As soon as the news of Trayvon Martin’s shooting broke, people divided themselves into two camps.
There were many, myself included, who stood outraged at the news that an unarmed, 17-year-old boy had been shot to death in a gated community by a so-called “neighborhood watchman” – one of the people trusted to help preserve law and order, not break it.
And then there were those who supported George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old who claimed he’d only pulled his gun and killed Trayvon in “self-defense.”
In listening to arguments from both sides, I almost immediately spotted something that made me deeply uncomfortable – a very subtle mirroring of the way we talk about rape and rape culture. The connections might not be immediately obvious; but once you’ve spotted them, they’re impossible to ignore.
For example, gun rights activists were quick to turn attention away from George Zimmerman and focus on the victim himself. Rape activists often claim that rape is one of the only crimes in which the victim is put on trial, but the same can be said of Trayvon Martin.
For a start, the right wing demanded: “What was he doing walking through a private gated community anyway?” Forget the fact that the gated community is still considered public property, and stood between Trayvon’s home and the convenience store he’d been shopping at. Focus was immediately placed on why he was somewhere he “shouldn’t” have been.
Doesn’t that ring a little close to: “What was she doing at the frat party anyway?” Or: “Didn’t she know that was a dangerous part of town?” Both ways in which the rape victim often finds themselves blamed for what happened to them.
Then there was the question of Trayvon’s infamous hoodie. TV host Geraldo Rivera even went so far as to blame the “hoodie” for why Trayvon got shot. Isn’t that uncomfortably close to the whole concept of: “She was asking for it, dressed like that!”
Finally, Trayvon’s past was brought up to somehow justify why he was shot. The right wing was quick to point out that he wasn’t the sweet and innocent boy the media portrayed him to be. He’d been suspended from school, smoked pot and joked about ghetto and thug culture online – as if any or all of these offenses justify him being gunned down on the street.
But isn’t that exactly the same as victims who have their own past thrown in their face during rape trials? “Oh, they’re not exactly a virgin!” or “With their reputation, it’s not surprising something like this happened to them.”
My point is: Contrary to the feminist dogma, victim blaming isn’t limited to rape cases. We’re observing it happening right now in the Trayvon Martin case.
But the opposite is also true.
Because while this sort of behavior shouldn’t exactly be unexpected from the right wing, gun activists and conservatives, it’s behavior that’s mirrored almost identically by the so-called “good guys” – the liberals and gun control activists who were as quick to condemn George Zimmerman as the right wing were to blame Trayvon for his own death.
The fact is, only George Zimmerman will ever know for certain what happened that fateful night, but using the official version of events to paint him as the bad guy requires using the same “victim blaming” tactics feminists and rape activists complain about in rape cases.
George Zimmerman claims he saw Trayvon Martin walking home through his private gated community. He reported him to the police and then followed in his truck. At one point, Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon. He got out of his truck to try and find him, only to discover that the teenager had doubled back to get the drop on him. Zimmerman claims Trayvon threw the first punch, demanding: “Got a problem? You have now.”
Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon attacked him, and he shot and killed him defending himself. Those who believe differently are basing their case on arguments that sound disturbingly similar to “rape apology.”
For example, George Zimmerman was the victim of a violent assault – but many of Trayvon’s supporters are quick to argue: “He was asking for it!”
They argue that when Zimmerman saw Trayvon walking through his neighborhood, he should have just stayed at home instead of following him out into the street – another example of: “Well, what were they doing there anyway?”
Zimmerman deliberately ignored police orders to stop following Trayvon, which critics use as an example of how he brought the assault upon himself – just like rape apologists claim: “If they’d obeyed their parents instead of sneaking out that night, this wouldn’t have happened.”
Many argue that Zimmerman was to blame for the assault because he was clearly following Trayvon, provoking the teenager to double back and confront him. But isn’t claiming that similar to: “Well, she was flirting with him all night, so what did she expect?”
And finally, there was the gun. As a neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman was not supposed to be armed, yet he’d left the house carrying his weapon anyway. That has led many critics to argue that Zimmerman was deliberately looking for an excuse to use his weapon, and provoked the confrontation with Trayvon specifically so he’d have an excuse to pull the trigger.
Isn’t that the ultimate parallel of “they were asking for it”?
The fact is, there is a whole host of context surrounding the shooting that paints George Zimmerman as the bad guy – but as opponents of “rape apology”, it’s actually hypocritical to use such context against him.
After all, George Zimmerman’s “victim” status extends from being punched and assaulted by Trayvon – not from whatever allegedly provoked that assault.
Because if we start bringing in that surrounding context – asking ourselves if Zimmerman brought the assault on himself for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, for ignoring police orders, or for the way he was suspiciously following Trayvon – it’s no different from looking at a rape case in exactly the same way.
We’re supposed to be fighting to stop courts blaming the victim for being somewhere they shouldn’t have been, or for dressing provocatively, or for the way they were acting with the person or people who assaulted them. But if we’re not willing to extend that judicial ideology beyond the crime of rape, we’re just as guilty of it as the “rape apologists.”
There were many, myself included, who stood outraged at the news that an unarmed, 17-year-old boy had been shot to death in a gated community by a so-called “neighborhood watchman” – one of the people trusted to help preserve law and order, not break it.
And then there were those who supported George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old who claimed he’d only pulled his gun and killed Trayvon in “self-defense.”
In listening to arguments from both sides, I almost immediately spotted something that made me deeply uncomfortable – a very subtle mirroring of the way we talk about rape and rape culture. The connections might not be immediately obvious; but once you’ve spotted them, they’re impossible to ignore.
For example, gun rights activists were quick to turn attention away from George Zimmerman and focus on the victim himself. Rape activists often claim that rape is one of the only crimes in which the victim is put on trial, but the same can be said of Trayvon Martin.
For a start, the right wing demanded: “What was he doing walking through a private gated community anyway?” Forget the fact that the gated community is still considered public property, and stood between Trayvon’s home and the convenience store he’d been shopping at. Focus was immediately placed on why he was somewhere he “shouldn’t” have been.
Doesn’t that ring a little close to: “What was she doing at the frat party anyway?” Or: “Didn’t she know that was a dangerous part of town?” Both ways in which the rape victim often finds themselves blamed for what happened to them.
Then there was the question of Trayvon’s infamous hoodie. TV host Geraldo Rivera even went so far as to blame the “hoodie” for why Trayvon got shot. Isn’t that uncomfortably close to the whole concept of: “She was asking for it, dressed like that!”
Finally, Trayvon’s past was brought up to somehow justify why he was shot. The right wing was quick to point out that he wasn’t the sweet and innocent boy the media portrayed him to be. He’d been suspended from school, smoked pot and joked about ghetto and thug culture online – as if any or all of these offenses justify him being gunned down on the street.
But isn’t that exactly the same as victims who have their own past thrown in their face during rape trials? “Oh, they’re not exactly a virgin!” or “With their reputation, it’s not surprising something like this happened to them.”
My point is: Contrary to the feminist dogma, victim blaming isn’t limited to rape cases. We’re observing it happening right now in the Trayvon Martin case.
But the opposite is also true.
Because while this sort of behavior shouldn’t exactly be unexpected from the right wing, gun activists and conservatives, it’s behavior that’s mirrored almost identically by the so-called “good guys” – the liberals and gun control activists who were as quick to condemn George Zimmerman as the right wing were to blame Trayvon for his own death.
The fact is, only George Zimmerman will ever know for certain what happened that fateful night, but using the official version of events to paint him as the bad guy requires using the same “victim blaming” tactics feminists and rape activists complain about in rape cases.
George Zimmerman claims he saw Trayvon Martin walking home through his private gated community. He reported him to the police and then followed in his truck. At one point, Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon. He got out of his truck to try and find him, only to discover that the teenager had doubled back to get the drop on him. Zimmerman claims Trayvon threw the first punch, demanding: “Got a problem? You have now.”
Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon attacked him, and he shot and killed him defending himself. Those who believe differently are basing their case on arguments that sound disturbingly similar to “rape apology.”
For example, George Zimmerman was the victim of a violent assault – but many of Trayvon’s supporters are quick to argue: “He was asking for it!”
They argue that when Zimmerman saw Trayvon walking through his neighborhood, he should have just stayed at home instead of following him out into the street – another example of: “Well, what were they doing there anyway?”
Zimmerman deliberately ignored police orders to stop following Trayvon, which critics use as an example of how he brought the assault upon himself – just like rape apologists claim: “If they’d obeyed their parents instead of sneaking out that night, this wouldn’t have happened.”
Many argue that Zimmerman was to blame for the assault because he was clearly following Trayvon, provoking the teenager to double back and confront him. But isn’t claiming that similar to: “Well, she was flirting with him all night, so what did she expect?”
And finally, there was the gun. As a neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman was not supposed to be armed, yet he’d left the house carrying his weapon anyway. That has led many critics to argue that Zimmerman was deliberately looking for an excuse to use his weapon, and provoked the confrontation with Trayvon specifically so he’d have an excuse to pull the trigger.
Isn’t that the ultimate parallel of “they were asking for it”?
The fact is, there is a whole host of context surrounding the shooting that paints George Zimmerman as the bad guy – but as opponents of “rape apology”, it’s actually hypocritical to use such context against him.
After all, George Zimmerman’s “victim” status extends from being punched and assaulted by Trayvon – not from whatever allegedly provoked that assault.
Because if we start bringing in that surrounding context – asking ourselves if Zimmerman brought the assault on himself for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, for ignoring police orders, or for the way he was suspiciously following Trayvon – it’s no different from looking at a rape case in exactly the same way.
We’re supposed to be fighting to stop courts blaming the victim for being somewhere they shouldn’t have been, or for dressing provocatively, or for the way they were acting with the person or people who assaulted them. But if we’re not willing to extend that judicial ideology beyond the crime of rape, we’re just as guilty of it as the “rape apologists.”
I immediately noticed the similarity between rape victims and Trayvon; however, I can't say that I completely agree with your argument that Zimmerman was a victim and that we can't use his past or his actions against him.
I'm not saying that I think Zimmerman deserved to be assaulted, if he was assaulted, but his actions and his past are directly relevant to trying to piece together the sequence of events to determine if he is guilty or innocent. The courts need to take into account the number of phone calls he made to 911, that he was not officially appointed to the neighborhood watch, that he was carrying a weapon and that he continued to pursue Trayvon on foot despite being asked not to by the 911 operator. You absolutely need to focus on these facts to determine whether or not Zimmerman was assaulted or if Trayvon was simply "standing his ground" (as the Florida law states).
Carrying a weapon -while on self-appointed neighborhood watch duty- is ridiculously different than wearing a hoodie -in the rain while walking home from the store-. No, it doesn't mean he was out looking for someone to shoot. It does mean that he was being irresponsible, as he was not properly trained or certified/qualified to carry a firearm for such a position. Following someone who was walking home is creepy and would set them on edge, perhaps triggering a response where they want to defend themselves. Fight or flight, it's in our genes.
You had me until you tried to flip the argument to defend Zimmerman.
"Contrary to the feministt dogma"
Can give me the ISBN # for the book feminist dogma you keep citing, despite several women studies classes it appears I was never issued one.
Every feminist every major feminist site I read has covered the case and point out how Trayvon is being put on trial for being murdered. Example: [https://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/03/28/breaking-trayvon-martin-a-normal-teenage-boy/] and to make it perfectly clear here is the authors words from the comments:
"I do think that there are lots of important points to be made about victim-blaming across groups, and there are certainly parallels between this case and how many rape victims are treated"
Wow looks like she didn't read "Feminist Dogma" either. Strangely those where the same things I learned in my women studies class when we discussed cross-sectionality issues in feminism. Well, it appears that even universities don't have a copy of Feminist Dogma! Really Roland it is your duty to the good of public education to inform us of the location of this Tome of Feminist Dogma hundreds are being mis-educated in my university alone as we speak!!!
"And finally, there was the gun. As a neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman was not supposed to be armed, yet he’d left the house carrying his weapon anyway. That has led many critics to argue that Zimmerman was deliberately looking for an excuse to use his weapon, and provoked the confrontation with Trayvon specifically so he’d have an excuse to pull the trigger"
You do not load a gun unless you plan to use it. A gun is not the correct response to a hand fight. When people are panicked they just react. A gun is like a safety blanket, some one will grab for it in response to the fight or flight situation.
I appreciate how this article covers both sides and does not show preferance.
I agree with Teacookie - I think, regardless of what you believe happened or what did happen, covering it from all angles does show a fair, well-written, thought-out article. I liked this one.