I wasn’t gonna say anything. But I got sucked in, and now I can’t back out. At least not until I say something. Regarding the case of the Arab man who had consensual sex with a Jewish Israeli woman–and then was accused of rape after she found out that he wasn’t Jewish.
On US feminist sites, this has become a debate on morality. Was she racist to press charges against him? Is lying to somebody before you have sex rape? If a woman says it’s rape, it must be, right? Even if she willingly engaged in it, agreed to it before hand, and admits now that the only thing that makes it rape is that she found out afterwards that he was Arab.
Leaving behind the irritating fact that it is entirely and completely possible (and probably happens far too often) for a woman to give her enthusiastic yes means yes consent to a sexual situation and later on even consider that situation that she enthusiastically engaged in *rape* (and no, I’m not talking about rape apologism sort of situations i.e. she wants to “trick” innocent boys, but situations where a woman agrees to certain things because society *trains* her to think that’s what she’s supposed to do, and then later in life, after education or something along those lines, she looks back and sees she didnt have a *choice*)–I have to question the decision of people on US blogs to position this case as a question of morality–as in: what was the “right” ethical and moral response to a particular situation? I also have to question the idea that this is a case of “individual done wrong by another individual” as well as the idea that Everything Is Equal In All Situations that so many US feminists in particular seem to strike on cases that seem to center exclusively on “gender” or “sexism.”
Because it leads to several other points I want to make, I want to start with the idea that many are arguing–that because once this woman found out she was sleeping with an Arab, she felt raped. It is racist to feel that certain people’s bodies are *always* in any situation, only capable of rape, is the argument.
I would argue that what this individual woman thinks of Arabs is tantamount to prejudice. Even hatred. I would, however, argue that the real racism resides in this woman’s use of the legal/court system in Israel to *enforce* her prejudice and hatred. What would her prejudice and hatred be if she didn’t have legal support of it? Would a man be facing prison right now, just because a woman hates his “type”?
Because lets make no mistake about it. This isn’t a question of anybody “lying.” Even if he told her he was a straight up Jew and changed his last name to prove it and forged papers etc–this still isn’t a case of lying. The courts are not wondering–does a person have the right to lie to get a woman into bed.
This is straight up no other way to get around it a case of what rights do Arabs have that are living under an apartheid system?
Because in spite of the US’s general societal acceptance that Israel is the “only democratic nation” in the middle east, Israel is an apartheid nation/state that bases it’s entire existence on the privileging of Jewishness over all others. I doubt many people would challenge me on that. But the US consciousness seems to think that the privileging of a certain class of people *in this specific situation* is not just justified and necessary–but carries few to any negative repercussions for those who are *not* of the privileged class. That is, the collective US consciousness seems to think that there are simply no problems for Arab peoples (who are a lesser people according to Israel legal standards) living in Israel and those living in the territories get what the deserve. Because they’re terrorists.
A large part of this “no *real* problems” reasoning plays out in the collective solution the US has come up with for “fixing” the situation in Israel–that is, a two state solution. If there were two states, everything would be great, people could live separately under the rules that they most like and this is all just a mix up over two different cultures being forced to live under one roof.
But the thing is, I’ve heard of an overwhelming critique of this “two state solution” by Arab activists that argue–why is the call for *equality* met with a “that’s not going to happen, get your own country if that’s what you want!”? A two state solution allows the defocusing on the very real problem of legalized systematic apartheid and segregation that Israel as a nation/state stands in complete support of.
So what does any of this have to do with this current case? When we don’t understand that a woman’s body under such a system is *contested* and even often looked at as a *resource* for the nation/state, we stand a very good chance of grossly misunderstanding what particular situations mean.
Let me say, I am no expert on Israel. But I do know that in the US, we had an Institution of White Womanhood in the South. This structural entity was made up of white privileged women in the South and whose entire beings and bodies were literally defined by their ability to reproduce for an apartheid system. And what this meant was that white men could fuck any black woman he wanted, be she slave, his granddaughter, a stranger or a customer at his store. If she had babies as a result of that rape, that was ok. Because of her legal status, the baby was not a legal threat to his economic resources–and, in fact, often counted as a PART of his resources.
But if a white woman suddenly showed up with a black baby, because of *her* legal status as bearer of the new generation of the privileged class, the child *would* have legal rights to a white man’s resources and in fact, could NOT be legally considered a resource (i.e. chattel slave) because chattel slavery was designated by the mother.
And so I do know that the Institution of White Womanhood was used over and over again to justify horrific violence against black communities. We need to protect our ladies from the savage beast, right? Which meant that willing, enthusiastic consent driven interracial sex (or the *potential* for it) resulted in extreme consequences not just for the black man in the scenario, but for the white women too. White women were were forcefully required more than once to accuse rape against black men such that white men could continue and justify campaigns of terror against the black community.
Daisy on facebook pointed out one such case: the case of the Scottsboro Boys. A group of white hobos and a different group of black hobos got into an alteraction on a train that resulted in the group of white hobos being shoved off the train. That group reported them, which resulted in a police officer in one district calling the police precinct in a different distrct that was further up the train line and telling them to arrest every single one of the black hobos. To deputize as many men as was necessary to get them all arrested in jail.
Well, it was deep Jim Crow South. What else could happen but mass mob? The thing is tho, is that at the train station, as the mob was going through the trains and arresting people, two women hobos were discovered. And the case shifted suddenly from black hobos beating up white hobos, to rape. In other words, the black hobos raped the white women.
Eventually, long horrible story short, after both women testified against the men, one of the women years later at a different trial finally testified for the defense and admitted that the women made up their stories. But here’s the thing. Both of the women may have actually been approached by the defense and *bribed* be the defense to change their stories. The fact that one of the women eventually wrote letters to the imprisoned men and went to rallies for them and attended rallies for their releases suggests to me that she was finally telling the truth–but more because she had been offered protection from community violence, rather than because she was “bought.” She was forced to leave her community under protection of armed guards because the threat of violence was so horrific and intense. She never went home. If there *hadn’t* been a group willing to “bribe” (i.e. protect) her–she would’ve either had to keep her mouth shut and go along, as she did in the beginning, or speak out and more than likely, be killed or suffer serious bodily injury.
And here in is the major problem I have with making the Israeli woman’s complaint a question of individual choices.
When a woman is living as a privileged person in an apartheid state–what choices does she have if it is found out that she willingly enthusiastically consented to sex with a person who could get her pregnant with a lower class child that is entitled to legal protections because of her status?
What choices does she have?
Most specifically–does she have the choice to openly enthusiastically fuck and be in a relationship with someone in a lower class? Does she have the choice to NOT press charges against him if the community finds out about her relationship/situation? Does she have the right to *be protected* from potential community violence for going against the community’s rules?
Lest you think I am asking silly or non-relevent questions–witness the reality of many Israeli Jewish women’s lives.
A local authority in Israel has announced that it is establishing a special team of youth counselors and psychologists whose job it will be to identify young Jewish women who are dating Arab men and “rescue” them.
The move by the municipality of Petah Tikva, a city close to Tel Aviv, is the latest in a series of separate — and little discussed — initiatives from official bodies, rabbis, private organisations and groups of Israeli residents to try to prevent interracial dating and marriage.
Mr Hakak said the municipality had created a hotline that parents and friends of the Jewish women could use to inform on them.
“We can’t tell the girls what to do but we can send a psychologist to their home to offer them and their parents advice,” he said.
…
Last year, the municipality of Kiryat Gat, a town of 50,000 Jews in southern Israel, launched a programme in schools to warn Jewish girls of the dangers of dating local Bedouin men. The girls were shown a video titled Sleeping with the Enemy, which describes mixed couples as an “unnatural phenomenon.”
Haim Shalom, head of the municipality’s welfare department, is filmed saying: “The girls, in their innocence, go with the exploitative Arab.” A police representative also warns that the Bedouin men’s “goal is to take advantage of the girls. There is no element of love or an innocent friendly relationship here.”
In 2004, posters sprang up all over the northern town of Safed warning Jewish women that dating Arab men would lead to “beatings, hard drugs, prostitution and crime.”
…
The degree of general opposition in Israel to interracial marriage was suggested by a government-backed television ad campaign earlier this month that urged Israeli Jews to inform on relatives abroad who were in danger of marrying a non-Jew. The ads were hastily withdrawn by surprised Israeli officials after many US Jews took offence.
So friends and family and even parents are being encouraged to “inform” the larger community of the daughter’s sex life–specifically if she is fucking an Arab man. Jewish men are not being reported for fucking Arab women. Jewish women are not being reported for fucking Jewish men. The entire community stands against her right to willingly fuck an Arab man, however. To the point that parents are even encouraged to betray their daughters and subject them to the humiliation of community “psychologists.” She is blasted as school with propaganda on who she “should” fuck/enter into relationships with, and there are even gangs of Jewish men that patrol neighborhoods to prevent Arab men from “tricking” sweet “innocent” women.
What would’ve happened if this woman *didn’t* press charges against that man? What would’ve happened to her? And when a judge says the following about the trial:
Segal said: “The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls. When the very basis of trust between human beings drops, especially when the matters at hand are so intimate, sensitive and fateful, the court is required to stand firmly at the side of the victims – actual and potential – to protect their wellbeing. Otherwise, they will be used, manipulated and misled, while paying only a tolerable and symbolic price.“
How on earth can it be taken as anything other than a continuation of and being directly and implicitly informed by racist apartheid logic that puts out propaganda telling young school girls who they can and can’t fuck? Who they are supposed to be (innocent and naive and in need of protection from strong Jewish manly men) and what they better not fucking be (dirty whores being used and beaten by dirty evil Arab terrorists)? How on earth can we trust that this woman wasn’t informed on by family/friends? And that she wasn’t pressured into pressing charges against the man–in order to retain her safety and integrity in the community that she may have no resources or even desire to leave?
This is not to absolve the woman of any guilt in this situation. First, I am simply trying to open up a space *informed by historical precedents in other apartheid states* whereby there is space to challenge the safety and “free choice” that it is assumed all women in higher classes live under. In other words, *F*eminists may be all, ZOMG what a wonderful model of deep feminist principles (conviction in a rape case)–and meanwhile a woman’s life may be in literal danger if she *doesn’t* conform to the deep *F*eminist principles. Masking a woman’s reality with uninformed *F*eminist principles can actually help to silence her and even hurt her. It will NOT provide the protection she needs to stand by her conscience. It will NOT provide her will the tools and the grassroots base of power that she will need to make real changes that challenge apartheid systems. It will not keep her safe or keep other women safe.
Second, I am suggesting that even if she was directly pressured by “community psychologists” intent on controlling a woman’s body to press charges against the man or indirectly pressured through racist propaganda to think Arab men are lying slick tongued criminals–she used the nation/state to uphold what is ultimately a tenet of racist apartheid system. Thus, her role in this situation, whether assertive or victim, is one of guilt. But because it is the *applauded role*–i.e. the one most accepted by her Israeli Jewish community after there preference that she not fuck an Arab man to begin with–it is a contested role. A role imposed on her. Whether she takes the role willingly or not is not the question. It is the role *women specifically* in her situation are expected to play. There are consequences for women (and possibly her) for NOT playing that role. And thus the situation she is in is NOT one that I feel supposed *F*eminists should be uncritically supporting or blindly accepting. It is a sexist role in that only women are expected to play it. Whether or not she is a racist, if a different woman–if 500 different women were in her situation, she/they would all be expected to play that same role *or face gendered based consequences*.
And third, and perhaps most importantly, supporting a sexist potentially violent role for women in upper classes has direct consequences for men in lower classes (i.e. the man who set to lose 18 months of his life in an Israeli prison) but also for *women* in lower classes as well. Because if Arab men are committing rape when they have sex with Jewish women simply because *sex with an Arab is legally defined as rape, whether it is consensual or not*–what are they doing when they have sex with Arab women? Is real rape (i.e. non-consesual force driven penetration) considered rape? Or is it just what lowly, impure, non-naive, whore like, not-needing-protection-from-manly-real-men do? And on a different side of the same coin–if Arab men are rapists *simply because they are Arab* then what are Jewish men? Can Jewish men rape too? More specifically–can they rape *Arab women*?
Angela Davis hints at what I”m trying to get at here more succinctly:
During the early stages of the contemporary anti-rape movement,
few feminist theorists seriously analyzed the special
circumstances surrounding the Black woman as rape victim. The
historical knot binding Black women – systematically abused and
violated by white men – to Black men – maimed and murdered
because of the racist manipulation of the rape charge – has just
begun to be acknowledged to any significant extent. Whenever
Black women have challenged rape, they usually and simultaneously
expose the use of the frame-up rape charge as a deadly racist
weapon against their men. As one extremely perceptive writer put
it:The myth of the black rapist of white women is the twin
of the myth of the bad black woman-both designed to
apologize for and facilitate the continued exploitation
of black men and women. Black women perceived this
connection very clearly and were early in the
forefront of the fight against lynching.4
How Arab men are defined *matters* to how Arab women are defined. How Jewish women are defined *matters* to how Arab women are defined. What can legally happen to Arab women with no recourse for Arab women *is dependent* on how her identity is understood in an apartheid state that needs a way to differentiate one woman from another.
I’ll wrap up by saying that there have been several different discussions connecting this case to how trans people are expected to disclose their entire medical history before they have sex or the sex should be considered rape. Again, I think that the wrong questions are being asked in the comparison between the two situations. Although we don’t live in a specifically apartheid nation any more (i.e. legally, there are laws now that are supposedly supposed to protect disenfranchised classes), neither this situation NOR the situation with trans people is a case of morality and “what should be disclosed.” Expecting trans people to disclose their legal histories or face *structural ramifications for not doing so* when *other populations do NOT face that same threat of structural control* for not disclosing their histories is structural transphobia, discrimination, and violence. The *only* groups that I think should ever be expected to disclose anything and face legal repercussions for not doing it are those who have sexually communicable diseases–and even that I have about 200 asterisks next to. Because as far as I know, the only group who has ever faced any type of criminal proceedings are black men, and then it turns out that the case that I am thinking of was a case of white hysteria where the man was described as intentionally giving women AIDS–but there was no legal way to prove it so the trail “evidence” was based on massive amounts of “the dirty black man” stereotypes (at this point, I am too tired to go look anything up or find links, I admit I more than likely have describe this wrong, if you know the case i’m talking about, please correct me in comments!!!!!). So, even in the case of communicable diseases, I am not so sure I support criminalization for non-disclosure–and instead support sexual education that teaches people how to be safe, wary, and make good choices.
- Share
July 24th, 2010 at 2:52 pm #
Thanks for this awesome post/analysis. I couldn’t figure out what was so toxic/ridiculous about the feministe thread – and you’re right it was (as it so often is) the relentless individualism.
July 24th, 2010 at 3:58 pm #
thank you
July 24th, 2010 at 4:02 pm #
ok at first i thought this was maybe about religion and not (only) about race, but you have somewhat convinced me that it’s not separable in this situation, and the parallel with US race history was VERY interesting.
i do wonder what would happen to Muslim/Arab women who had sex with or even dated Jewish men. would not some of them be killed by their families (in the case of very extreme beliefs)? so, i wonder if this even happens at all. well, humans being human, i imagine it must happen once in a while. i wonder are there some statistics?
also, in jewish belief (although not necessarily in israeli law? i don’t know, but i know you can still make aliyah if you are only jewish through a male parent or grandparent), jewishness passes through the mother, so wouldn’t any possible children be jewish whether they were raised that way or not? maybe i am confused on this point…
July 24th, 2010 at 4:11 pm #
PS: on one side of my family i have jewish and gypsy ancestors on the same branch of the tree. somewhere in Poland, a long time ago, some human stuff happened. i used to wonder -romantically- about that couple, because neither group was “supposed” to marry outside their group, yet they did, or at least had a relationship. so… now, this makes me wonder a bit more about some sinister treatment they might have suffered in their communities when the romance was found out. (>_<)
July 24th, 2010 at 4:43 pm #
I wish some of the commenters over at Feministe could read this. Going through that thread made my head ache greatly, especially the debate about criminalizing lack of disclosure.
You’re contextualizing and backgrounding shows some of the complicated nature of what happened, and how both people involved have been victimized in certain ways by an unjust system. Thank you for making all of this more real.
A fellow blogger lead me to Feministe about a month and a half ago, and although I think there are some quality articles and threads that occur there, things sometimes feel too black and white, and yes, individualistic.
July 24th, 2010 at 4:43 pm #
@n. i think that the more interesting question is what happened to a black person in the US who was married/in relaionship with a white person and found to be “passing”? Or any other apartheid state?
July 24th, 2010 at 4:46 pm #
Or what would happen to the white wife/husband if the they chose to stay in the relationship?
July 24th, 2010 at 4:56 pm #
side note: i have no idea what to google to find out about “passing” and marriage/relationships–but I did read this about the play “show boat” (from wikipedia):
ANd seeing as Miscegenation was law of the land and you could get arrested for being *openly* in an interracial marriage–then I have to believe that a black person (as defined under the “one drop rule” could very very easily face arrest, divorce, loss of custody of children, etc.
July 24th, 2010 at 4:58 pm #
and on an interesting side note: I read on wikipedia link for miscegenation that over half of Israeli Jews feel that interracial relationships (Jewish with Arab person) is equivilent to national treason. something to think about again in context of this case.
July 24th, 2010 at 5:32 pm #
I think you’ve nailed what was making me so uncomfortable when trying to think about this situation, I made the exact same assumption about freedom of decision making that others apparently have. But of course, of course, I should not have so blindly ignored the context of Israel. Thank you for this post.
July 24th, 2010 at 6:38 pm #
I have to read this a couple of more times to fully absorb it, but I think this is just brilliant work of contextualizing this issue, bfp. I never even thought of half of the stuff you’ve mentioned, though now that you *have* mentioned it, it makes perfect sense.
Where I really love it is in how it takes away (or, at least, removes far enough away) the issues of who was good, who was evil or right or wrong in this situation – that’s a conversation that, without context, could go round and round and round, without end. But using the framework you have set up and viewing the issue through the prism of how both operated within the structures there (and connecting it with how the same structures operated in the antebellum and Jim Crow South) allows for conversation with more depth and, perhaps, a more productive one.
I am explaining it badly, but hopefully you know what I mean.
July 24th, 2010 at 6:49 pm #
On “passing” and what happened to the Black person in the relationship if it was discovered that they were Black, all the information I had was anecdotal (that the marriage was considered and void). However, I just found this case/book: The Rhinelander Trial, Passing, and the Protection of Whiteness
“In 1925 Leonard Rhinelander, the youngest son of a wealthy New York society family, sued to end his marriage to Alice Jones, a former domestic servant and the daughter of a “colored” cabman. After being married only one month, Rhinelander pressed for the dissolution of his marriage on the grounds that his wife had lied to him about her racial background. The subsequent marital annulment trial became a massive public spectacle, not only in New York but across the nation–despite the fact that the state had never outlawed interracial marriage.”
I think that, if the White partner wanted, this is what could happen in just about any state. Legally – I am not sure of the societal retributions or anything.
July 24th, 2010 at 7:46 pm #
I think this is one of your best posts EVER. And it not only gives context to a very difficult case to read and process, but it shows how profoundly critical historical context is to understanding situations like this. It would be entirely too easy to stay on the individualistic/this-is-about-identity-disclosure rhetoric, but you open up the conversation in a very challenging way.
I am learning more and more about apartheid and your analysis is right on; the question of freedoms, women’s bodies of/as right, and community protection.
Thanks for your mind, BFP.
July 24th, 2010 at 8:03 pm #
thank you
July 24th, 2010 at 8:49 pm #
have you read _passing_ by nella larsen?
it’s a novel written in 1929
cut and pasted:
Clare Kendry leads a dangerous life. Fair, elegant, and ambitious, she is married to a white man unaware of her African American heritage, and has severed all ties to her past. Clare’s childhood friend, Irene Redfield, just as light-skinned, has chosen to remain within the African American community, but refuses to acknowledge the racism that continues to constrict her family’s happiness. A chance encounter forces both women to confront the lies they have told others-and the secret fears they have buried within themselves.
http://www.powells.com/biblio/17-9780142437278-5
your comment to n, especially, reminded me of it.
July 24th, 2010 at 10:11 pm #
thanks for this post, i appreciate that someone analyzed it well.
on a side note, i think you mean “found out he wasn’t *jewish*” in the first paragraph: (I wasn’t gonna say anything. But I got sucked in, and now I can’t back out. At least not until I say something. Regarding the case of the Arab man who had consensual sex with a Jewish Israeli woman–and then was accused of rape after she found out that he wasn’t *Arab.*)
July 24th, 2010 at 10:21 pm #
i just wanted to add this story…
in the west bank, one of my favorite women, is an israeli woman who is married to a palestinian man. she lives with him in the west bank, and has been disowned basically from her bio family. she has had three children with him.
there are a lot of interesting permutations to her story, including the fact that she is the second wife, and that she and the first wife both have daughters the same age, and that this is actually her second marriage.
her first marriage was to an israeli man who was abusive and she left him. when she left she was required by law to leave her first son with him, because legally the child belonged to the israeli father. and she was permitted no contact with the child until he became legal adult age.
the rest of her children are israeli/palestinian. which means that they have israeli citizenship (through their mother)as well as west bank/jordanian citizenship. (west bank palestinians, dont have ‘palestinian’ citizenship because there is no palestinian state. instead they have a provisional citizenship through jordan)
—–
in reading the feministe thread, i just felt nauseous and more nauseous. not only the incredible and virulent us centrism that just decided that israeli courts work like us courts (and they fucking dont!) the lack of understanding the difference legally between arab-israeli vs. west bank or gazan palestinians vs. palestinian jerusalemite. and the fact that in this conversation it is arab man vs. jewish woman, which just speaks so much to how power is constructed in this case. as in, the man, is not defined as palestinian or arab-israeli, both of which give him some sense of nationality. instead he is simply ‘arab’. other. while the woman is defined as ‘jewish’ automatically giving her a nationality ‘israeli’. which would be akin to refer to the black man vs. the american woman.
—
i also felt myself grappling with the knowledge that part of this fear of deception in this case, is that with some very simple cosmetic changes almost any arab man can ‘pass’ for israeli. unlike in the us and south african apartheid systems, which was coded as white skin vs. black skin, in israel palestine ethnicity is not coded by skin color. but by family history. this is in part, imho, what leads to some of the extreme measures taken by the israeli state against palestinians.
===
this fear of the ‘smooth talking arab man’ is prevalent in my experience with israeli security. it is difficult for young single women, who are not jewish, to enter israel, because israeli security is afraid of her being manipulated by arab men to act against the israeli state.
July 25th, 2010 at 5:50 am #
Awesome post, BFP–thanks for mentioning Scottsboro. This situation really does make me think of Jim Crow; the days of white cops following “bad” white women around, making sure they didn’t talk to black men and arresting them for “prostitution” if they did. And fascinating linkage… did not know Ruby Bates had been jailed for simply *hugging* a black man, but that tells you what Jim Crow was like. (Also, did not know both women had sued NBC! That movie was my first exposure to the case, saw it when I was about 12 years old. Portrayed them as dumb whores, but even at that young age, I saw through it.)
I can’t believe Israeli men are doing the Jim Crow patrols to similarly punish Jewish women who mix with the riffraff. Oh wait, no, they are just “talking” to them. Right.
Unconscionable.
Great post.
July 25th, 2010 at 5:54 am #
PS: Always loved the scene in SHOWBOAT.
I thought Steve was just so cool and so brave for thinking of that.
July 25th, 2010 at 6:04 am #
oh and i wrote this on fb but thought that i would share it here
yeah that (this blog post) is what i mean by some people are masters at the game. and some people are the masters’ teacher…
July 25th, 2010 at 6:25 am #
well SHIT if this isn’t just about the smartest thing i’ve read all year. this is actually the first i’ve heard about the situation because i haven’t been online at all this week – and i’m glad because (like nanette) everything in here was just like, “man probably i never would have thought of that but now that i have it is SO TRUE.”
as a VERY IRRELEVANT aside – that scene in showboat is actually really powerful imo (i watched it for school and it was certainly much more emotionally intense than anything i was expecting from a 1929 musical), & if you’re interested & have a few minutes to spare i’d recommend watching it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYlHQHbLk0
the most relevant part is about 3:30 to about 5:45 (at one point, which i had forgotten, he says – “i’ll do more than that. look at all these folks here – every one of them can swear that i got negro blood in me this minute. that’s how white i am,” with a curious inflection on the word white – almost snarling or mocking, like this white dude in a 1936 movie (which is CERTAINLY not without its own race problems) is casting aspersions on the institution of whiteness (maybe too much to read in to one line-reading, but either way there is some good acting here. i also just adore the entirety of 3:38 – 3:56: the tension with the knife, the close-up on the moment of the prick, the cut to the screaming women and shocked boss and then to steve sucking on his wife’s hand as she sort of swoons down from the pain and it’s this (to me) weirdly sensual intimate moment – if you watched just that shot without context you’d assume she was closing her eyes and sighing in pleasure.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:02 am #
On passing and marriage within segregation, Nell Larsen’s novel is excellent. And scary.
Passing and marriage runs really deep as a anti-racist/anti-apartheid theme. Front and center in Clotel http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/brown/summary.html. That’s her situation in what is generally treated as the first African-American novel written in the U.S.
July 25th, 2010 at 12:52 pm #
There was an old comic/joke that could put a bit of light here.
A woman was at a bank, and was told that the check had no funds.
The woman say “Then, i was raped!”
No need to go to racism/politic/whatever discussion when a simple old joke could show how ridiculous was this.
July 25th, 2010 at 1:09 pm #
i think it was actually really important, gustavo–because in the US, in spite having a collective history of apartheid that only ended “officially” in the 60s or so (it’s still going on informally), we seem collectively to be quite unable to fathom even the necessary questions to ask when trying to understand other apartheid nations and how things work. so this was more directed at US citizens and less at others.
July 25th, 2010 at 1:31 pm #
salma! thanks for noticing–changed!!!!
July 25th, 2010 at 9:25 pm #
Hey BFP,
You know, honestly, this is the first thing I’ve bothered to read in full about this situation. Your blog is the first place I knew I would actually be safe reading it, since I’m trans. I knew anywhere else would just be..yech.
See, we’re still dealing with this article from a national news paper where this (non-trans) guy decalred to the world that trans people are “required” to out ourselves everytime we’re out on a date with someone. Nevermind our own risk or anything.
So, when this story first started making the rounds, I deliberately turned my back on it. “I’m so upset I slept with that…it was rape…” is a really common reaction that cisgender people have when trans folks (usually the women in our community) reveal themselves. It’s also usually followed by violence.
And I looked here and there as people started to debate about whether or not he did the “right thing” by not telling her..and so on. I put him in our shoes, and I thought maybe I was being overdramatic. He might have been doing what guys have been doing since there were more than 2 people in the world..lying to get a woman into bed.
But especially now that you’ve put it into this larger context for me, I’m starting to think that I wasn’t too far off. Maybe it’s not safe for him to disclose.
All I do know is that accusations of sexual “deception” and “deceit” get thrown around an awful lot when people are attracted to folks they know no one wants them to be.
The problem is that half the time everyone takes the side of the person who says they were deceived. Even when the consequences for the other person are literally grave ones.
Arrgg…I’m not entirely sure what I’m trying to say. But notice it doesn’t stop me from commenting anyway? I don’t mean to stink up your blog.
July 26th, 2010 at 5:06 am #
Bravo!
It’s very sad what is going on. I enjoyed your post.
I had read about this but didn’t know if it’s true. I had considered it’s a highly hateful sentence to make. But I’ve not been able to pin point exactly like you have the exact issue.
Whenever I mention anything positive related to Muslims on my blog I get replies from Jewish people who are so caught into this Anti-Muslim propaganda which is going on in their country that they don’t even consider themselves intolerant.
Heading to read more on your blog.
Have a great day!
July 26th, 2010 at 9:01 am #
I have to disagree with Gustavo. In fact the Israeli court cited precedents for its decision. They invoked only cases in which there had in fact been an offer of material returns for the sex, and the offer was not fulfilled. Apparently by Israeli law, and I have no idea about U.S. law, it *does* become rape when the check bounces. In this case, there was no offer. The offense consisted solely of personally adopting a cultural identity in violation of the rigorous racialization of that identity by the state.
July 26th, 2010 at 2:39 pm #
@Diana -”Whenever I mention anything positive related to Muslims on my blog I get replies from Jewish people who are so caught into this Anti-Muslim propaganda which is going on in their country that they don’t even consider themselves intolerant.”
Which country would that be? If you mean Israeli Jews, please say that. Conflating Israeli Jews with all Jews erases the rest of us from existence. At the same time it makes it sound like we have some kind of hive mind that uncritically supports everything Israel does, which is absolutely not the case.
July 26th, 2010 at 7:21 pm #
It’s like say “He said he was a rich man, but it turns out he is poor as, rape….”
July 27th, 2010 at 6:23 am #
You said it more perfectly than I ever could have.
July 27th, 2010 at 3:44 pm #
If an Arab woman pretended to be Jewish to bed a Jewish man, would she be charged with rape? The situation is the same and the falsehood is the same and the activity is the same. If the law equal, then she should be charged or, more justly, neither should be charged.
Her attitude is racist and she has plenty of backing and reinforcement by Israeli society and by the Israeli government for her views.
If lying to bed someone is rape, then does lying that you love someone count as rape? Does pretending to have a better job, education or car count as rape. Where does this end?
July 27th, 2010 at 5:34 pm #
The thing that freaks me out about the Israeli law in question was that the precedent was someone lying that they were a higher ranking official to FORCE women to have sex with him. Ok, correct me if I’m wrong, but the issue in that precedent is NOT the deception, its that it was SEX BY FORCE (IE NO CONSENT). What the fuck is wrong with these lawyers? Has structural racism made them lose ALL logic?
July 28th, 2010 at 9:20 am #
after re-reading, I wanted to comment to L, speaking as person of jewish descent, I did not find diana’s observation problematic. She said that there were jewish people commenting on her blog. Obviously not all jewish people read or comment on her blog. If you’re not part of the problem, then don’t deny that there is a problem.
July 28th, 2010 at 5:50 pm #
The analogy between Israeli actions and Jim Crow is fascinating. I remember seeing those anti-intermarriage ads from Israel and laughing about them with my friends. I had no idea this sort of thing could happen. And how is a law against non-consensual sex useful as a precedent for a case involving consensual sex?
It’s funny that the majority of Israeli Jews consider intermarriage national treason when the majority of American Jews are intermarried (including my parents and sister).
Just one more piece of evidence that states built by and for one group of people should not exist.