If Heterosexuality is Compulsory, I want to Marry Batman

[image from here]

1. He's rich. 
2. He's never home. 
3. He has a butler to take care of his every need: so no Wifework!
4. He's either whining, brooding or hanging about in a cave with bats. And, therefore, not clogging up the living room. Or, whining, brooding or hanging about anywhere near you. 
5. You won't actually have to spend any time with him at all.*

Or, we could just lose the compulsory heterosexuality bit, because, frankly, marrying Batman is about as intelligent as advising young girls to "toughen up" about street and sexual harassment. Rachel Roberts' recent piece in the Independent demonstrates everything which is wrong with a rape culture rooted in compulsory heterosexuality. What is really depressing about the piece is that Roberts' clearly believes that Lib Dem spin doctor Jo Phillips was right about schools teaching girls to "toughen up" whilst simultaneously trying to situate her piece within feminist discourse around the prevention of violence against women through education. Any time a writer need to use the phrase "I would never wish to blame the victim", you know it is too late. Roberts' piece, from her homely quotes about her 13 year old niece to her failure to mention the the behaviour of boys and men is about blaming young girls for not being "tough" enough. 

Roberts seems to have misunderstood EVAW's Schools Safe 4 Girls campaign which isn't about teaching girls to be "tough" but rather ending sexual harassment within schools completely. This requires as much a focus on boys' education and a fundamental restructuring of sex education as it does teaching 13 year old girls how to be assertive: 

Aged 12-13, girls ought to have at least a few hours of tuition on how to be assertive when faced with difficult situations, such as street harassment. I do not mean to suggest the onus should be on girls to be able to defend themselves by means of a witty retort or a sharp kick in the knackers – although both of these methods have served me well on the long walk to womanhood. The goal should of course be to make sexual pestering and all forms of abuse unacceptable to both genders, but until such a utopia dawns, it makes sense to teach girls practical strategies, such as naming the behaviour (e.g. "That's very insulting", "You're invading my space") and removing yourself from the situation as quickly as possible. It might sound like simple and obvious stuff, but a surprising amount of adults, never mind young people, don't have the confidence to use this kind of language, or simply don't know what to do in a threatening situation.

How, precisely, will this help a 13 year old walking home from school who is harassed by a group of men? How will it help a vulnerable 14 year old cornered in the school cafeteria by a group of boys demanding to see her breasts? Why is the onus always on teaching girls "practical strategies" for dealing with male violence instead of teaching boys how to behave. Why aren't we seeing more support for campaigns like EVAW's in schools? Why aren't we seeing more support for programs dealing with sexually predatory behaviour of young boys? Why are we educating a generation of girls to believe that male violence is their problem because they weren't "tough enough"? Why aren't we raising a generation of boys to believe that violence against women and sexual harassment is wrong?

It is not a lack of confidence which prevents women from standing up to sexual harassment: it's fear. It's fear of the situation escalating and the possible consequences of it becoming physically violent. Within schools, one 13 year old girl standing up to a boy demanding a blowjob in the hallway won't prevent him from doing it to another girl. Nor will it prevent that 13 year old from becoming a victim of further bullying by being labeled frigid or humourless. We need to be tackling the behaviour of boys, rather than insisting that girls be held accountable for not being "tough" enough.

This isn't to say that Roberts' piece is entirely without merit. After all, I am firm supporter of sex education moving out of pregnancy prevention and into relationships and the signs of domestic violence. Roberts' piece just reflects current patriarchal discourse which makes women responsible for male behaviour. Her article focuses exclusively on the education of girls and her throw away line about "utopia" shows just how little Roberts' believes that male behaviour will change.

Teaching girls to "toughen up" is as sensible as telling girls to marry Batman as a career plan. It does nothing to change the fundamental problem our culture has with male violence. It also presupposes a heteronormativity that does not reflect the realities of the relationships of many adults. Instead of teaching girls to "toughen up", how about we teach boys that sexual harassment is a crime and will be prosecuted as such?

* This is liberally borrowed from a post on MN from years ago which I think was lost in the annals of chat.