Republicans for Rape: Lets Get Real

If you've been on the net in the past few days, you have probably seen republicansforrape.org. This tongue-in-cheek site satirizes the positions of the 30 senators who voted against an amendment to alter the law regarding mandatory binding arbitration.

A few friends and I posted the site to our Facebook walls, and a lively discussion has sprung up on whether the site goes offensively too far. Now, I love it when Facebook can be used as a space for the hashing out of weighty things, but it seems to me that there is a major blind spot in much of this discussion that needs to be dealt with head on.

It is wise to point out that, without context, a vote on a given bill can be spun any number of ways. Both parties do this all the time. So here is what some of the Senators said about their own votes:

Senators Corker, Chambliss and Isakson justified their 'no' votes on the grounds that the amendment would prohibit workers from using mandatory binding arbitration even if they wanted it. Senator Thune said he might have voted for it if it had been narrowed to cover rape rather than extended to cover other sexual-related abuses. Still other Senators said since DoD opposed it on the grounds of enforcement challenges, they decided to as well.

The trouble is, in context, some of these rationales are based on falsehoods, and others are out of balance with the issue at hand. In the case of Corker Chambilss and Isakson, their rationale would work, were it not explicitly spelled out in the bill that employees would still be able to elect to use arbitration; they simply wouldn't be forced into it.

Thune seems to think (contrary to civil rights law) that only instances of rape deserve a day in court. Those Senators who sided with DoD's reasoning said that because DoD may not know about these incidents, they can't be expected to enforce this law.

It is this last line of reasoning that is the most important point to hash out.

Consider that rape is only the most extreme incarnation of a host of acts of sexual discrimination against women. From cat-calling, to verbal harassment, to unwanted touching and so on.

Consider that the present moment in our history in which we can even talk about these things has been the result of a long, hard struggle towards women's equality. The origin of rape law is in property law i.e. we only care if women are raped because they are the property of men and rape damages men's property. Also consider attitudes toward sexual harassment and manipulation in our recent past (Mad Men does a decent job with this).

Today, we find ourselves in a situation in which much conversation about rape and society is supported by a fatally flawed assumption - namely that rape, and the broader spectrum of sex discrimination/violence is positive, or intentional. This is not always true. The system as it exists tolerates and reinforces such discrimination. Discrimination is the status quo.

At one extreme, one in six women in the United States will be the victim of sexual violence in her lifetime (RAINN). At the other, controlling for differing industries and employment levels, women earn $0.77 to the dollar that men earn. And this is the best it has ever been.

If you will try that on for a moment, you may begin to see a different perspective. There is a long list of supporting facts that I will forgo here, but it is critically important, particularly for the men reading this, that you take a moment and really consider the idea that we are living in a system that started with women as property and is still a long way from 'equal.'

I assert that it is only through the active disruption of that system, the calling out of its flaws and injustices, that we can move toward a more equitable one. This disruption is not only on an institutional level, but particularly for us men, on a personal one as well.

In that light, nit-picking arguments about the difficulties of implementation, false arguments on employee choice, and distinguishing rape, from other, lesser offenses badly misses the point.

Do these Senators consciously support rape? Of course not. But their actions absolutely support a status quo in which rape and sexual violence flourish.

Pointing that out to people - including the Senators in question as the site in question does - is the path to redress this issue. In part because its controversy sparks discussion like this one.

So as this conversation continues, ask yourself - What is the real cause for outrage: republicansforrape.org, or the fact that Jamie Leigh Jones was beaten, gang raped, locked in a shipping container and abused to the point where her breasts were dislodged - and can't get a day in court?

Follow Nathan Havey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/nhavey

Comments

[Nelson Montana - Huffpost Blogger]

Yet more evidence that the Republicans will stoop to any level to stop progress made by a Democrat. At this point they're merely thugs who will cheat, lie, steal and kill to gain their turf back.

[seawolf77]

Anybody been under the protection of a 40 hour workweek as a professional. We all know just hpw that works. They will make your life a miserable and living hell, attacking you, isolating and destroying you until you pony up a bigger piece of your life in return for them giving you a little dirty paper that they say is the bomb. This is the maturity that was shoveled down our throats as children and there are still those conservatives out there that our fighting to sit at this table and fighting to protect thier parents for being so wise. Go figure. You can have it. It's all one big mendacious lie.

[WorkingClass]

Republicans believe that if a woman gets raped she probably asked for it. Also, in any dispute between an employer and an employee the Republicans automatically side with the employer. But the real reason that 30 senators voted against the Franken Amendment is that Franken is a Democrat.

[schatsie]

Same people who believe that Autism is the mother's fault.....

[mergina]

Republicans do not care about women. Their track record has been one of OPEN WAR against women's rights.

[Oldie]

Sorry, your comment about the administration opposing this amendment is in error. they stated later that the DoD defense of KBR and its method of contracting employees was over the top and agreed with Franken. check it out!

[guydesrochers]

I pleaded with my daughter to not even consider the idea of signing onto the military when she felt that she was not sure about her career direction two years ago. I am so glad she took my advice. The military treats its enlisted people like cannon fodder and its female soldiers as chattel that are available to be abused and who can be told to be quiet in the process.

The treatment of Jamie Lee Jones at the hands of her kbr - halliburton rapists only reinforces my opinion. I tell every woman who will listen not to enroll in the military until it can be demonstrated that it treats its soldiers with the respect they deserve. And the bad treatment is not limited to women...I hear countless horror stories of how enlisted soldiers and contractors who fought bravely for our country come back only to be abused by a military bureaucracy that refuses to take care of them.

And to have republican politicians deny Jones due process so that she might regain some semblance of justice and dignity? Shame on these republicans!! They are so beholden to KBR and Halliburton, they will stop at nothing - even deny justice to a seriously abused soldier. Of course if it was their daughter who was treated so badly, I am sure there would be calls for recriminations. Gotta love the hypocrisy!!!

[DUSAA-1775]

I was in the military many years ago, and if anything, i feel that things have gotten better in the military since the 60's. You need to back up your statement of fact that ' female soldiers..­are chattel that are available to be abused'.

[medicinecat]

Aren't the Republicans having that moment where they're wondering where all their friends went?

[aliceautumn]

Is she prevented from bringing her attackers ot justice for rape or prohibited from suing the company they worked for? There are two days in court she seems to be asking for. If this is about preventing her attackers from being charged then something needs to be done. If it is about her deciding she does not want to do arbitration, even though she agreed to it, then tough cookies. Sexual harrasment sucks but it is really bad when it is played like a race card. Is she playing it to get a big payout or justice?

[Jlong]

Why does a big payout not mean justice to you? She deserves both.

[aliceautumn]

Part of a response I received from Sen Isaakson on this matter.

"Ms. Jones sued Halliburton/KBR and three judges of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in September 2009 that Jones' contract with Halliburton/KBR does not prohibit her from suing over the claims she has made and that her lawsuit can go to trial. I am glad Ms. Jones is getting her day in court for these civil claims against the company, those responsible for this crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."


I voted against this amendment in accordance with the recommendation of the President and his Department of Defense, which opposed this amendment. Under the Franken amendment, defense contractors who receive federal funding could no longer require that employees sign contracts mandating that they settle employment disputes through arbitration. The amendment applies to current defense contracts and contractors who have employment arbitration agreements with their employees and who have already completed work for the military wont be able to paid for that work, under the Franken amendment.­.

Rape is a heinous crime and those who commit assaults should be punished, and I believe that the U.S. Justice Department should become more aggressive in prosecuting cases of rape and violent crime in combat zones such as Iraq. Unfortunately, the Franken amendment would not do anything to protect women from violence or to punish criminals. If it had, I would certainly have voted for the amendment.­"

[donniebnyc]

Companies like KBR and their employees are protected from criminal prosecution because the crimes occurred in Iraq. Her only recourse was to sue and the arbitration clause prevented that even in this horrific case.

Tough cookies??? She agreed to arbitration, not to being drugged, raped and imprisoned. How dare you take the side of rapists and their employer by likening sexual harassment to some kind of phony complaint made out of convenience.

Your lack of compassion is overwhelming.

[Citizen-Jane]

Agree.

[aliceautumn]

Actually the President and his advisors also opposed this amendment. I guess they lack compassion as well. I also have compassion for the thousands of contract employees who wil nto get paid now for work they have already done.

[medicinecat]

Our judicial system has never taken kindly to "freedom of contract" when the party to the contract with no real bargaining power (read employee) is compelled to sign away his/her day in court to benefit the more powerful party (read employer).

[Smithn]

Oh, Nathan!
Thank you so much for the wonderful picturees, etc. on the website and this clarification blog. When this story first broke it seemed to get lost and I literally couldn't sleep for trying to figure out what to do about it. Now I've learned to have more faith in the new journalism because of you. I'll digg this story and post it to New Trust and continue to cross comment on these guys. It's a mission! And You are my hero! Thanks!