'm pasting it in here, too:
I've also just learned that there's been an ad on TV and in the cinemas. (I don't own a TV in London, and I rarely go to the movies, so I had no idea.)
This is still shocking, but for some reason it seems more successful to me--as in, it doesn't make me angry at the advert itself. Perhaps it's because it's depicting an actual assault, rather than co-opting the language of assault; because the imagery is more tasteful, while still very truthful; and because there's the perpetrator is also represented, instead of just the victim. It also seems to me that the TV ad shows how normal the situation can seem--sympathizing with the victim for not thinking about the risks--while the print ad treated me like a moron who'd have no one but herself to blame. Even the tagline in the TV ad-- "Know what you're getting into"--is better than the text of the print ad, because it focuses on informing us, addressing us as intelligent adults who have a right to know what risks are out there. It's unflinchingly honest, but it's not bullying.
Apparently there's been an annual ad campaign in London to dissuade women from taking unbooked minicabs, and it's been very successful--80% fewer women now do so, and, over the past six years, minicab assaults have halved. So you tell me--am I splitting hairs here? Are the two ads essentially the same, and I should focus on the results?
Tfl 'Know what you're getting into' advert [U Talk Marketing]
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Update To Previous Post
Raping Your Audience
Below, some camera-phone photos from an "advert" in the London underground:
If you can't read the text at the bottom, it says, "Whether you approach the driver, or they approach you, there's no record of the journey and you're putting yourself in danger. Text CAB to 60835 and we'll use GPS" to text your three nearest cab numbers."
If you can't tell from the photo, the woman is crying.
Now, Cab Finder is great, and I've used it on several occasions--because I agree with the ad that taking an unlicensed cab off the street is dangerous. (You either use black cabs, which are really expensive, or you call a "minicab" company, which dispatches drivers in regular cars, etc.) But this ad is upsetting on multiple levels.
The first is the most obvious, and also the most difficult to articulate, because it deals with a visceral, emotional reaction. I know that the ad is aiming for a visceral reaction, but the result was that I felt like the ad was trying to assault me. It almost seems to be mocking rape victims, and--though this is obviously not the intent--relishing the hypothetical violence being inflicted. Echoing the protestations of a rape victim in order to tell us, the viewers, to do something, is very hostile. It's attempting to scare us the same way a rapist would. It's saying, If you take an unbooked minicab, you will be raped, and this is what you will look like while it's happening, and this is what you will say in a futile attempt to stop it, and it will be your own fault for ignoring our warnings. Showing the victim rather than the perpetrator* puts the situation squarely and undeniably on the victim's shoulders. I don't know if that even fully explains my emotional reaction--perhaps you guys have something to add in the comments.
But perhaps more disturbingly is how laughably beside the point this message is given recent events IN LONDON. About a year ago John Worboys, a driver of a BLACK cab, was convicted of raping some of his passengers--and based on reports, he most likely raped HUNDREDS of women. The police arrested him in 2007, but ignored important toxicology test results and neglected to search his home or cab.** They released him, and he went on to commit at least 30 more assaults. To Scotland Yard's credit, they have referred their own investigation to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)--something they do very rarely indeed.
My point is: instead of trying to terrify women into not using minicabs--not warn, but terrify--the city of London needs to take responsibility for its own failings. England has the lowest rape conviction rate in Europe--at 5.7%, it's even worse than America's 13%. (I can't find what the arrest rates are.)***
The fact is that, in England, rape is all but legal. Remember, that 5.7% isn't of all rapists--it's of all the REPORTED rapes in which an ARREST is made and then actually go to TRIAL. Reported rapes in England are estimated at 10% of actual rapes--which isn't surprising, considering how traumatic and futile the reporting and prosecution of a rape can be--the arrest rate is presumably less than 100%, and many cases are dismissed even before going to trial.**** So it seems fairly pointless to shove down my throat that I'm creating rapes if I take an unbooked cab, when the entire legal culture says that rapists will go unpunished.
I know, I know: it's not necessarily victim-blaming to advise women on safety. I can tell you that it's dangerous to leave your drink unattended without blaming the women who were victimized that way*****. And 'minicab rape' happens. But the way those ads treat their audience--not as rational human beings who would respond to a warning, but as irrational girls who for their own good must empathetically experience actual rape--really pisses me off.
UPDATE: I've also just learned that there's been an ad on TV and in the cinemas. (I don't own a TV in London, and I rarely go to the movies, so I had no idea.)
This is still shocking, but for some reason it seems more successful to me--as in, it doesn't make me angry at the advert itself. Perhaps it's because it's depicting an actual assault, rather than co-opting the language of assault; because the imagery is more tasteful, while still very truthful; and because there's the perpetrator is also represented, instead of just the victim. It also seems to me that the TV ad shows how normal the situation can seem--sympathizing with the victim for not thinking about the risks--while the print ad treated me like a moron who'd have no one but herself to blame. Even the tagline in the TV ad-- "Know what you're getting into"--is better than the text of the print ad, because it focuses on informing us, addressing us as intelligent adults who have a right to know what risks are out there. It's unflinchingly honest, but it's not bullying.
Apparently there's been an annual ad campaign in London to dissuade women from taking unbooked minicabs, and it's been very successful--80% fewer women now do so, and, over the past six years, minicab assaults have halved. So you tell me--am I splitting hairs here? Are the two ads essentially the same, and I should focus on the results?
*Though I shudder to think how they might depict a generic rapist.
**I also remember reading at the time that police had ignored the earliest reports from victims, simply not believing them, but I can't find corroboration of this now.
***If you're interested about America's rape arrest rates, it's 25% nationally...and 70% in New York, so yay NYPD! I credit Benson and Stabler.
****Consider the legality of rape in America: according to RAINN, only 6% of actual rapists spend any time in jail. They have the most encouraging statistics I've seen on reporting, arrest, and prosecution rates, so by some counts 6% might be generous. And remember, this is a national average--for every place like NYC that's doing better, there's someplace doing much, much worse.
*****Though, for the record, recent studies show that this kind of rape is actually pretty uncommon.
Black cab rapist: serial sex attacker John Worboys jailed indefinitely[The Telegraph]The Rape Conviction Rate In Britain Is Pathetically Low<[Jezebel]
Project Sapphire staying safe[Metropolitan Police]
Tfl 'Know what you're getting into' advert [U Talk Marketing]
Rape in America: Justice Denied [CBS News]
Reporting Rates[RAINN]
The Date Rape Drug Is An Urban Myth. Let's Put It To Rest. [The Sexist]
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Have You Shamed A Slut Today? (Rape Edition)
I don't know how many of you are Jezebel fans, but you may have heard that Moe Tkacik and Tracie "Slut Machine" Egan, two Jezebel editors, were recently interviewed by Lizz Winstead as an installment of "Thinking and Drinking." This is a weekly event in which Winstead interviews media figures she likes and, I suppose, people drink. It's supposed to be serio-comedic, I gather, but this particular evening did NOT go well. Read Winstead's account here, Slut Machine's account here, and Jezebel's attempt to handle the fallout here. There's also a full video--I haven't watched it, some say the clips Winstead put on the Huffington Post are edited to put Moe and Tracie in the worst light.
Anyway, here's what I'm pissed off about*.
The whole rape discussion started because Winstead said, "But in an age where you're focusing on sexual freedom, I mean, there's just not, it's not always safe...to just have a free, 100% total sexual life." When Moe and Tracie start to sort out exactly what she means, Winstead barks, "You could get raped," in a maternalistic tone suggesting, to me, that she is already disappointed in them. So here's my question:
How does having lots of sex make it more likely you'll get raped?
Leaving the house makes it more likely, that's true, and I suppose people tend to do that when on the prowl. My understanding is that rapists are not, in general, looking for women who want to have sex, so are the slutty ones at bars really more likely to get roofied than the ones looking to go home alone? Or is being at the bar the crime? Some statistics from RAINN (the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network): of the 73% of rapists that are known to the victim, almost half (35%) are "intimates" or family members--more than just "friends or acquaintances." "Friends and acquaintances" is itself a blanket term, obviously, and I suppose would include the random guys at bars or whoever else Winstead thinks is doing the raping. But if there are in fact any friends in that demographic, and not just acquaintances, Winstead's prejudice starts to fall apart.
I genuinely just don't understand why people think you're most likely to be raped by someone you actually want to have sex with. Is that even what Winstead is thinking about? She spends so much time on the attack against drunk-ass Tracie and Moe that I'm not entirely sure what her question even meant. These rapes that happen BECAUSE of pursuing a sex life--where are they happening? I don't understand the mathematics of this.
*For the record: I think Moe is the worst writer on Jezebel, and have been losing my affection for Tracie for some time now. I agree that most of what they said was stupid and at times offensive but they're getting PLENTY of heat for that on other sites so that's not my focus here.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Happy Ending
An email I just received:
Dear [Susan B.],
My name is Anthony Dunkley of Amazon.com's Executive Customer
Relations. Jeff Bezos received your e-mail and asked that I respond on
his behalf.
Thank you for contacting us with your concern.
The item you referenced is no longer for sale on our site.
Thank you again for your feedback. Please feel free to contact me
directly at ecr@amazon.com if I may be of further assistance.
Regards,
Anthony Dunkley
Executive Customer Relations
Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com
[My added link, obviously.]
And I looked, and it's true. A search on Amazon (under apparel) for "date rape" found no matches and asked me if I meant "state caps."
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Quick--A Call To Action!
There's a big hullabaloo on the net today because of this shirt:
This shirt, in its MANY variations, is made by Tshirts.com and sold on Amazon.com. Join me in emailing Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos at jeff@amazon.com and voicing your complaint. The text of my email is below, if you'd like some inspiration:
As you may or may not be aware, Amazon.com is currently selling an apparel series from Tshirts.com in which the shirts (over 200 different versions) bear the charming slogan "Anti-Abortion! But Pro-Date Rape." Whatever one's views on reproductive rights, I think we can all agree that rape is a horrific crime. Or rather, I thought we could all agree on that.
Since this has been written about on several blogs today, the number of items bearing this slogan has gone from around 12 to, as I said, more than 200--no doubt so that the negative reviews the items are receiving have less impact. I would like to point out that the shirts are in violation of your own community rules, which prohibit content that is (among other things) inflammatory, threatening, or "otherwise objectionable." Yet these shirts are not only available--they are available in youth sizes. I am sure that you understand the implications of that, and that this is not a viewpoint with which Amazon.com wishes to be associated.
However, if these shirts are not removed quickly, and if an apology is not offered, I'm afraid I will be unable to use Amazon's services ever again. I also suggest that whatever profits have been made on these shirts thus far be donated to an appropriate charity--one that aids victims of rape, or works to prevent it.
Sincerely,
[Susan B.]
former Amazon.com customer
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Terrible Things
I don't really know what kind of commentary I can add to this, but the story should be known: In case you were thinking that Halliburton employees only get to do whatever they want to Iraqis, think again!
Jamie Leigh Jones of Houston, Texas--a Halliburton/KBR employee in Iraq--was drugged, beaten, and gang-raped by several coworkers. They were so brutal that Jones ruptured a breast implant and tore her pectoral muscles. After she went to the hospital and had a (now missing) rape kit done, she was locked in a shipping container (one report I read said trailer) with no food or water--she only got out because a guard let her use his cell phone, and she called her dad, who called their congressman. She was told that if she didn't "get over it" she'd lose her job.
This was two years ago. No criminal charges.
So thanks to that enormous loophole that basically exempts Halliburton employees from any kind of law, no oneis safe in Iraq. The Justice Department won't even protect its own citizens.
Posts
