Content Warning: Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault
Searching “female perpetrators of intimate partner sexual assault male victim” on Google yields pages of results, most of which prove to be dead ends. They enclose information about male-perpetrated sexual assault or female-perpetrated child abuse, but sexual assault/abuse perpetrated by a female against her male partner doesn’t exist in Google’s foreground. If it doesn’t exist on Google, how can organizations like NJEP at Legal Momentum prove that it exists in real life? The cyber-invisibility of these crimes mirrors their societal invisibility, which results in significant underreporting, victim-blaming, and incredulity. If hours of Google-searching will not suffice to convince Google that intimate partner sexual abuse/assault (IPSA) can be perpetrated by and harm anyone, then it’s no wonder humans struggle to figure it out, too.
I have never seen more clearly before interning at NJEP this summer that framing is everything.
After submitting my search, Google most likely picked up on these key terms: “female” and “male”, “perpetrators,” “intimate partner sexual assault,” and “victim.” It presented an array of articles, cases, and resource links about IPSA, a crime involving females and males, perpetrators and victims, in multiple configurations. The results certainly emphasized one configuration in particular, though. To understand why, let’s take a moment to think like Google.
What comes to mind when you hear the words “sexual assault”? Who commits sexual assault most frequently? Who is most frequently sexually assaulted?
If “campus” or “stranger in the bushes” comes to mind in response to the first question, you’re not alone. If you answer “straight men” or “men of color” to the second question, you’re not alone. If you answer “straight women” or “white women” to the third question, you’re not alone. These stereotypes can’t sustain themselves on their own—they need help from the media and commercial advertising to perpetuate inaccurate notions of sexual assault and how it is perpetrated. Even our syntax can influence how and onto whom readers cast blame. I am tempted to blame Google for my many fruitless searches, but I know deep down that like stereotypes, Google can’t sustain itself or think on its own—it requires complex algorithms and a vast scope of online material to operate the way it does. Humans create the frames through which we understand our world; technology only helps us do it more quickly and widely.
Non-profit organizations do a great deal to replace this widespread ignorance with knowledge about the realities of IPSA and domestic violence, but they are tasked with finding truths among the societal perceptions to which they, too, are privy. Their findings inform the work they do and for whom they do it, bearing significant repercussions for groups underserved as a result of our misconceptions.
Don’t be like this cat.
If Legal Momentum has taught me anything about the law, it’s that it can be used in wildly creative ways that enable non-profits to think outside the box and design something new from the materials already there. A group of interns collaborated on a short article this past week that made the judgment of Voisine v. United States accessible to the population at large, especially youth. While I wonder sometimes if empowerment is simply clearing the road for some people and dumping the debris on somebody else’s driveway, anything is possible when we restructure the road itself.
