CN: rape
Yesterday's post concerned fairly trivial things, so
when I identify male entitlement to women as a problem, that might seem like a
stretch. So a girl gets kissed when she doesn't want it? Big deal!
We could argue over the size of that particular
deal, but it comes up in other ways too. Yesterday, about the same time I
tweeted out that day's blog, someone else was tweeting about a bar he knew
being closed due to a fatal shooting. One guy was hitting on a woman, ignoring
her rejection, and when another guy tried to back her up, the first guy shot
him.
Comments were interesting. One person said it
doesn't pay to get involved; just let women handle their own rejections. Of
course, women get shot in a lot of those circumstances too. Sometimes it takes
a surprisingly long time for any charges to be filed. How does that make sense
if we believe women have the right of refusal?
There are a lot of directions we could go with that,
but right now I want to talk about Nate Parker.
The release of Parker's film The Birth of a
Nation was overshadowed by learning that he and his writing partner, Jean
McGianni Celestin, had been tried for rape. Celestin was convicted and served
some time. Parker was acquitted. The main difference appears to have been that
Parker had previously had sex with the victim and Celestin hadn't.
When it was discovered that the victim had committed
suicide, there were some expressions of regret, especially at the beginning,
but Parker eventually became more frustrated, saying he was falsely accused and
proven innocent.
It is possible that on one level he believes that.
The jury appears to have believed that the woman's willingness to have sex with
him one time vindicated him, and he could easily believe that. I have not read
anything about him saying that Celestin should not have been convicted, but
their continued association and collaboration may indicate that. Maybe the
jury's disagreement was on whether Parker's continued right to sexual access
included the right to bring a friend.
I was interested in the movie upon first learning of
it but not sure if I would see it, wondering if the importance of the content
made it worth seeing the violence that would be depicted. Then, learning of the
rape, the question was whether it was more important to support a Black
filmmaker or to not support a rapist. Those questions always wait for an answer
until I see some reviews.
It quickly became apparent that I was not going to
see it - that what was done with the material did not justify seeing it. I
can't find the article that was most influential on me now, but here are two
that cover some of the key issues.
It feels ironic that these two rapists made their
characters' main motivation avenging rape, but if women are your property maybe
it makes sense.
It is not surprising to me that they do not give
fair representation or agency to the women in the film. That makes perfect
sense.
I know I'm going long, and there is some awkward
bluntness, and this is not a pleasant topic, here so close to Christmas, but it
is a religious holiday coming up, so let me be a little religious.
In my church we go over the steps of repentance
pretty regularly, which starts with recognition. You have to know that you did
something wrong. There will be remorse where you feel sorrow for that sin, and
then you will ask God for forgiveness. Also, you need to do restitution if
possible, and turn from your sin, never doing it again.
I have criticized non-apologies before - "I am
sorry if I offended anyone" - because it is not really acknowledging that
something hurtful or damaging or wrong was done.
Looking at Parker, I see more how it holds him back.
This should have been a great film. There are some decent historical sources
for inspiration, there are current social ills that make it timely, and this
nation needs to deal with its past. But Parker hasn't dealt with his. It holds
back his art. It holds back his growth as a person.
What he should have said could have been something
like this.
"At that time my friends and I were preoccupied
with sex. It didn't just feel good; it felt like victory. In that pursuit, we
did not think about the feelings or needs of the women around us. We did not
intend to cause pain, but we did not care enough to think about whether we
were. We only thought about ourselves and we caused irreparable harm. We were
not unusual in those feelings, as shown by my acquittal, but they were wrong,
and we were wrong."
That is a hard thing to say. It's hard to admit you
did something criminal. It's hard to admit you did something ugly. It's hard to
believe you did something cruel when you didn't feel cruel.
It's just needed. We spend too much time
dehumanizing other people so we can get our way over them and not feel guilty
about it. Something better starts with looking around and recognizing the
humanity all around us, one person at a time.
No comments:
Post a Comment