Sport, rape and masculinity

[Arthur_Vandelay]

At least two Australian football codes have been rocked over recent months by allegations of gang-rape and sexual assault involving members of the rugby league teams Canterbury Bulldogs (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/28/1077677017509.html) and Melbourne Storm (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1059592.htm), and the Australian Football League team St Kilda (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/16/1079199226161.html?from=top5).

The scandals have fuelled debate in Australia regarding, sport, rape and masculinity. Some have suggested that the abuse of women is intrinsic to the culture of men's sport. Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls declared on International Women's Day that "We must do all we can to overcome this insidious culture whereby our male sporting heroes become Teflon Adonises – heroes who are untouchable" (Sunday Times (http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,9023964%255E15470,00.html)). And Vanessa Swan, chair of the National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence, argued on a televised forum (http://www.sbs.com.au/insight) discussing the aformentioned rape scandals that "there's a whole culture of secrecy around this within sporting clubs - that what happens in the club stays in the club."

Others suggest that, in rape or sexual assault cases involving top sportsmen, women themselves should shoulder part of the responsibility for the actions of offenders. Former boxing champion Jeff Fenech argues that "if you have girls going up to rooms in the middle of the night too see people, if you are elite sports people you take certain things for granted" (The West Australian, 18/3/2004). And Mike Ward, convener of the Perth-based men's support group Men's Confraternity, criticises (in a letter to The West Australian on 19/3/2004) the "growing sex-abuse industry", citing Shakespeare's Measure for Measure:"Who sins most, the tempter or the tempted?"

Do you think there is an unhealthy culture of rape and abuse towards women in men's sports? If so, what measures can be adopted to counter it?

Or do the actions of some sportsmen reflect more deep-seated attitudes towards women in the wider community? Does our response to rape alter (as Joseph Wakim (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594295482.html?from=storyrhs), founder of the Australian Arabic Council, suggests) according to who the rapist is (or which walk of life s/he comes from)?

And under what circumstances--if any--can a victim of sexual assault be considered partially "responsible" for the actions of the offender?

(P.S. Although this thread canvasses incidents that have occurred in Australia, it is addressed to non-Australians as well.)

[Legolam]

There's a recent controversial case here in Britain too, where 3 Leicester City players have been charged with "sexual aggression" in Spain (this charge includes rape etc) against 3 women whilst they were on a training camp. I think the immediate reaction to this was "they can't have done it, they're football stars". I think a lot of this is because you see these people play day in, day out, and you think you know them, therefore you don't think they can commit crimes such as rape.

Another reason why this might be such a problem is that these players are getting themselves into tricky situations. They're young men and so do all the things that young men do - go out, get drunk, pick up women. And some women love to be associated with a famous footballer, even if it's just a one night stand. Unfortunately, when two parties are drunk and not quite in control, misunderstandings happen and the question of "consent or no consent" comes up in a court of law. I remember this happening to a few Leeds players recently too.

[Snaga]

I think being drunk is no excuse. The word no still means no even when extremely drunk, and you still know when you are being turned down. (I speak from experience!:( )

[joxy]

Why would a woman want to be with a man whom she hardly knew and who was "extremely drunk"?

[Inderjit S]

So being a sport-star is now an axiom for chauvinistic behaviour. ;)

I think it is true in some cases, but sports stars are quite a diverse bunch and you are bound to get a few bad eggs and the press is more likely to report a raped by a famous sports star then say...a plumber.

I think that the fame can get to the athletes head and they can become arrogant and angered if a woman turns them down. Some women may just be lying to get media attention of course.

Why would a woman want to be with a man whom she hardly knew and who was "extremely drunk"?

Because their millionaires with six packs, DUH! I wouldn't mind a free bottle of Moet from a sports-star.

[Arthur_Vandelay]

I buy this to a degree. I'd say "violence" rather than "the abuse of women" in specific, but that is a big part of it. I say violence because women are not the only victims.

I think you get a group of men together, and they're apt to turn uncivilized, and behave like beasts, according to natural insticts and urges that have been suppressed due to society. This is all the more likely to happen, in my opinion, when the activity they are doing is physical and competitive. The chemical goings on in the body during these activities are probably much the same as the once that went on during with acts of violence... fighting for survival in the caveman days ;). Take the hormone adrenaline for example. And even when these guys are not actually playing, they're still with their buddies and that "macho" attitude and getting "pumped up", putting them into the same chemical and mental state.

But measures to counter it? Well for one, women need to be careful about the situations they are putting themselves into.

Yes and no.

First, I think the notion that men are biologically pre-disposed to aggression or violence is a stereotype, and that scientific endeavours to "prove" the natural aggressiveness of males merely reflect the dominant ideological belief that males are naturally aggressive. One of the problems of the biological-essentialist theory is that it lends succour to those who tend to blame the victim in rape cases: if men are biologically pre-disposed to respond with sexual violence to sexual temptation, then women have only themselves to blame if they "tempt" men into such a response. I find this demeaning not only to women--because it stigmatises them as temptresses or potential-temptresses--but also to men, because it reduces men to the status of children or wild animals, unable to make rational choices regarding sexual behaviour and regarding how they treat other people (esp. women). Frankly, if men are natural rapists, I don't know why women would want to have anything to do with them. (Edit: I realised, too late, that I had forgotten while devising this post that males produce more testosterone than females--although I'm not enough of a biologist to know the connection between testosterone and aggression. In any case, I think it makes little difference: humans have a greater capacity for reason and self-control than animals, and that is chiefly why I think rape is inexcusable.)

I think we need to draw a distinction between biological maleness and cultural or ideological masculinity. That is, we may be born anatomically male or female (and there are some who don't fall into even these anatomical categories), but we must learn how to be men and women (that is, we learn the "rules" of "society"--for lack of a better word--governing what is "correct" behaviour for a man and for a woman--and these rules vary across different societies). And our "teachers" in this regard are not merely our parents or schoolteachers, but our peers, the media, films, literature, churches, the advertising industry, public institutions, private institutions, and so on, and so forth. Our sense of gender identity is reinforced by how others respond to us: for instance, nobody ever says, at the birth of a child, "Congratulations, it's an investment banker!", but they do say "Congratulations, it's a boy" or "Congratulations, it's a girl!" "Boy" and "girl" and "woman" and "man" have different connotations than "male" or "female", and the very act of being so identified may have had a large influence on the toys you played with as a child, the colour your room was painted, the friends you had, even perhaps where you went to school.

What are the "rules" of being a man in most modern patriarchal societies (Clarifying statement: I'm talking here about the dominant or traditional model of masculinity--what is sometimes called "hegemonic masculinity." It is possible to resist it--there are other masculinities, other ways of being a man--one is not homophobic, xenophobic or misogynist merely by virtue of having male anatomy)? There are many, but for brevity's sake they can be pared down to three:

HOMOPHOBIA: particularly, fear of being regarded by others as homosexual, or anything other than heterosexual
MISOGYNY: particularly, fear of being regarded by your peers as "effeminate"
XENOPHOBIA: not only fear of racial or ethnic otherness (or any other kind of social otherness), but fear of being regarded as "different".

I think many men-only organizations (particularly sports clubs and--until recently--the military) are structurally homoerotic, in that they constitute a "safe place" in a patriarchal culture in which men can experience and share physical and emotional intimacy. But for this very reason, such gatherings of men may also be accompanied by homophobia (varying from expressions of anti-gay sentiment to outright violence against gays)--to preclude the possibility that one may be thought homosexual; misogyny (again, varying from misogynistic rhetoric to the abuse or objectification of women)--to preclude the possibility that one may be thought of as "unmanly"; and xenophobia (which could take the form of bullying, or the bashing of a member of an ethnic minority).

How do we address the problem of rape and violence--not merely among elite sportsmen, but in society generally? It's a difficult question, but we might begin by questioning or challenging--as men and women--the "rules" and "roles" of (the dominant models of) masculinity and femininity in our culture.

[Inderjit S]

On misogyny, speaking from personal experience, effeminate men are generally looked down upon by society or their peers in showing any signs of effeminacy. I wouldn't call it overblown chauvinism, it's just that as soon as society encounters someone different from it's norms then it seeks to castigate or ostracize them, to an degree because of their difference.

One must look at the naïveté of people who choose to label you as this or that simply because if your beliefs or character. Since such things as admitting to and exhibiting your feelings, romantiscsm noticing that other men are good looking, though in a perfectly non-sexual way can be classified as being 'unmanly' such effeminate behaviour does not fit into the paradigm of how to be a "real man", the fact that women can look at other women in a non-sexual way is rather ironic, and just feeds fuel to the fire of an typical stereotype of a chauvinistic man. The argument that I put forward that it takes more of a man to admit his feelings then to hide them is usually met with stunned condescendence, as if I am breaking a age-old axiom on manly etiquette, however supercilious that may sound. Men are expected to take a more reserved stance when encountering or in grief, whilst women are excepted to express their utmost feelings, even put on some feelings "for show" as a exemplar of their sympathy.

There may be several reasons for a man's effeminacy. He may be intrinsically effeminate, or there may be other factors, i.e. his upbringing. I know my upbringing as effected my personality. My house was not particularly patriarchal, my father, though by no means effeminate was least very liberal-minded when it came to the juxtaposition of the rights of the men (me and my father) and the women (my mother and my three (arggh!) sisters, all older and all frightful bullies, though older sisters usually are ;)) which may be derived partly from his nature and partly from my religion's (Sikhism) moral ethics, which stipulates the equal position of men and women in the household and society. My mother and my sister's also exerted a great influence on my attitude and outlook which may have increased effeminate tendencies, on my part. I may also be fundamentally effeminate i.e. it is in my nature.

Being an effeminate man can lead to some degree of alienation from your friends or in society as whole. I have never really being alienated to an extent, though I have suffered what can best be described as some kind of pseudo or quasi ostracization, at times, from my friends, when they feel annoyed if I act particularly effeminate and though I am not berated per se, dissonances do arise and people do look at me in a funny way, most likely thinking "What on earth is that moron talking about? I wish he would shut up" which is most probably what anyone who has managed reading this post is thinking, and so to spare you the anguish of reading another paragraph of overly-fastidious tripe I will stop speaking. Or writing, rather.

[Barliman Butterbur]

At least two Australian football codes have been rocked over recent months by allegations of gang-rape and sexual assault...

By God, AV, you sure know how to generate provocative thread topics!;):p

Lotho

[Barliman Butterbur]

Why would a woman want to be with a man whom she hardly knew and who was "extremely drunk"?

Unfortunately, not all young college women use their common sense. :( :mad:

Lotho

[Arthur_Vandelay]

By God, AV, you sure know how to generate provocative thread topics!

My aim isn't really to be "provocative" (we all know where that leads ;) )--the issue is pretty topical in Australia at the moment and raises some important questions which I wanted to put to my fellow TTFers.

Unfortunately, not all young college women use their common sense. :( :mad:

Neither, it seems, do some elite sportsmen.

[joxy]

....elite sportsmen.
And in those two words hangs part of the problem.
It's not all that long since "sportsmen" were just overgrown schoolboys kicking balls around fields; but now that simple process has been turned into a massive commercial operation, in which the characters, though basically still those overgrown schoolboys, are now paid huge sums of their money for kicking their balls, and, because of the money, have become "celebrities".
It couldn't be more obvious that their status would "go to their heads", so that they would take any form of outrageous behaviour in their stride, expecting their every need and whim to be catered for by whoever happened to be around at the time.
It's high time that "sport" returned to its lowly status, but of course the money makers will never let that happen. :rolleyes: :(

[Barliman Butterbur]

...their status would "go to their heads", so that they would take any form of outrageous behaviour in their stride...

Not to mention the outrageous crowd behavior that turns spectators into mobs and leaves people dead...

Lotho

[Greenwood]

To expand on joxy's comments, along with the celebrity status comes the pattern that they rarely hear the word no. This tends to develop a feeling of entitlement. (I am not saying this is true of all sports figures or celebrities, but I suspect you would find it is true of the ones that get in trouble.)

As for the question of whether males are more agressive than females, I would say on average yes and that it comes from both a biological basis and a cultural background. I strongly disagree, however, that this gives men any defense for criminal behavior. They are not controled by their genes; they are responsible for their own choices and actions. Humans are not genetic automatons.

[Arthur_Vandelay]

The following article is from the Melbourne Age (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/22/1079939577923.html):


Footy's subculture of misogyny

March 23, 2004

Some AFL blokes don't know there's a difference between sex and rape, says Phil Cleary.

Former football great Tim Watson began his column in The Age last Thursday with the curious phrase that "the past 48 hours has become a living nightmare" for St Kilda Football Club players and officials. Thereafter not once did he mention the emotional suffering of the alleged rape victim.

With this simple sleight of hand Watson unwittingly reinforced many of the prejudices that beset women who "cry rape". Suddenly the alleged perpetrator had become the victim, and it was women who were implicated in, if not blamed for, allegations of rape. After all, how can young footballers avoid an allegation of rape when women are banging at their door at 2am?

Seemingly oblivious of the circumstances of the present case, Watson recounted the antics of amorous women in the football subculture. Yet, strangely, none of the examples he offered had anything to do with rape. A woman consenting to sex is not a woman raped. Is it so hard for men to understand this? Where are the columns of women who have slept with footballers and then, in the post-mortem, have accused them of rape?

Maybe Watson missed the fact that the woman making the rape allegation here told police she consented to sex with one man but not to sex with a second man? Leaving aside the veracity of this claim, in what subculture is it assumed that if a woman has sex with a man she has consented to sex with a different man on the same night?

Until the rape laws were changed a decade ago, the courts in this country virtually demanded to know whether a woman claiming to have been raped was a virgin or was sexually active. They even wanted to know what the woman was wearing when the alleged rape occurred. And despite welcome changes to the law, defence barristers still have a field day with women who allege rape. That's why rape is massively under-reported and why only a small percentage of rape cases result in a conviction. Women just aren't believed.

I wish Watson hadn't omitted what he and I know only too well about the football world. The stories of groups of men on the rampage, the cover-ups and the institutionalised belief that women who have sex are sluts whereas the men are studs - that's the football subculture.

It's a subculture in which some men have always believed they have the rights of the Viking raiding party. However, unlike the women raped by the Norsemen, it seems that amorous women who wander through the football subculture can never be raped. For isn't the moral of Watson's piece that modern women who look for sex must take that which comes their way?

Instead of asking how these latest allegations will affect the status of AFL football we should be asking what they tell us about violence against women. Tim, this isn't a "sex scandal". A sex scandal is Charles having it off with Camilla, or Lady Di with the butler. A woman who alleges sexual assault is claiming to have been the victim of an act of criminal violence. If this woman is telling the truth imagine how she must have felt when she discovered, under the headline "Fans rally to Saints", that coach Grant Thomas believes the allegation of rape will only "galvanise the group"? The presumption of the innocence of the accused should not result in the belittling of a woman who alleges sexual assault.

Throughout history men have told other men that "no" can be a precursor to "yes". And through experience men have learnt that the first "no" is not always the end of the matter. But those who use this little pearl of secret men's business to defend men accused of rape do all men a disservice. Do we seriously think that the average bloke can't stop when a woman says "no"? And is the average bloke so dumb that he doesn't know when "no" means "no"?

It's about time we admitted that rape is a cocktail of sex and power used by some, not all, men against women.

Rape should be as hard to prove as any other crime. And no accused man should have to cower or hide. But that shouldn't preclude us from debunking the myth that most women who "cry rape" are chronic liars and schemers who've maliciously changed their mind after a sexual encounter.

Whatever becomes of this particular incident, the need for AFL clubs to seriously challenge this subculture of misogyny is overdue. Unlike many old-fashioned blokes in AFL football clubs, a modern woman knows the difference between sex and rape.

Phil Cleary, a former independent federal MP, played 205 games with Coburg, coached the club to two VFA premierships, and is now its president.