This week's chapter, the final in The Two Towers, is called "The Choices of Master Samwise." The story picks up right where we left off - Gollum has retreated but Shelob has caught Frodo. Sam attacks Shelob and defeats her. Sam then goes to help Frodo, but finds him dead. That's right - dead. Sam mourns bitterly, but after a short time he realizes he can't just stay there. He tries to think of what he can do. The Creative Wizard paints a dark picture.
Now he tried to find strength to tear himself away and go on a lonely journey - for vengeance.
If once he could go, his anger would bear him down all the roads of the world,
pursuing, until he had him at last: Gollum. Then Gollum would die in a corner. But that was
not what he had set out to do. It would not be worth while to leave his master for that.
It would not bring him back. Nothing would...
He looked on the bright point of the sword. He thought of the places behind where
There was a black brink and an empty fall into nothingness. There was no escape
that way. That was to do nothing, not even time to grieve. That was not
What he had set out to do. "What am I to do, then?"
He looked on the bright point of the sword. He thought of the places behind where
There was a black brink and an empty fall into nothingness. There was no escape
that way. That was to do nothing, not even time to grieve. That was not
What he had set out to do. "What am I to do, then?"
Sam ultimately decides to take the Ring, and to continue the Quest. Of course he does. He must. Who would do differently in his shoes? It is the right - it is the only thing - to do.
I'm not so sure it's that obvious. Sam, who is usually very affected by emotions, has decided to leave his Master and to continue the Quest on his own. "Though I do not know the way" is an understatement. He puts his thoughts of vengeance and despair aside. Could we, in similar situation?
Earlier this week, there was a shooting tragedy in Isla Vista, CA. The motivation behind the killing, I think, is by far the most horrifying of those in recent years. Here's an excerpt from one of the killer's videos: "I'm 22 years old and still a virgin, never even kissed a girl. And through college, 2 and a half years, more than that actually, I'm still a virgin. It has been very torturous. The popular kids, you never accepted me and now you will all pay for it. Girls, all I ever wanted was to love you and be loved by you. I wanted a girlfriend. I wanted sex, love, affection, adoration." He also wrote, in a separate document, "I will attack the very girls who represent everything I hate in the female gender: The hottest sorority of UCSB."
No motive has ever been definitively prescribed to Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter. The motive for the JCC shooting in Kansas was anti-Semitism, which while of course hateful, is also generally very impersonal. It isn't about what the Jews did to me, but what they do to us. Anti-Semites very rarely have personal motivations to hate - it's based largely on ideology. But here, the motivation is very personal. The killer, Elliot Rodgers, felt personally slighted. He was denied "sex, love, affection, adoration." Things he felt he deserved.
What right does he have in believing he is owed these things? Well, a lot. And it's difficult to blame him. That obviously doesn't justify what he did, and I don't even mean to say he is, in fact, owed these things (He isn't). But any uproar that is focused on Elliot Rodgers and not the larger picture of "Women as reward" is missing the point. Elliot Rodgers might have acted extraordinarily terribly, but he isn't alone in thinking he is owed a hot girlfriend, and that wanting, but not receiving, is "torturous." (As if women of the world have sex, love, affection, and adoration that they keep to themselves, purposely denying it to otherwise deserving men for the purpose of spiting them.) I say he acted extraordinarily terribly because there is another, far more ordinary, terrible thing he could have done. Rape.
20-25% of all women have been raped, or otherwise sexually assaulted. The attacks fall under a similar category that this shooting spree does. Man feels sex is owed. Woman disagrees. Man attacks to get what he feels is being wrongfully denied. But unlike shootings, which is something our society is pretty comfortable talking about, rape is something that is socially hushed. With no one willing to listen, is it surprising that the majority of rape victims blame themselves? Here we are talking about 7 people who are dead. But what about the millions of rape (and other types of sexual assault) victims? They have to go on.
As a percentage, 20-25% of the female population is already pretty high. But think of it in practice. 1/4 of your female friends, 1/4 of your female colleagues, 1/4 of your female Facebook friends, 1/4 of the women on the same bus as you, etc. That number adds up quickly. I've had roughly 12 girlfriends. Statistically, that means 3 of them, either before or after our relationship, were attacked. In truth, I know that number is much closer to 6. That's half.
What do you do when you learn a woman close to you has been attacked? And let's say you know the attacker? Let's say you still see them sometimes? Let's say you need to pin a medal on their shirt for extraordinary military service? ((House of Cards spoiler!) Watch 9:46-11:50)
Do we, as Frank wants to - as Sam wants to - go for vengeance? Teach that person a lesson and stand up for the integrity of a woman significant to us? But, to take our text, "it would not bring [her integrity] back." The attack happened. It cannot be undone.
Despair soon follows. One of those sites I shared says 30% of women who were raped contemplate suicide. Obviously, that number is lower than the truth, because if some of those who contemplated suicide actually do it, the survey can't talk to them (and often the reason for suicide is muddled - and what an unhappy task it is to try to learn it). The women despair. And those close to them can despair, if it does not seem they are getting better.
The five stages of grief are well documented, and therefore can be used to help one in mourning. Those stages can also apply to rape victims:
- Denial - "It wasn't rape, I wanted it, it didn't happen."
- Anger - "All men (or all people) are terrible", or perhaps the anger is directed inward, "you deserved this."
- Bargaining - This one doesn't quite fit, but perhaps the equivalent is the common response of becoming more promiscuous (As a way to recapture the total loss of control that was experience. Wanting to go from no sexual control to the extreme opposite end). (Edit: Thanks to my friend Rae, for telling me of this coping method) Promiscuity can also be used as a way to devalue the event. "If sex becomes an everyday thing, then that one bad night will blur into a series of mediocre one-night-stands, and I can move on and forget it, right?"
- Depression - "I am now worthless, despoiled, tainted."
- Acceptance - "it happened and it was awful but it is over". Except that it can never really be over. The scars - emotional and physical - will always be there.
But those around the survivors have to endure, too. Did you watch that video from before? Frank's anger is not uncommon. The need for action can be very dominating. As Will Smith once rapped, "Hate in your heart will consume you, too." But it is difficult to just let it go. Someone's integrity was violated.
And here we actually contribute to the very thing that we're trying to fight against. We begin to confuse chivalry with fighting rape culture as a whole. We begin to act as knights defending the defenseless instead of modern men who see women as equals. We are fighting rape on its own terms, and in doing so we have defeated the very purpose we were trying to serve. How?
The very idea that a woman's integrity is tied up in her virginity or sexual behavior is sexist, and lends itself quickly towards misogyny. Men are not held to this standard. A man can have sex with many woman and still be respected (In fact, he may be more respected) Conversely, for men, virginity is usually a source of shame, as previous shown through the words of Elliot Rodgers. For women virginity is, culturally, a source of pride. They are pure. For men to take a woman's virginity is a source of pride. They have taken the purest thing. For women, culturally, promiscuity is a negative. When men have sex with many women, they are conquering many fields. When women have sex with many men, they are letting themselves be pillaged. There are lots of "old world" views that are evident in that language that we don't need to go into. Rather than even buy into the idea that a woman's integrity can be harmed by sexual violence, why not transcend it?
"Living well is the best revenge" said someone who has never enjoyed a good action flick (George Herbert, who evidently is known for a number of sayings) But our lives are not action flicks. Action flicks end when peace is restored and life can return to normal. Ideally, much of our life is lived in the "normal" times. Vengeance will not undo the crime. Of course, I'm not saying legal action should not be taken when possible. Sexual criminals should be tried and convicted whenever possible. But that, too, is not an action flick. Batman only exists in places where the courts cannot be trusted. He is removed only when their credibility has returned. Batman is a stopgap. Hot-blooded revenge is a stopgap.
The quote I first pulled from our text repeats a line twice. This is significant. "That was not what he had set out to do." Sam had not gone on the Quest to avenge Frodo's death, should he die. Sam had not gone on the Quest to throw himself off a cliff in despair. That was not what he had set out to do. He had set out to destroy the Ring.
Sam takes the Ring for himself, and sets off out of Shelob's lair. But as he begins his journey, he hears Orc voices, and sees Orcs going to where Frodo lays. Sam puts the Ring on and follows them. The text says, "He knew now where his place was and had been: at his master's side, though what he could do there was not clear." In fact, Sam had never set out to destroy the Ring, but to accompany Frodo. While it may not be the best thing for Middle Earth, the thing "he had set out to do" was to be at his master's side. Living or dead.
Let's say you're in a romantic relationship with someone. And you learn they are a survivor of sexual assault. And you learn that this person is a family member. And you learn that this person is someone who, up till now, you knew and liked. What can you do?
Vengeance does nothing. Vengeance only adds to the violence which you oppose. Heroes hurt bad guys. The cycle continues. Despair? No - that is self-destructive. That is also no good. So what can you do?
The answer is... kind of nothing. But a very special kind of nothing. (Obviously what I am going to say is not meant as general advice - there is no one size fits all answer to this.) You must step back and ask yourself, "What did I set out to do?" When you entered this relationship, did you intend on taking all the insults and injuries of your significant other upon yourself? Did you begin dating them so you could fix the injustices in their life? While that may be romantic, it isn't very practical. I'd be very upset if my girlfriend learned that someone had wronged me in college and decided to hunt them down. That isn't what I wanted. And that isn't why I shared that story.
Frodo is not dead. Nor are our sisters (and brothers) who are victims of sexual violence. Their integrity is not reduced. Their value as a person is not reduced. Their ability to provide - and their need for - "sex, love, adoration, affection" is not reduced. They are still people who are alive. "[Sam] knew now where his place was and had been: at his master's side, though what he could do there was not clear." What can you do? Very little. You can't do anything to fix it. You can't do anything to undo it. You can't do anything to erase it. But you can be there. You can listen. You can love. You can accept the person as they are, and not insist on going on a crusade to right that wrong, for in doing so, you imply that they have become imperfect, until someone can save them from their past. And you just can't do that.
Sam learns, as he returns to Frodo's side, that he is in fact still alive. He was not dead - merely comatose by Shelob's poison. Frodo lives!
The chapter ends in this way, "Frodo was alive, but taken by the enemy." Such as it is with us. Survivors of sexual attacks are still alive. But they can only be 'taken' by the enemy if we keep the enemy forefront. But in fact, our loved ones are alive, and have much more to give the world. Rather than become fixated on their past, we should (after ensuring they have processed the event as healthily as possible, of course) help them build a new future.
The conversation continues here...
The conversation continues here...
No comments:
Post a Comment