Power and abuse now and in the past
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate, Heaven Host
in Epiphanies
First off, I'm aware that there are survivors on board and while your contributions would be valued above all I don't want anyone to feel any pressure or obligation to talk about their experiences. If you would like to share an experience without attaching your handle to it I suspect a kindly host would be willing to facilitate.
I came upon a post making a joke about Erwin Schrödinger, which had an edit referencing credible accounts of abuse. Brief description:
Given the horrors reported about Saville, about Picasso, about Polanski, about the various churches, I'm left wondering about the impact of power and social standing in enabling abuse. Is it that many people gain fame and power as much by dark charisma that also enables them to abuse with impunity as by ability? Does ability lead to abusive tendencies being ignored, or is it simply that most abuse gets/got ignored and we mostly only hear about the famous or most egregious offenders? Anecdote about a case of abuse:
How common is/was this? Statistics exist, of course, but being survey based they're prone to under-reporting both from shame and lack of understanding about consent or what constitutes abuse (sexual abuse is reported at much higher rates in girls than in boys, but it's not at all clear how much this reflects different patterns of abuse or different social attitudes to it - much of society struggles to see a 15 year old boy abused by a 25 year old woman as equally "bad" as if the genders are reversed).
This survivor-led report, though based on a fairly small sample size, details many of the "typical" difficulties for survivors in recognising and disclosing their abuse.
https://survivorsvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/SafeSeenSupportedReport_JC-LF-CP-AS.pdf
I came upon a post making a joke about Erwin Schrödinger, which had an edit referencing credible accounts of abuse. Brief description:
as an adult he routinely groomed, raped and impregnated girls and young women less than half his age
Given the horrors reported about Saville, about Picasso, about Polanski, about the various churches, I'm left wondering about the impact of power and social standing in enabling abuse. Is it that many people gain fame and power as much by dark charisma that also enables them to abuse with impunity as by ability? Does ability lead to abusive tendencies being ignored, or is it simply that most abuse gets/got ignored and we mostly only hear about the famous or most egregious offenders? Anecdote about a case of abuse:
I recall a friend of my sister, while they were still at school (15/16), would regularly be picked up by an older man, married with kids, to (it was generally understood) go and have sex with him.
How common is/was this? Statistics exist, of course, but being survey based they're prone to under-reporting both from shame and lack of understanding about consent or what constitutes abuse (sexual abuse is reported at much higher rates in girls than in boys, but it's not at all clear how much this reflects different patterns of abuse or different social attitudes to it - much of society struggles to see a 15 year old boy abused by a 25 year old woman as equally "bad" as if the genders are reversed).
This survivor-led report, though based on a fairly small sample size, details many of the "typical" difficulties for survivors in recognising and disclosing their abuse.
https://survivorsvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/SafeSeenSupportedReport_JC-LF-CP-AS.pdf
Comments
The most accurate indepth analysis of gender-based violence, violence as weaponised rape during war or gang-related violence, the 'corrective rapes as punishment' of queer and transgender people, rape as xenophobic hate crimes against unwanted migrants, rape as a means of control in carceral environments (prisons and police holding cells), the increasing rates of sexual violence against infants and children, rape in the context of intimate partner violence, etc, is given in Pumla Dineo Gqola's Rape: A South African Nightmare (2015) in which she looked at the dynamics of power in rape, locating specific patterns in the history of slavery at the Cape where slaves and indigenous people were routinely subjected to rape by owners. To be schooled in subjugation and the uselessness of resisting became a norm for women, so that the entitlement to 'sex', normalising or minimising of rape allowed rapists to get away with it. It's worth remembering that during apartheid when rape was a capital offence, no white man was ever executed for rape and only black men who raped respectable white women received the death penalty.
Along with focusing on the power dynamics of hyper-masculine patriarchy and the rapist, Gqola's second book, The Female Fear Factory ( 2021) looked at how women (and I'm only focusing on women and not trying to account for other intersectional dynamics for the moment) are conditioned, socialised and trained from childhood in avoidance or compliance by the threat of rape. We were taught at school that if we found ourselves alone with a strange man or even a man known to us, and in danger, we should submit at once because it would be better to be raped than murdered; we should never make the rapist angry. It would be better not to look at him, not to answer back, not to struggle to get away or cry out in pain. If we did what we were told, we might be allowed to live.
Compliance, as well as avoidance, in rape or violence is like an internalised language of intimidation and shaming. Fluency in fear requires exposure through repetition of warnings, reminders and messages, symbolic or explicit ( don't dress like that, don't make eye contact, don't drink, don't miss your bus, don't talk back, don't tell anyone). Such exposure eventually inures you to the environment (a toxic workplace or domestic violence at home) which eventually becomes easier and easier to decipher and decode, so that as a vulnerable woman you instinctively behave in ways that don't attract attention or criticism, don't invite ridicule, leave you feeling invisible and sometime safer that way.
The relative powerfulness or celebrity of the rapist isn't always the issue. In rape, the aggressor is the only one with power and the ability to make sure those attacked stay silent afterwards.
The myth of the rapist as a stranger persists despite the evidence that most of those abused know their attackers intimately. Though I can see how certain serial rapists might be able to continue abusing women, younger men, transgender people or children with impunity over many years because of their positions, wealth and connections. It is still shocking that Jimmy Savile abused hundreds of children for fifty years and despite his behaviour being an open secret with his staff and many journalists, he was never arrested, charged or made accountable for his crimes. Those abusers who enjoy status, privilege and 'untouchability' are often those who choose to target vulnerable people who will not be believed and will lose jobs or their reputations or family support if they speak up.
There may well be cases where famous people have got away with it for ages because they were powerful/charismatic, but non-famous people can also be powerful/charismatic in the context of family/community. So I agree with the opening post that probably power and social standing is a major enabler, but I suspect that only a relatively small imbalance of power and social standing might well be enough.
I wonder whether there are two "types" of power at play. Power as perceived by victims and witnesses, that prevents them resisting or speaking out; and power as perceived by the perpetrator, that gives them confidence to keep abusing because they don't think there will be any consequences. It seems that most abuse will involve both, but that the latter will be a greater factor for the famous and politically powerful, and that sense of impunity make make them more likely to offend and more prolific. On the other hand, while abuse is clearly horrifyingly prevalent in the lives of ordinary people, particularly women and girls (and for any given individual is most likely to come from a partner or family member) I still wonder whether abuse by the societally powerful is more common than their proportion of the population would suggest.
It isn't something most of us talk about normally. But in my generation, harassment, as it's now perceived, was just taken as a fact of life. We all knew about "wandering hand trouble" and "don't share a taxi home with him" and "watch yourself with that one" and "the office wolf".
I can also say that some were indeed assaulted by men they didn't know. And the reason women don't talk about it much is because it's a hugely emotive thing and you don't know how it will be received. The fact-of-life thing has conditioned many of us to feel in some way responsible for it. And sometimes you may feel you have to go along with it because it's safer or there are economic consequences. The dodgy landlord who makes advances to you is someone you may not feel able to say no to outright, as is the considerably bigger and physically more powerful man who happens to have caught you alone in a room. You can attempt to defuse the situation and fend it off until you can get out of that situation permanently altogether, but meanwhile, you don't want to make them angry or resentful.
I think an answer to this question would have to come from statistics and sociological studies.
Obviously caveating with what people have posted already about abuse being most common among friend/family. I do think there are more abusers in certain institutions than is explained by chance alone, in terms of churches I think some are too trusting, and others are too attracted to leaders exhibiting dark triad personality traits.
The prevalence of rape is much more widespread than many realise and it makes sense to me that it should occur primarily within the extended family, neighbourhood and in intimate partnerships, but also occur in many other contexts facilitated by other kinds of power dynamics. Rape is also globally under-reported and only a minority of survivors press charges in any context or situation.
@chrisstiles, I agree with you about the specificity of roles played by institutions in enabling and perpetuating abuse, though being 'too trusting' sounds like victim-blaming. Echoing what @ Aravis posted above, most of us are aware of 'dark academia' and how university departments prioritise self-protectiveness, that the sexual harassment or rape of young students is often covered up or denied. ('He's a bit of a pest but essentially harmless.') In many instances, the academic authorities' denial is because of a crisis in funding, that campuses and faculties compete for awards and funding, so don't want their leading academic researchers or lecturers taken to court or convicted for sexual abuse. Often the protectiveness has to do with the perceived value of the award-winning work published by star academics and not wanting that work discredited just because the writer abused his students. There's frequently deflection: the academic is reported to be suffering stress from overwork and takes early retirement. It's hoped the problem will just go away, and there is no justice or redress for his victims.
While much of the criticism around clerical child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church has focused on the numbers of abused youngsters involved over many years, what makes most people really angry is the sophistication and extended nature of the cover-ups. No other institution has had the resources to keep moving offenders worldwide, from Britain to the United States, to rural parishes in Zambia, or South Africa to outstations in Latin America. Thus avoiding any local accountability or police investigation, or the payment of damages. Offending priests would sent to fellow Catholic clerics (trained psychologists) for counselling or secluded in Catholic clinics or hospitals for 'rehabilitation'. Many diocesan bodies and orders closed ranks: if an order's computers were requested by child protection services, these were common property and evidence of child pornography could not be ascribed to any particular individual. Other mechanisms to avoid detection or accountability had to do with the abuse of the Sacrament of Reconciliation: by confessing to fellow priests bound by the seal of confession from telling anyone, offenders ensured their superiors or colleagues knew what was going on and would be complicit in hiding it. Many of those who had heard confessions and were therefore aware of intimate details relating to abuse refused to take polygraph tests in case they were incriminated. These dynamics have emerged over and over in transcripts of hearings and investigations and, as with Hollywood celebrities, much of what happened was an open secret in which countless religious, employees and laypeople would be compromised and pressured to keep quiet for the sake of the Church's reputation.
So to be clear I was referring to the institutional / structural level rather than wrt the victims or those connected to them. A notional commitment to trust and so on shouldn't negate good safe guarding practice.
Absolutely, but I do feel some responsibility must be taken when a church builds a culture of either excusing or lionising those traits in the first place.
Because we were masters students we occasionally went out socialising with the teaching staff.
He made the mistake of trying to enlist my sympathy about his failed relationships when I was drunk and therefore unfiltered. I told him exactly what I thought, he largely avoided me after that but I don’t think it altered his behaviour very much.
He was one of the teenagers who enlisted ASAP when war was declared in 1914. He was noted for his courage and fearlessness. He was part of a "local" regiment and, I'm told, several neighbouring families thought their own sons might not have returned from the war if it wasn't for him.
I don't know what his temperament was like before WWI, but he was regarded as one of the men who came back "not the same."
He should have been jailed for at least one rape, but he wasn't - apparently everyone knew, including the police, but, well, his war record.
I sat on his knee as a small child. When I asked my mother why? she said, why not? he wasn't interested in children.
Looking back, we all seemed to think our 'whisper campaigns' were enough to keep us safe and there was such cluelessness about the ethics and power play of paid members of staff having inappropriate if not coercive sex with teen students. We liked to think we were heartless cynics and in charge of what was going on. These older lechers seemed genuinely infatuated with several of us, pushing up our assignment marks and sending us flowers and poems, begging us for secret meetings in out-of-the way places, buying us gifts. We didn't think that each year they had a brand-new crop of innocents to choose from. One year a student who had recently lost her father decided she was in love with her older lecturer and was sure she had fallen pregnant even though he insisted he had had a vasectomy. She confronted his wife in the supermarket. His wife didn't think it funny or harmless at all, threw him out of the house, divorced him and reported him to the dean of the faculty. We thought this was hilarious.
Yes, I was just thinking that power dynamics are not always predictable or cast in stone, especially when it comes to intimate relations, 'romantic love' or sincerity. The point isn't about age differences but about a power differential and the vulnerability of those young women who don't see themselves as at risk. My own perspective in my oblivious student days had altered 360 degrees by my late 30s and so had most social readings of situations like that. I go cold now thinking of a troubled young student telling her controlling married lover she intended to speak to his wife. Exploitative relationships can turn violent so fast.
It is not clear cut though -- considerable feminist criticism was directed towards the Australian writer Helen Garner who looked back at the 1992 sexual harassment case against a senior master at Ormond College, University of Melbourne, who groped two women students at an end-of-year party. They pressed police charges against him for what Garner saw as a ' hapless social blunder.' Garner drew a distinction between trivial boorish male behaviour and the real life-threatening violence faced by poorer or working-class women in far more dangerous situations. Are distinctions easier to draw when it comes to educationally privileged women able to pay lawyers vs 'Old Boys' clubs and men raised to initiate sexual moves towards women?
The problem though, @HarryCH, with this line of thinking is that we focus on the exceptions and forget the prevailing power imbalance and the ethical problem. (Similar to the #NotAllMen claims about the prevalence of rape and male violence.) Professors shouldn't be emotionally and sexually involved with their students: aside from the immaturity/vulnerability of the students, it undermines a teacher's impartiality for assessment and evaluation. The power asymmetry is very clear: the teacher or professor has knowledge skills and a position in the institution that the student does not hold. Those in teaching positions would be able to make life difficult for students who do not consent to sex, or withhold future career opportunities in the academy from them. Because such involvements are often open secrets and others know about the relationship, there is a loss of credibility among colleagues and students. It isn't unusual for former students and their lecturers to form closer bonds later on, once the student has completed her courses and has been offered a position in the institution. That's not problematic.
In the same way, therapists shouldn't have sex with their clients, and sexual relations in the workplaces between employers and CEOs with their junior employees may have abusive consequences. Not always in workplaces between adults, but often enough that the power imbalance is what has to be looked at before any other consideration.
Hollywood loves to focus on exceptions: Jennifer Lopez in Maid in Manhattan as the Latina housekeeper in a rags-to-riches story overlooking the realities of migrant women in New York; Julia Roberts in Pretty Women as a sex worker who finds romance with a wealthy and generous client. Sex workers and activist groups protesting sex trafficking led campaigns against the latter film for making sex work seem glamorous instead of exploitative, leading to a life of abuse, trauma and even slavery.
How much later is 1997 than 1997?