Bowdren Misunderstands the Purpose of Take Back the Night

A couple of night ago, I was having dinner with Kelly A. M. Bowdern '94, a dear friend but someone with whom I constantly disagree on just about everything. This night was no exception, and the topic was Take Back the Night.

After a lengthy and heated discussion Kelly asked me if I had ever been to Take Back the Night. I had to admit that I had only heard rallies as they passed by. Kelly seemed to think that I would change my mind once I had attended. Now, having experienced Take Back the night I can say that I feel even more strongly about the need at this place for women to speak.

In her editorial in The Crimson ("Take Your Night and..." April 21, 1994), Kelly begins by insinuating that Radcliffe Union of Students continued and generous support of take Back the Night proves once again that RUS is a partisan organization.

Listening to the women that night, what I heard had nothing to do with hating men or blaming men in general for their "problems" (an interesting way to refer to sexual abuse). kelly implies that everyone, including peninsula-types, cares equally about ending violence against women, and thus the "feminist" perspective of Take Back the Night is deceptively biased against conservative views on the issue.

But I hardly think that this argument is legitimate until conservative groups actually do something about violence against women. Only then can she and others make the claim that conservative just don't get equal air time from RUS.

Kelly suggests that Take Back the Night encourages women to "mistakenly think they are raped." But we should remember that Kelly herself writes that "circumstance surrounding sexual relations are complex." In fact the exact truth of any personal situation; and yet this fact has never really been considered a justification for curtailing a person's right to claim to have been violated.

Kelly seems to fear that the audience will hear men's names and immediately judge them. Not only did I not hear any men's named being called out that night, and not only do I give the listeners more credit (whom more than victims of sexual violence know the pain of being judged too hastily?) but also, form what we've all seen happen on campuses and in the workplace and even in the Senate, we know that those who actually make the rules would rather deny sexual violence than to punish it.

Still Kelly feels there is no justification for the ideological standpoint espoused by some who attend. And yet, one can hardly fault someone for resenting a male-dominated society when it seems that men convicted of rape rarely come to justice while a woman who is violated must feel shame and fear the rest of her life.

Even though these victims need support Kelly argues, Take Back the Night is neither the time nor the place. But then where can women be allowed to speak?

For so long, women have had no one to run to when they were sexually abused; the suffering remained private because of the shame, and because no one believed what they had to say. For this issue, there can be no more appropriate venue: the message is that a woman should be able to speak about being raped without shame, and with confidence that her audience won't assume that she is merely "emotionally unstable." It there are gray areas in the issue of rape, we certainly won't learn anything new unless women began to present their stories out loud, so that society can begin to hear the other perspective.

Knowing Kelly, I believe without a doubt that she means it when she says that these people with their painful stories do "need our compassion and support." It's unfortunate that others are not so sympathetic.

I watched G. Brent McGuire '95, peninsula council member, take the mike early in the evening and begin to crack jokes. Before he made too much of a fool of himself the mike was cut off, but before every person watching could see one conservative's expression of his "compassion" for the issue of stopping violence against women. Perhaps this illustration from someone purportedly in he same camp twill help kelly realize what these women are up against.

Kelly talks about a "real solution" which "would attempt to forge some compassion between the sexes." it's an admirable sentiment. But the male-female ratio at the event looked much more equitable than on any Peninsula masthead I've seen. And I don't even need to mention the difference between the men who went up to the mike to support a friend and the wannabe comic representing the patriarchy.

If kelly wants a "real solution" to violence against women, I say she has two choices--one is to actually take action rather than simply pointing out what we already know (she hates feminists) and the other is to take in the real purpose of Take Back the Night.

Not to find reasons to justify her distaste for Feminism, not to find material for her next peninsula article, but to realize that the people speaking could be her loved ones just as easily as not. And then perhaps she'd really begin to listen. Inie Part '94-'95