Why Doesn’t She Just Fight Back?

13Aug06

There are many reasons why a rape victim doesn’t, or doesn’t ‘appear to’ fight back.

Firstly, the appearance of not fighting back. She may well have fought back against her attacker, but in the men’s terms of fighting back, it is ‘invisible’. She, like most women, probably lacks actual fighting experience, and therefore uses more spontaneous methods of self defence or attack (not ‘recognised’ fighting techniques, like punches).

Many women do not fight back against their attacker. She may ‘just’ struggle as a form of resistance to the attack, or give initial or constant verbal protests against the assault. Or, she may ‘appear’ to acquiesce.

In this last category, of ‘not fighting back’, it is a survival strategy. Women are not stupid. They know (whether consciously or subconsciously) that they are ‘outgunned’ by his weight, muscle mass, and possibly even fight experience. Let’s face it, it is the equivalent of putting a heavy-weight boxer in the ring with a feather-weight – hardly a fair contest. In the land of men, they recognise this in their sports, but not in the Law. Because, under the Law, men and women are seen as an adults, and therefore ‘equal’. What is never taken into account in the Law is this physical discrepancy. This is well illustrated in cases of self defence (particularly in domestic violence cases) where the woman ‘levels the playing field’ by using a weapon. Because, in the ‘rules’ of self defence, you may only use a like-for-like arsenal. If he has a knife, you can use a knife (but not a gun). If he has a gun, you may use a gun. But if he is unarmed, then the use of any form of weaponry by the woman, is regarded as ‘not self defence’. The self defence ‘rules’ are men’s rules, designed in resolving deputes between men – those who are more equally matched physically. That is why if a woman kills her abusive spouse, attacks often appear ‘pre-meditated’, for even though he may have raped and beaten her for last five or twenty years, it is her seizing a moment of opportunity (and possibly weapon) when he is vulnerable, that is not recognised by Man’s Law. She knows from years of experience, she is no physical match for him in an altercation.

Which brings me to acquiescence, or apparent acquiescence, as a survival strategy, especially in rape. There are two categories here, stranger rape (less than 20%) and acquaintance rape (over 80%). In stranger rape she may appear to acquiesce because he is an ‘unknown quantity’, she doesn’t know how much (more) he is going to hurt her, or even kill her, if she resists or fights back. In the acquaintance category there are two modes, first victimisation and repeat victimisation. In repeat victimisation she has learnt through experience that she is no physical match for him, and submits. This is not, definitely not, the same as consent, and is still rape. In a first victimisation of acquaintance rape, probably either ‘date rape’ or someone the victim knows such as a trusted friend, then she may be reluctant to inflict injury on someone she cares about, even though he has, or is about to, hurt her.

Compliance is a valid survival strategy, but will definitely work against the rape victim in Court. This is perhaps why so many rapes, mainly acquaintance rapes, do not even get reported.

I mentioned domestic violence because I regard DV and rape as part of the same continuum of violence against women. There are many parallels, most notably in the conviction rates for both – under 6% (closer to 5% actually). In Court, it is ‘her word against his’ (HWAH), and in men’s Courts, it is HIS that will be taken over HERS, unless there is other physical evidence to the contrary.

For women, it is, and always has been, a case of survival first, justice second (if at all).

Further reading on the women who do fight back in cases of domestic violence.

Filed under: Domestic Violence, Rape and Sexual Assault, The Law & Courts   |  6 Comments