When a sexual assault happens, we too often question every action a woman did that could have in some way “validated” their assault. “What were you wearing?” “Were you drinking?” “Did you want it at first?” “Why didn’t you fight back?” The burden of preventing violence thus too often falls on women, to be “safe”, to not drink too much, to be ready to defend themselves. A woman’s female friends must be the ones at the ready to prevent sexual violence and get them home safely.

 

Rarely in our public discourse do we consider the role that men play in perpetuating sexual violence. Beyond more often than not being perpetrators, men are often complicit in sexual assault by choosing not to intervene in a case of a potential assault. We surely do not bombard them with the same line of questioning as female survivors: such as asking them “why didn’t you stop the assault?” “were you drinking too much to intervene?” “you were there why didn’t you say anything?” Such a world where we put masculinity on trial would flip the way we talked about sexual violence, as something caused not by a women’s deficiency to “fight back” but by the peer’s existences as accomplices in the crime. Flipping the conversations requires challenging the societal norms that seek to make women responsible for their assaults.

 

With men being in a place a power in terms of challenging their peers who commit acts of sexual violence, they are the best possible bystanders. When we look into the reasons for why men do not intervene in cases of sexual assault, we find ourselves once again confronted with the expectations of the hegemony. Research has shown that there is a significant pressure to not act to prevent sexual violence, as intervening may make them appear less masculine to male peers due. Due to misogynistic peer norms that celebrate sexual conquest and objectification of women’s bodies, men feel like preventing a woman’s unwanted sexual experience would hurt their status with other men who trust their adherence to toxic masculinity. Even men in the  “alpha male” status who have the ability to intervene might not if their peer group is misogynistic as they want to maintain their status over protecting women from violence (Leone). Thus, even heroic intervention is discouraged when it calls a peer’s masculinity into question, showing the dominance of sexist, hegemonic ideals that are central to a good number of men’s self-worth. Building societies free of violence must look deeply at the socialization of gender and how it contributes to negative views on women that normalize dominance and violence. Addressing the environment in a given community is thus critical when challenging the peer norms that enable sexual violence.

 

Gender role conflict, a term coined by O’Neil in the late seventies, describes the tension felt when one’s gender roles prohibit a person from using one’s potential (O’Neil). This is palpable when we look at bystander intervention, where men chose not to use their inherent privilege to challenge peers that commit non-consensual acts. Such conflict about intervening can be damaging to men post viewing an assault that they did not intervene to prevent, who might face greater rates of depression, anxiety, and shame because they have allowed their gender to define their chosen actions. Therefore, men that do not intervene might gain social status from upholding toughness and antifeminity, but suffer the consequences of guilt from this inaction which further shames their adherence to masculinity. As #metoo evolves, it is only a matter of time before men complicit in continuing cultures of sexual violence are “called out” alongside perpetrators.

 

Any program that seeks to be comprehensive in preventing sexual violence must specifically address hegemonic masculinity and its role in limiting bystander behavior. Bystander education cannot be a “one-size fits all” training, as men and women have different abilities to intervene in violent situations. In addition, just talking about bystander techniques to change attitudes about sexual violence is not enough, bystander intervention training must strive to change behavior, which often gets into the uncomfortable place of questioning structure-level factors of masculinity like heterosexuality and the push for sexual promiscuity. There are very few bystander education programs that dive deep into these conversations, for instance even Rice’s leading Critical Thinking in Sexuality Course only spends 45 minutes on bystander education, five weeks into the class, and does not raise conversations about dominant structures like masculinity that prevent bystander intervention. It has been shown that interventions aimed at men are more effective is they explicitly address masculinity and the practices and norms of man-hood, and thus this requires more in-depth and “critical” discussion than just a short presentation detailing strategies of intervention (Flood).

 

We need a culture where perpetrators of violence and their enablers are held responsible for their choice. Men must be active participants in the fight against violence, as only with their involvement can we achieve true gender equality. I want to live in a world where my body is not constantly under threat of being sexually violated, and where half the population is ready to step in if it is. I am ready to start questioning my male peers who have not intervened in issues of non-consensual sexual assault with “why didn’t you do anything”, as this is the culture change I want to see on this campus.

 

References

  1. Leone, R. (2019). Misogynistic peers, masculinity, and bystander intervention for sexual aggression: Is it really just “locker-room talk?” Aggressive Behavior, 45, 42-51.
  2. O’Neil, J. M. (1981). Patterns of gender role conflict and strain: Sexism and fear of femininity in men’s lives. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 203- 210.
  3. Flood, Michael. (2015). Work with men to end violence against women: a critical stocktake. Culture, Health, and Sexuality. 17(52), 159-176.