To be clear- forced marriages are awful, sex within them is rape, calling them awful or noticing they're more prevalant among certain populations is not racist, fighting forced marriage is a very good thing. But...
My understanding is that social services is very, very reluctant to remove children based on a fear of what might happen. In the US, even parents who have lost custody of all their children are entitled to keep new children until the state proves otherwise. And even when problems are deemed to exist, the bias is for treating the family with the child in place. Taking the child away is an absolute last resort. This bias can end tragically in some situations, but it's often coming from a very good place. So no, I don't automatically assume there's an infrastructure in place to give these girls a good life once they put spoons in their underwear.
Imagine if a group started handing out rape whistles to prevent rape. Fighting rape is a good goal, but the whistles will only help if: there are people around to hear them, those people respond, their response is helpful to the woman. And it would certainly be useful if she knew the police would be supportive, that the trial wouldn't rip her apart emotionally. The whistle alone does nothing.
And even if all those things exist, the whistle will only be useful against stranger rape, which is a vanishingly small portion of rape. It doesn't cover women who are impaired (through their own actions or the rapist's), or who are financially dependent on men who have made it clear support will be withdrawn if they don't have sex, or women who are consenting because they've never been taught they didn't have a right to say no. It doesn't cover prison rape. It doesn't cover men who have been taught men always want to fuck, so saying either means they're not really men, or the woman who's offering is hideous beyond all reckoning.
This doesn't make rape whistles a bad idea. But it would concern me if a charity named Grace Penitance that framed itself as anti-date rape or victims' advocacy started touting them as a solution in and of themselves.
no subject
My understanding is that social services is very, very reluctant to remove children based on a fear of what might happen. In the US, even parents who have lost custody of all their children are entitled to keep new children until the state proves otherwise. And even when problems are deemed to exist, the bias is for treating the family with the child in place. Taking the child away is an absolute last resort. This bias can end tragically in some situations, but it's often coming from a very good place. So no, I don't automatically assume there's an infrastructure in place to give these girls a good life once they put spoons in their underwear.
Imagine if a group started handing out rape whistles to prevent rape. Fighting rape is a good goal, but the whistles will only help if: there are people around to hear them, those people respond, their response is helpful to the woman. And it would certainly be useful if she knew the police would be supportive, that the trial wouldn't rip her apart emotionally. The whistle alone does nothing.
And even if all those things exist, the whistle will only be useful against stranger rape, which is a vanishingly small portion of rape. It doesn't cover women who are impaired (through their own actions or the rapist's), or who are financially dependent on men who have made it clear support will be withdrawn if they don't have sex, or women who are consenting because they've never been taught they didn't have a right to say no. It doesn't cover prison rape. It doesn't cover men who have been taught men always want to fuck, so saying either means they're not really men, or the woman who's offering is hideous beyond all reckoning.
This doesn't make rape whistles a bad idea. But it would concern me if a charity named Grace Penitance that framed itself as anti-date rape or victims' advocacy started touting them as a solution in and of themselves.