ARWEAR - 'Confidence and Protection that can be worn' - A clothing line offering wearable protection for when things go wrong.
To supplement our current reading of Righteous Dopefiend, I thought I might bring attention to this new Anti-Rape (AR) clothing line I've been hearing about - ARWEAR! Still in its developmental stages, this product is designed to aid women in their resistance from sexual assault while also providing peace of mind and a sense of control over their own bodies.
In reading the mission statement of the protective clothing line, I found myself in support and agreement with much of what the website read (read for yourself here), after all the AR undergarments are made for women, designed by women as an extra means of protection on a night out, when traveling alone, walking across campus at night, etc. As a young woman, I could relate to feeling uncomfortable in these very scenarios - and let's be honest, I took RAD, and although I don't personally own them, I have girlfriends who carry around little pink cans of pepper spray and bedazzled tasers in their purses - dorm room essentials and gifts given to young collegiate women from their parents. Although these tools are designed with every intention to promote peace of mind and a sense of proactive individual responsibility, it's important to address the negative implications these cute, pocket-sized accessories may carry.
Righteous Dopefiend introduces sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence in accordance with the feelings of social domination brought on by drug use and homelessness of the Edgewater homeless. In the same right, Bourdieu might argue that the promotion and sale of ARWEAR serves as a symbol of violence as they are in fact "...mechanisms that lead those who are subordinated to "misrecognize" inequality as the natural order of things and to blame themselves for their location in their society's hierarchies." Women who choose to wear an
anti-sexual assault garment might be given a helpful sense of security, but ultimately the product reinforces the pervasive and harmful societal assumption that the
responsibility of not getting raped lies with individual women rather than the sexual offender. In this model, women are burdened with an unfair pressure on their ability to discern where and when such products might be necessary.
If a woman decides not to wear her ARWEAR out in public is it her own fault if someone takes advantage of her? Or if one pair of underwear or specifically anti-rape underwear, does that make all other underwear rape underwear by default?
The AR underwear like many of the anti-rape products targeted for the protection of women, have been placed under scrutiny for their role of victim-blaming in instances of rape, as many argue the products themselves are viewed as a woman's only defense against an ever-present and imminent threat of sexual assault. The product is advertised as a wearable form of confidence and protection, yet it is designed solely for women and modeled solely by women (I could add to this solely by White women, but I digress). With such a blatant visualization of the type of customer the product is intended for, Bourdieu would scoff at the lack of attempt to hide said form of symbolic power. By perpetuating the idea that women are the only ones who should have concern over the potential threat of sexual assault and rape, ARWEAR maintains and legitimizes hierarchy and oppression through the everyday practice of commercial advertising and lumpenization. Without the innovative, cut resistant skeletal structure that the underwear provide, women have no choice but to go living in constant fear and defense of an unknown attack at any given moment. Because of her naturally inferior position in society's hierarchy, it is a woman's responsibility to supplement her person with the proper equipment to protect herself. Should she be caught without it when things do go wrong, and they will go wrong, then she must take responsibility for her position in that night club or on that late night jog, her decision to wear provocative clothing, and ultimate failure to take greater precaution of her surroundings.
Honestly it all holds some semblance to a failed Foucauldian shift from sovereignty to self regulation. Although still a passive aggressive means of governing sexual assault, the bodies that are controlled through the societal discourse of abstinence and purity are only those of women. This is accomplished by means of a thinly veiled guise of social responsibility, what many protesters of ARWEAR unmask and reveal to be a terrorist method of inducing fear.
Ok, admittedly that's a bit much.
But the self-disciplinary gaze the Foucauldian model suggests that responsible individuals impose on their bodies and psyches as a moral responsibility is continuously one of defense for women - rather than offensive or even aggressive. Instead then of perpetuating a model in which women must be overly cautious and even defensive, there should be a greater push to reinforce the responsibility of the sexual offender not to take advantage.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI felt inclined to respond to this blog entry because it addresses a topic we could all stand to think about more critically. Taylor does a great job of relating anthropological concepts from our course to unveil artifacts of rape culture, so I hope to add to the discussion by sharing my own thoughts and introducing some additional theory to the conversation.
ReplyDeleteI think it is sad that we live in a society where products like Tasers, AR Wear, and pepper spray can be marketed on a basis of necessity. Without these products, mental preparedness, and avoidance of walking around at night, going to parties, etc., how is anyone, especially a woman, supposed to feel safe? These products exist to help people feel personal agency in an environment where they supposedly have little, because without awareness and preparedness, the social consensus appears to be that rape is just an unfortunate fact of life. While I would like to argue that this is an unrealistic perspective, the unfortunate regularity of rape in our culture problematizes doing so. According to RAINN, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, 1 out of every 6 women in the United States has been a victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime and 1 out of every 33 American men has experienced an attempted or completed rape. These startling statistics are outrageous and intolerable.
Even more outrageous however is the way our society has cultivated and reinforced rape culture. One example of symbolic violence that Taylor provides is the ad nauseum suggestion that women should somehow act in a way to avoid being raped, as if rape is something that just naturally exists like a hurricane and can be prepared for but is unavoidable. How many products can a woman buy, or how many classes can a woman take, before she is adequately prepared to live her life without fear of rape? This question has no answer because it has a flawed premise. Women (and all people) should not have to prepare for an attack, or plan to avoid one, just to feel safe. The problem is not lack of preparation, but the assumption that society cannot exist in any form other than that which we live in. A victim is not at fault by virtue of being a victim, and the society that fails to recognize so has failed the victims of the crime collectively. This sentiment is echoed by Taylor’s italicized questions, yet is silenced every day due through the reinforcement of rape as a social fact. It seems the obvious solution has been largely ignored. Structural violence needs to be fiercely attacked and discouraged if rape is going to be adequately shuttered. Victim-shaming needs to end. The agency encouraged in a Foucauldian model of power can exist as a means for people to actively speak and act in defiance of rape culture. But even this is not enough. We must collectively adopt a deconstructionist mindset, somehow, to tear down the false assumptions that the way things exist now is the natural order. I believe that only through direct efforts to confront and deconstruct these cultural ideas will we begin develop a shift away from rape culture towards something better. We must quit pretending that the problem is inherent in the individuals of society, and not in the society itself.
Products like AR Wear can only survive in a society that fails to address institutionalized violence through pathways of structural change. Like a cast, they can prevent further damage, but they do not directly lead to healing and they do nothing to address the source of the problem. To end rape culture, we need to actively deconstruct current ideology and replace it with positive structures that snub rape and rapists at the source.
-Phillip
RAINN - http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
Amazing and eye-opening posts, Taylor and Philip! Once again, I learn from you guys.
ReplyDeleteThe author, Taylor Rousseau, makes an excellent point in her blog post “ARWEAR - Confidence and Protection that can be worn.” The author explains how there this undergarment called ARWEAR which protects women from being raped. The idea of women protecting themselves from sexual offenders seems like a great idea at first. But if we take a closer look, it shows that the pressure on sexual offenders is less and more pressure is on the victims of such crimes. Creating a product that protects someone else from getting raped just shows how much threat women are facing from other people. And as Rousseau points out, if a women does not wear this undergarment and she is raped, then is it her fault for not using such a protective device?
ReplyDeleteAnother point I would like to make, to make the author’s argument go further, is this: Why is there no such undergarment for men? Men are also raped just as women are, so this anti-rape product seems sexist. In the video that was posted along with the blog, it just shows models who are women using these products. But why is not this product made for men as well? Is this advertisement stating that men are not at risk for being raped? Because that is clearly not true. And these products seem to encourage men to be ashamed if they were raped, as it is stating that women need protection by using products such as this, while men do not need any products such as ARWEAR because supposedly they can protect themselves.