A new study by the Medical Research Council on rape in South Africa reveals that one in four men in South Africa may have raped someone--with most of those attacking more than one victim. Before the critics come out of the woodwork arguing that this is hyperbolic research, be clear, the methodologies were sound; the MRC spoke to 1,738 men in KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape provinces.
There are so many disturbing data points as part of this research, but I think rather than talking about how completely horrifying the facts are, it's important to focus on WHY this is happening. It's easy to read these kinds of statistics and throw up our hands as if there is nothing we can do in the face of such atrocity. Instead, we need to support the feminists in South Africa who are obviously well-aware of this issue and doing everything they can to change the culture of violence.
It's clear that many of the men who admitted to raping women had done so multiple times. This makes it even more critical that focus be put, not only on prevention and cultural shifts, but on prosecution. The legal system in South Africa must support women to come forward about their sexual assault experiences so they can help prevent other women from facing the same fate.
Professor Rachel Jewkes of the MRC, who carried out the research, told the BBC's World Today:
The absolute imperative is we have to change the underlying social attitudes that in a way have created a norm that coercing women into sex is on some level acceptable. And it's partly rooted in our incredibly disturbed past and the way that South African men over the centuries have been socialised into forms of masculinity that are predicated on the idea of being strong and tough and the use of force to assert dominance and control over women, as well as other men.
Related Posts:
"Corrective rape" increasing in South Africa.
Child's play includes sexual assault in South Africa
South Africa will only be free when women are...
Women's Day in South Africa
Thanks to all the readers and community poster Lorenc who brought this to our attention.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Study Finds 1 in 4 Men in South Africa Admits to Having Raped .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14442
Is there a parallel study in the US? The reason I am curious is that this is the first time I have seen a widespread study on perpetrators (not just those who are in prison) and not on the victims. It is so powerful to gather statistics that focus on the perps because I think that in a world that legitimizes what men say more than women, this, to me, makes legitimate to the rest of the world the reality we are so aware of. Additionally, I get nervous when mainstream media gets ahold of statistics on "Africa" without making some sort of comparison to the "west" because we teld to "other" and generalize what happens on that continent which gives us the opportunity to act as the moral superior of "the Africans."
Also, THANK YOU for recommending that we support our feminist sisters in South Africa who are carrying out such important, engaging work.
I think it would be difficult to do a parallel study in the US, for the same reasons that studies on survivors here are also difficult. In the US, there is no national definition of rape, and you would have to qualify your questions based on what state the crime was committed within.
You're absolutely right. However, a successful study would ask other questions in addition to "have you ever raped someone"? Just like most questionnaires to women regarding sexual assault may ask questions including questions about consent or having intercourse even when unwanted, etc...not just "has anyone every raped you?" How about, "Have you ever engaged in sexual intercourse while your partner was intoxicated..." "Have you ever engaged in sexual intercourse even after it appeared that your partner was not interested..." I am not pretending to be an effective creator-of-questionnaires, but this might be a place to start. What do you think?
Good point, however my problem was not with whether or not a person believed they committed rape, but with whether or not the act that they did commit is considered rape in that state they are in--and whether it, therefore, would count in a national survey.
For example, some states don't even have a "rape" charge on the books.
Some states only count PiV as rape, and assault with a foreign object is considered sodomy.
Some states count assault with some other body part as rape, while others do not.
They survey would have to have a singular definition of rape, but many assaults that the survey defined as rape could not even be prosecuted as such.
While I do think the focus should be on the cultural creation and acceptance of these acts, I also have a problem with ever pardoning a rapist, especially because we've seen rape-blame in U.S. culture shifted everywhere -- society, women, slutty clothes, whatever. And while rape is complicated and social change is imperative to changing rape, I don't think there's exists an innocent rapist.
Overall, I think the cultural problem I see is that we, as U.S. outsiders, aren't in a place to really assess this much at all. Cultural relativism, yada yada. I know others feel differnetly, but I'm never comfortable crossing boundaries like this in order to judge or even critique; it's a tricky, tricky thing.
Given that power and respect here in Southern Africa are held by revolutionary war heroes who are themselves ultra-macho strongmen types (and often rapists themselves), I'm afraid decisive government action against rape just isn't going to be forthcoming. It's something men are expected to do here, and it's something women expect to happen. When you rule because of people's awe over your courage and military prowess, you don't attack "forms of masculinity that are predicated on the idea of being strong and tough and the use of force to assert dominance". At least in Namibia there is a lot of lip-service and govt propaganda about women's rights, that sticks with some people. In SA even that's mostly missing. You have cultures that have been predicated on warfare and strong gender roles/imbalances for centuries, and on top of that decades of brutal guerrilla warfare that produced the current crop of leaders. A non-dominating, non-violent definition of manhood is not coming from the government.
This is not shocking. It was only a few years ago that now President Jacob Zuma used a "cultural defense" in his rape trail, where he admitted he forced intercourse, but also claimed that in Zulu culture, leaving a woman in a state of arousal and not "having sex" with her is tantamount to rape anyway. Oh, and he knew she was HIV + and didn't use a condom, but that was okay because he showered after. Right. Nice.
Also, I don't question the findings outright, but I do think it is important to keep in mind the socioecomonic differences within SA. There are those that believe rape is a crime, and those--like Zuma--that believe it is an acceptable part of a culture. It could make men from certain backgrounds more likely to admit to it than others.
Oh God Jacob Zuma. I lose faith in the future of humanity every time I read about that man.
I know! When I was living in South Africa, there was a chance that he would finally be forced out/jailed for something. Then not only was he not brought to justice, he's President. My heart broke, especially thinking of all the people I knew there hoping and working so hard to prevent that from happening. Ugh.
As far as I know Zuma has yet to claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, which makes him better than his predecessor.
Well, I guess he is slightly better than Mbeki on that front since he isn't making broad, untrue proclamations about the link HIV and poverty/nutrition and AIDS....but telling people that showering after forced sexual contact with someone who is HIV + is a good way to prevent contracting the virus isn't all that great for the issue either.
Yes, better than Mbeki was the faintest praise I've ever damned with. South Africa is a democracy now, and the leaders reflect the will of the people.
I'm so sorry that my comment posted 3 times...oops..
I don't understand this quote, Tara K. : "While I do think the focus should be on the cultural creation and acceptance of these acts, " Why should we focus on the acceptance of these acts? To which acts are you referring?
I think that we often use cultural relativism as an excuse when it comes to human rights. At the same time, we have used an assumed moral superiority to judge and to "swoop in" ("we" meaning the government or supposed feminist or supposed women's rights activists) and "save" women from the morally inferior men of their country/ethnic group. Heck, we do the same thing in our own country...
That is why I so quickly applaud the idea that we need to support the work that is being done on the ground by feminists in South Africa. We cannot use cultural relativism as an excuse to let ourselves off the hook but we cannot presume to know what's best for "those women" over "there" until we create a dialogue on common ground...what has worked within our context? What has not? What has worked within the South African context? What has not? What cultural expectations get in the way of changing people's attitudes? What traditions/cultural aspects can feminists capitalize on in order to affect change? What do South African women in general and feminists in specific want from Western women/feminists/governments? Why not start there?
"...That is why I so quickly applaud the idea that we need to support the work that is being done on the ground by feminists in South Africa..."
I totally agree!
"...We cannot use cultural relativism as an excuse to let ourselves off the hook but we cannot presume to know what's best for 'those women' over 'there' until we create a dialogue on common ground...what has worked within our context? What has not? What has worked within the South African context? What has not? What cultural expectations get in the way of changing people's attitudes? What traditions/cultural aspects can feminists capitalize on in order to affect change? What do South African women in general and feminists in specific want from Western women/feminists/governments? Why not start there?"
Indeed, why not?
Are these the same people who found out that 1 in 3 women on us college campuses is raped ?
Meaning what, exactly?
Regardless, since this is a study regarding South Africa, conducted by a South African institution, it obviously isn't.
I don't understand this quote, Tara K. : "While I do think the focus should be on the cultural creation and acceptance of these acts, " Why should we focus on the acceptance of these acts? To which acts are you referring?
I'm sorry, I can see how that would be confusing. I meant that I can see how we should focus on the criticizing and trying to change the cultural acceptance of rape in the area. Not on accepting it. That was poorly worded.
Thanks for the clarification!
A dear friend spent 2 years in the Peace Corps in South Africa, in an area with 40% HIV infection rates and a very high incidence of rape. She was incredibly frustrated that the US Peace Corps doesn't allow individual volunteers to ever say that a culture's practices are wrong (partly for their own safety). But my friend, a woman of strong convictions, couldn't abide the "normal" occurrences of rape in her village -- she herself could't leave her home after dark unless heavily escorted, and 7-year old girls were considered "fair game" by the men. The only comment that ever got her any traction was when she would say, "In America people who rape 7-year olds go to jail and everyone hates them -- and we're all rich in America." It was a very simplistic way of saying that any culture that treats its most vulnerable members so badly will not thrive.
A volunteer was recently killed in West Africa because she confronted a coworker about his sexual abuse of students.
Benin, to be precise.
"And we're all rich in America"?? I think that your friend's use of the US as an example in this circumstance is OK, but then generalizing to that point seems odd and insensitive at best. I think that we need to understand how and where our cultural position can be of use. Showing people "how wonderful the US is" is not going to change societies. Having a dialogue about cultural similarities and differences, human rights, and engaging in true cultural exchange will. (We CAN, and SHOULD, learn from EACH OTHER...if we are not exchanging then this will become yet anothe case of "We will teach you, Africans...") A society cannot hope to change just by "becoming more like the US." And to think that we can change others for the better by making them more like us seems ridiculous, territorial, and colonial.
Again, back to my previous point about capitalizing on cultural strengths and utilizing traditions while supporting cultures in such a way that they feel free (from colonialism, hegemony, etc..) to change their own societies is the only way we or other cultures will change, in terms of human/women's rights.
I understand first-hand how difficult, frustrating, and scary it is working within a context such as your friend lived in. However, even in cases where people are clearly wrong to a frightening extent (i.e. having the acceptable practices described in your post), if we are to affect change as foreigners, we need first to seek to understand who can really affect change (we are the ones, afterall, who chose to go, who can choose to leave...whereas the women in those circumstances aren't afforded that same choice). Because, generally speaking, we, as foreigners, are not, ourselves, going to create the change. We might work alongside others to affect it, but cannot expect to swoop into another country and change things by showing how much better the US is. How much better is the US anyway?
Aleks: which West African country are you speaking of?
I'm probably not the best person to answer this, because neither I nor my friend thought of her statement as colonialist or the like. When you are specifically forbidden to comment on practises that you find abhorrent, because simply to comment can cause your death, you are 1) in a place with a lot of human rights problems and 2) constrained as to how you can make your point. I thought her example was good -- the people in her village would have carved their kidneys out with a spoon to be in the US. They love the US -- for someone living on the side of mountain in the middle of a drought, watching everyone you know die around you and knowing you may be next, the US doesn't look like a cesspool of problems. It looks like Heaven. Given that attitude of the villagers (who received tons of US aid in the form of food, seed, clothing, etc.) was favorable to the US, the example my friend used was quite powerful.
The only way to change a society is to give examples of how other societies have approached similar issues and been the better for it. People don't change behavior on their own; they must have a reason to do so before trying it. If you were told that shaving your head would improve your life, you would likely want to know and in what way before you considered it. You would not shave your head on your own and hope it made things better. Very poor analogy there, but I'm at work and couldn't think of anything else quickly. :)
= Author Profile Page Boole13 replied to MittenStateGal :
"And we're all rich in America"?? I think that your friend's use of the US as an example in this circumstance is OK, but then generalizing to that point seems odd and insensitive at best. I think that we need to understand how and where our cultural position can be of use. Showing people "how wonderful the US is" is not going to change societies. =
Have you spent a lot of time in Africa developing those conclusions? Most people here want to be there. Failing that, they want to imitate. As a volunteer you use the leverage you have to do the good you can, and while you hope it will be "OK" with blog commenters, but you can't let that be your guide.
I understand what the both of you are saying. I definitely do not wish to attack or in any way make people feel bad about the decisions they make. And I agree that as a volunteer you use the leverage you can and we all do the best we can with what we have. I had also commented, and agree with you, Mitten, that, "The only way to change a society is to give examples of how other societies have approached similar issues and been the better for it. People don't change behavior on their own; they must have a reason to do so before trying it. " That's why I try to emphasize exchange in order to create change...especially amongst women, especially amongst activists.
"Have you spent a lot of time in Africa developing these conclusions? Most people here want to be there. Failing that, they want to imitate." I didn't realize that my suggestion that we not place the US on a pedestal/exaggerate would equate that I don't think that the US has redeeming qualities or that people will not respond to equating some of the US's better laws/cultural beliefs with its relative economic success.
I just think that it reifies many people's belief that the US is somehow superior, and I am uncomfortable with that. Like I said, I do not think that the solution is to confirm the idea that to be successful, you must do as the Americans do. And, yes, I have spent a lot of time in Africa (one country, only..I'm not trying to speak for the entire continent) developing these conclusions...it was there that I solidified my belief that empowerment (oops, I really did just use that buzz word), support, exchange, consciousness raising of people both within ethnic groups/countries and internationally is the only thing that will lead to a sustainable solution. As individual volunteers, we can only do so much, and I would rather have us working toward empowerment rather than reification of power structures between the "West" and the African continent in general.
I appreciate your thoughts and comments a lot, it's discourse like this that help clarify ideas and notions.
As for the "West" v. "non-West" discussion, I'm afraid (don't flame me with 1,000 comments, please), from the travelling of my own I've done and talked about with others, the US, thus far, in my opinion, is far and away the best culture and structure in the world. While it's true that there are a lot of problems here, people are always working to improve things. But the most important thing is opportunity: there are places where opportunities are thin on the ground, but they do exist. Making use of them may require incredible determination, effort and will. In places like South Africa there are places where there is no opportunity. None at all. In that, I'm so glad I was born here, and think that using the success of the US and its citizens are an excellent thing. We get beat up worldwide for so many things -- but never praised for the good we do (or try to do). Look at all of the people on this site who have devoted their lives and livelihood to help others improve their lives, and not just in the US, but worldwide (see the post on Burma from yesterday or today). I know there are many, many people in the world that are doing similar work, but the simple fact is that the US does more of it.
"Making use of them may require incredible determination, effort and will. In places like South Africa there are places where there is no opportunity. None at all."
Come on. Yes, there are places in SA where there are no opportunities, but there are also places in SA where there are many. Have you traveled there?
Likewise, there are places in the US where there are no opportunities either, and places where there are many. SA and the US are both very large countries.
"(don't flame me with 1,000 comments, please)"
Seriously? I mean, go ahead and say something controversial, but you can't ask for your point not to be challenged. Come on, now.
"While it's true that there are a lot of problems here, people are always working to improve things."
Wow. Do you honestly believe people are not working to improve South Africa or anywhere else? Way to delegitimize a whole lot of activists.
"the US, thus far, in my opinion, is far and away the best culture and structure in the world."
That's quite a statement. Out of the 195 countries or so in the world, the US is the best culture and structure. I can't say much more that isn't negative about the US. I'll just say there are A LOT of people not working to improve things.
I do see why South Africans would like to live somewhere with food banks and welfare and the like though.
"I didn't realize that my suggestion that we not place the US on a pedestal/exaggerate would equate that I don't think that the US has redeeming qualities or that people will not respond to equating some of the US's better laws/cultural beliefs with its relative economic success."
Did I ever say that you didn't think the US had redeeming qualities or did you just make that up? Obviously I know the answer already.
Benin.
That's why she phrased it the way she did -- to avoid outright specific censure of individuals, but still get the point across. It's difficult to get beneficial change when you can't comment on the fact that it's not beneficial. Trying to explain that men sleeping with many, many women was a major reason for the HIV infection rate is incredibly hard when 1) no one will admit to being infected and 2) polyamory is an ingrained part of the village culture. A village which, by the way, has constant starvation and the working adults have been near wiped out, leaving 12-year olds in charge of their families and grandparents too weak to work. It's a tragic situation, and her time there was incredibly difficult. She was able to have some small effects for the women there, but it was like spitting into a rainstorm -- hard to see and may have already been washed away.
But hopefully she helped a few people in that village see themselves as deserving respect, and gave a few people the tools to control their lives a little more. That's all we can do.
I think she did. During her time there, not one person died of starvation, although they did before she arrived and some after she left. She returned a year later with geologists and a whole lot of contributions from her friends, and built a well that three villages could use. She taught cooperative farming, but with a twist: the villagers worked the gardens cooperatively, and used the surplus to trade with other villages that grew different things to get more varied and healthy diets. She keeps in contact with many of the village elders, and misses them greatly.
That's amazing, btw.
Oh, and I'm sorry if my responses are all out of order. It's the first time I've ever posted here, and I rarely post anywhere at all. Hope I didn't confuse the heck out of anyone.
I get the "and we're all rich" statement. It really, really has to be taken in context, folks. It's about encoding a message in a way that will be understood and not provocative.
Thank you! You said that a lot better than I did, but it's exactly what she did.
I work for an NGO in the Eastern Cape of South Africa and part of our work is working with men to reduce sexual violence and gender inequality in our community. It's hard work--we are changing what it means to be a man, and what it means to be in a heterosexual relationship. Our counselors who work with boys and men on these issues are men from the community--not outsiders--who model feminism (although they would not use that word) and respect for women.
There are voices from the community (male and female) decrying violence against women and calling bullshit on "cultural practices" that burden women with disease and blame. You just have to listen.
I had no luck finding the original study or much detail on how the survey was conducted, so I'm going to assume that the actual figures are most likely higher than that. Were the men directly asked if they had raped or if they had forced someone into sex (a lot of this is language-related too). I'm curious, because most rapists here don't consider themselves rapists-what with victim blaming and all-and I'm not sure if the culture there is different in that way.
I'm also wonder what the definition of rape the surveyors used. (ie, does raping your wife count? Or is that considered just 'sex' by most (kinda like here)? I figure asking here is safer than googling because of the "omg look how bad they treat women over THERE!" mood of Western media.
While this post didn't have the problematic commentary that lorenc provided on the community post, I still think we need to take a step back. 1 in 4 is the statistic for how many women get raped in America. I don't think it would be terribly surprising to find that 1 in 4 men are rapists here. We shouldn't act like this is unique to South Africa or anywhere else.
To be fair, 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted in America, not raped. There is a wide rage, and rape falls within that.
Also, its been found that most sexual offenders do it serially. I don't think the 25% of women in the US that are assaulted are attacked by someone who only does it once.
I heartily agree that we shouldn't single out any particular country, but sexual assault and its intersection with politics in SA is very tense. The rape culture there IS much more palpable than it is in the US. I wouldn't disagree with the statement that it is an even bigger problem in SA than it is in the US--not to say its not a large problem in America.
All true-- it's sexual assault, not rape. And I know that it's not a different guy for every woman-- I was just trying to point out that we have major problems of our own, which many people seemed to be ignoring here in favor of piling on the South Africans.
Oh, good point. I think some of that is based in reality whereas some of it may come out of a sort of dark relief--"thank god! we're not the only ones with these issues. Lets talk about others for a while to take the focus off of our problems."
All true-- it's sexual assault, not rape. And I know that it's not a different guy for every woman-- I was just trying to point out that we have major problems of our own, which many people seemed to be ignoring here in favor of piling on the South Africans.
1738 men is a sample too small to condemn a whole nation as rapists. If you go to the wealthier parts of south Africa and interview 2000 people there, I bet nobody admits to rape, seen as they can probably lure women with their wealth and status, if not with their charms.
Also a German site cited the study with 1 in 3 men admitting to have raped. Which one is it now ?
If we keep blindly using studies, that blow up in our face, like the one that claims that one in three women on us campuses are raped, it is not going to make feminism look good.
1. How exactly do these studies "blow up in our face?"
2. If that is true, how does that make feminists as a group, and not the survey conductors, look bad?
"If you go to the wealthier parts of south Africa...I bet nobody admits to rape, seen as they can probably lure women with their wealth and status, if not with their charms."
3. Uhh...Is your name sarcastic?
If study after study after study that is used to advance our cause, turns out to be biased, or even false, it hurts the credibility of the movement.
My name is not sarcastic at all, but your criticism and the way you word it, makes me feel that I can express an opinion, as long as it is your opinion.
Well, it did seem like you said that wealthy men don't rape because they can get women into the sack with their wealth. Also, women are always "lured" by men and money hungry? So yeah. That seems pretty anti-feminist to me.
And on point one, again I ask: How do these studies blow up in our face? Cite something to back up your belief that these studies are wrong.