Deconstructing Forgiveness
ginmar's post about Roman Polanski sparked this. It reminded me of an oddity I've been seeing lately, and frankly, I don't like it.
There is a lot of public pressure for forgiveness of wife-beaters and rapists these days--at least, in my hometown. Pardon me while I elucidate this particularly nauseating idea. I shall strive not to be violently ill.
The public idea--the one that is voiced in my hometown--is that a crime against a woman is, really just a mistake. Nothing serious. I've heard otherwise intelligent women comparing a rape to a man trodding accidentally on a woman's shoe. It hurts and it's embarrassing that someone was so dreadfully clumsy, but humiliating the man for something that wasn't really his fault--well, it's just not on.
Also, this notion continues, failure to forgive is uncivilized and judgmental. Failure to forgive means that you are putting yourself in a superior moral position, and that--so saith otherwise intelligent women, professors and parents alike--is wrong. After all, if you were the person who raped you, you would be just like him, wouldn't you? So you have no call to judge another person for what you yourself would have done if the situation had been reversed.
There are so many things wrong with that concept that it made me physically ill to type it. I want to spit flaming venom at those who hold it. The idea seems to be that a) ONLY crimes against women are not serious (for I have not heard anyone arguing this way about car thieves, con artists, bank robbers or embezzlers); b) the victim should pardon the rapist and tell him that what he did was of no serious consequence; c) failure to forgive is judgmental and tells the offender that he did something wrong.
The first is highly offensive. Few people nowadays would dare to suggest publicly that all crimes against victims of a certain race, ethnic group, or religion were acceptable because of the victims' race, ethnic group or religion. But when we're talking about crimes committed primarily against women, suddenly the crimes become trivial, or exaggerated, or over-emphasized by statistics. It is amazing.
As to the second--WHY should a victim tell a criminal that she forgives him? I can understand the concept of closure, and getting past the crime to live again--but so far as I can tell, forgiveness usually translates to "what you did was very naughty, and you shouldn't have done it, but it's all right. I understand. Let's just forget about it. And don't do it again."
It's the "you did something you shouldn't have, but it's all right" part of forgiveness that really makes me grit my teeth, because it's a lie. The rapist did something evil that he very definitely shouldn't have--and it's NOT all right. An insincere--or even sincere--"I'm sorry" or "I misunderstood" followed by a "I forgive you" doesn't make everything all right. The victim still has to live with the physical and emotional consequences. The crime hasn't un-happened.
Forgiveness, all too often, seems to be a free pass, allowing the rapist to commit the crime and to believe that the crime wasn't that bad, because look at all these women who forgave him for it! Why would they forgive him if it was bad? It's only a small step from there to "She really liked the rape. She just doesn't want to admit it."
And demanding that the victim show a higher level of mercy and spirituality than her rapist displayed toward her--while telling her that she is no better morally than her own rapist, and that if she were in the same position, she would do the exact same thing--well, it makes my head twirl.
Personally, I'm all for being judgmental. If the bastard raped someone, then he did something wrong. A philosophy seminar doesn't need to be convened to determine that. And since forgiveness so often sends a message of "what you did wrong wasn't that important," I'm against the notion of public forgiveness. It's not the job of the victim to reassure the rapist or to pardon his sin. After all, no one would demand that a mugging victim forgive the guy who mugged him, or that the person whose life savings were stolen in a land fraud deal forgive the person who defrauded her.
No--forgiveness is primarily demanded of the victims of "women's crimes." Because forgiving is civilized. Forgiving is kind. Forgiving is polite. Forgiving is what women do.
And if women don't forgive those who wrong them, why then, the men who assaulted and victimized them might get angry at being held accountable.
I suspect that is why so many women publicly go along with the notion of forgiveness--they fear the consequences, personal as well as social, if they don't. And forgiveness spawned by fear is not forgiveness at all.
I think that people should get angry at victimizers, not forgive them. No bully, abuser or rapist needs to hear that his actions aren't that bad and are easily pardoned. This sends the message that those who were beaten or raped don't matter--and that's a terrible notion to communicate about other people.
There is a lot of public pressure for forgiveness of wife-beaters and rapists these days--at least, in my hometown. Pardon me while I elucidate this particularly nauseating idea. I shall strive not to be violently ill.
The public idea--the one that is voiced in my hometown--is that a crime against a woman is, really just a mistake. Nothing serious. I've heard otherwise intelligent women comparing a rape to a man trodding accidentally on a woman's shoe. It hurts and it's embarrassing that someone was so dreadfully clumsy, but humiliating the man for something that wasn't really his fault--well, it's just not on.
Also, this notion continues, failure to forgive is uncivilized and judgmental. Failure to forgive means that you are putting yourself in a superior moral position, and that--so saith otherwise intelligent women, professors and parents alike--is wrong. After all, if you were the person who raped you, you would be just like him, wouldn't you? So you have no call to judge another person for what you yourself would have done if the situation had been reversed.
There are so many things wrong with that concept that it made me physically ill to type it. I want to spit flaming venom at those who hold it. The idea seems to be that a) ONLY crimes against women are not serious (for I have not heard anyone arguing this way about car thieves, con artists, bank robbers or embezzlers); b) the victim should pardon the rapist and tell him that what he did was of no serious consequence; c) failure to forgive is judgmental and tells the offender that he did something wrong.
The first is highly offensive. Few people nowadays would dare to suggest publicly that all crimes against victims of a certain race, ethnic group, or religion were acceptable because of the victims' race, ethnic group or religion. But when we're talking about crimes committed primarily against women, suddenly the crimes become trivial, or exaggerated, or over-emphasized by statistics. It is amazing.
As to the second--WHY should a victim tell a criminal that she forgives him? I can understand the concept of closure, and getting past the crime to live again--but so far as I can tell, forgiveness usually translates to "what you did was very naughty, and you shouldn't have done it, but it's all right. I understand. Let's just forget about it. And don't do it again."
It's the "you did something you shouldn't have, but it's all right" part of forgiveness that really makes me grit my teeth, because it's a lie. The rapist did something evil that he very definitely shouldn't have--and it's NOT all right. An insincere--or even sincere--"I'm sorry" or "I misunderstood" followed by a "I forgive you" doesn't make everything all right. The victim still has to live with the physical and emotional consequences. The crime hasn't un-happened.
Forgiveness, all too often, seems to be a free pass, allowing the rapist to commit the crime and to believe that the crime wasn't that bad, because look at all these women who forgave him for it! Why would they forgive him if it was bad? It's only a small step from there to "She really liked the rape. She just doesn't want to admit it."
And demanding that the victim show a higher level of mercy and spirituality than her rapist displayed toward her--while telling her that she is no better morally than her own rapist, and that if she were in the same position, she would do the exact same thing--well, it makes my head twirl.
Personally, I'm all for being judgmental. If the bastard raped someone, then he did something wrong. A philosophy seminar doesn't need to be convened to determine that. And since forgiveness so often sends a message of "what you did wrong wasn't that important," I'm against the notion of public forgiveness. It's not the job of the victim to reassure the rapist or to pardon his sin. After all, no one would demand that a mugging victim forgive the guy who mugged him, or that the person whose life savings were stolen in a land fraud deal forgive the person who defrauded her.
No--forgiveness is primarily demanded of the victims of "women's crimes." Because forgiving is civilized. Forgiving is kind. Forgiving is polite. Forgiving is what women do.
And if women don't forgive those who wrong them, why then, the men who assaulted and victimized them might get angry at being held accountable.
I suspect that is why so many women publicly go along with the notion of forgiveness--they fear the consequences, personal as well as social, if they don't. And forgiveness spawned by fear is not forgiveness at all.
I think that people should get angry at victimizers, not forgive them. No bully, abuser or rapist needs to hear that his actions aren't that bad and are easily pardoned. This sends the message that those who were beaten or raped don't matter--and that's a terrible notion to communicate about other people.