If there's one thing that we've all learned in the last year of political pageantry, it has been the importance of reading between the lines. Looking for what is not there, just as much as what is has become a necessity.
We begin with the statistic: "1 in 3 Native women will be raped in her lifetime," (Deer 1), a statistic that is double the national rate. The rate of violence against Native women may be factored into that of all women in the United States, I have theories that it is not primarily because it is seen as statistically insignificant or they are not recognized as American women by the US government. But I have an issue with this statistic, this "one in three" myth, that, so much like the one in six statistic of all American women, is likely higher. I want to consider the use of language, the effect of rationale and cultural narratives. Women in mainstream America, those that have reported violence against them, often have a different understanding of what constitutes rape. Even legally, rape is different from state to state.
What brings this all to my attention is Sarah Deer's explanation of physical violence in sexual assault of Native women: "when asked whether aggressors physically hit them during the assault, over 90 percent of Native women responded affirmatively, compared to 71 percent of white victims" (Deer 4). It comes to mind that rape does not always involve apparent physical violence. In fact, if all sexual assaults were reported I believe these numbers would be significantly lower. Moments come to mind when additional violence such as hitting are not employed - rape through coercion, through intoxication, any non-consensual and non-traditionally violent sex. These are all informed by cultural scripts, the idea that perhaps the victim was at fault for their own actions. This is especially prescient to women who are told that they need to dress a certain way and behave a certain way all for the express purpose of not being raped.
And likely there is a different cultural script at play in the case of sexual assault against Native peoples. Because it wasn't "violent," it may not be seen as rape. Because there was not a definitive "no," it may not be considered rape. These aren't any different than general reasons rape isn't reported, but they are informed by the additional expectation of response to a Native woman. A white woman in the United States is likely to have her case heard and listened to, she may feel more free to acknowledge less as rape than a woman who is historically hurt by the police. If the assault is not severe enough, it may jsut be accepted as a fact of life.
So is 1 in 3 an accurate statistic? No, and beyond the one percent the actual statistic surpasses one third, it is likely grossly inaccurate. Likewise for 1 in 6 on a national scale. When the narrative of women is that they don't know anyone who has not been raped, statistics no longer play as important of a role. It is not 1 in 3 Native women that will be raped in their lifetime, but 1 in 3 that will report it. "Every other," "3 in 4," "90 percent" - they don't have the same ring, but may be much closer to the truth.
Cited:
Deer, Sarah. The beginning and end of rape: confronting sexual violence in native America. University of Minnesota Press, 2015.
Comments
Post a Comment