Rape in women's perspective

By Nursyahbani Katjasungkana

JAKARTA (JP): Jakarta weeps. That was the title of the piece Kompas ran when Acan's wife and children were robbed, then raped. In fact, humanity has been crying for some time, particularly women. The crying has been profound, and often soundless. Not only because rape has robbed women of their honor, but also because the general public has for a long time nurtured the view that women's rights are of secondary importance and, therefore, unnecessary to be given an ear. This is reflected not in the lack of attention given its victims, but in the definition of rape from the time the act is thought of until it is actually carried out.

This article intends to look into rape from a women's side for two reasons. Firstly, the rape victims are usually women. Thus, I feel that only women would be able to picture, in a clear and concise way, matters concerning rape. Secondly, rape mostly reflects upon the side of male interest.

On the other hand, women's interests are rather neglected, especially when it concerns rape. One law discriminately protects only unwedded females. In other words, according to our laws, when husbands rape their wives it is not considered a crime.

This can only be understood from the respective context in which women and their interests are poorly represented, or not represented at all, when the law was in the making and after implementation.

What is more, a large part of the population is still of the opinion that formation and implementation of the laws are a public matter, but not intended to be worked on by women. If there had been a woman on the inside of the matter, she would have been unable to contribute anything since she would either have been a representative, or subservient, to a more dominant group.

Laws addressing rape as a means of protection for women have existed since times of old. Even in the days of Majapahit there were various matters organized concerning sex, particularly with married women being threatened with punishment (Machi Suhadi, Kompas, August 8 1995).

Article 285 of the criminal laws which is the only article where rape is explicitly mentioned, is a ruling that has its roots in Dutch criminal laws. The ruling, established in 1886 and introduced in the Netherlands East Indies (now Indonesia) in 1915, is still in effect today, as based on the Rules of Change of the 1945 Constitution.

Speaking in traditional terms, the respective rulings on rape were defined with the male view in consideration, being more applicable in protecting male interest (Deborah L. Rhode, 1991, page 244). Just closely scrutinize the rulings during the Majapahit days mentioned in the above Kompas article. The respective rulings dealt mostly with rape and sexual abuses inflicted upon married women. Aside from that, the right to punish, as meted out by the king either in the form of paying a fine or the death penalty, became the right of male spouses. Wives who became victims of rape had no rights, whatsoever, to demand or receive compensation. This technically would mean that a married female was no longer regarded a legal subject.

From these regulations it is obvious that law makers made use of the assumption that a wife was her husband's property, since fines or the right to punish a rapist had been extended to male spouses by the king.

Aside from that, the general public, males in particular, highly respect virginity and female honor. It is, therefore, assumed that the rape of a woman is prohibited with the purpose of protecting her virginity, so that prospective husbands may be rest assured of his future wife's honor. In Assyrian and Babylonian communities, penalties depend upon the victim's social status and the severity of the sexual crime. Rape of a young girl is regarded far worse as compared to the rape of a married woman or a woman who is no longer a virgin. The irony of it is, that the penalty is not meted out to the wrongdoer, but to the victim who is required to marry the rapist (Zella Laria cs. in Deborah L. Rhode, 1991:245).

Such settlements often occur today in our communities, especially in society groups where traditions still run strong.

Other assumptions being drawn are tied up with the duties of a wife towards her husband. It is expected of a woman, from childhood on, that she should be submissive and in no way be aggressive. As a wife, she should always obey and be ready at all times to serve every whim and sexual demand of her husband. Several thoughts and religious teachings strengthen these assumptions. In some regions there are even special ways to enhance the pleasure and happiness of a husband by means of following a special diet and other traditional potions.

Serving the husband, thus, is a duty a wife may not refuse or compromise. Therefore, the rape of a female spouse is not considered a legal offense. It is regarded to be in the line of duty of a married woman.

The same reasoning has been utilized by the makers of Article 285 of the Criminal Laws. The article only punishes: whomsoever having sex by way of coercion or violence with a woman other than his wife. The maximum penalty for rape is 12 years imprisonment. The article clearly only protects certain women, i.e. women who are not married to a rapist. In other words, this ruling discriminates against women who are, and eradicates crimes of rape committed by husbands on wives. I am of the opinion that this assumption is in opposition of social reality.

Articles dealing with rape in the laws of Majaphit and in Article 285 of the Criminal Laws clearly depicts the prevailing morals and standards of value (then and now) regarding the treatment of women, particularly married women. A married woman has nothing to say, whatsoever, in the sexual act. She functions to serve her husband, for if she should refuse, this would be seen as opposing her husband's authority which is considered a sin.

The subordinative position in the sexual act has extended to the position of wives and mothers in their households, as well as among the general public.

The weak position of women as mirrored above has brought consequences of sexual differences in humanity, foremost on the side of women. These differences contain certain values justifying power to men. On the contrary, women have no right to have the power and skill to defend themselves (Carol Smart, 1980:104), as quoted by Syarifah S. (1988). In other words, rape happens since one party feels much stronger and more powerful than the other. In this subordinative position, women will be quite vulnerable to sex crimes and be mere objects in men's power games.

The matter of rape should, therefore, be placed in a wider social context, where the position of women and (wrong)doers could socially be defined and controlled (Kathryn Chadwick and Catherine Little in Stevi Jackson, 1993:324). Because it is in relationships where rape raises its ugly head. This was emphasized by the United Nations in its Declaration of The Abolition of Violence Towards Women issued in December 1993. Considerations of said declaration expresses, among others, that violence on women dates back to history and was brought forth through powerful relationships between men and women, from which followed the domination and discrimination of women by men that slowed down their progress. It is further said also that violence against women is like a crucial, social mechanism which forces women into a subordinative position.

Rape, as a form of violence against women, is a sample of how susceptible the position of a woman is, especially in men's sexual interests. The image of a woman as a sexual object for men appears to have wide implications in a woman's life, forcing her to always face violence, coercion, physical and psychic suffering. Based on this view, rape not only reflects an image of a sex object, but also a subservient image to male power. When we look at it in a wider context, where rape is committed by those with power towards the powerless, it could be stated that the rape of a woman is a reflection of an arbitrary act of power.

Going from this view, matters of sexual crimes including rape have to be seen as a result of unstable social relations, either between countries and people, or between men and women. The vague assumption of rape being a form of sexual desire (eroticism) will alter when the act is seen as the sexual domination of one group (male) over another (female).

Matters of rape, then, should not be viewed anymore as a problem between individuals, but should be seen as a social illness connected with matters of human rights, in particular with those related to protection against all forms of suffering, violence, cruelness and neglect of human values. In this framework, would heavy punishment, as suggested by many, carry no meaning when it is not implemented at the same time with a change of values and education strategies as well as a change in more fair relation policies of men and women? Changes in the law on rape, which take into account equal values and human rights, are also called for. As well as those related to legal procedures of proof. For, if that should not be the case, rape will never be legally proven except for when the one who committed rape should admit his crime.

Jakarta may possibly smile again when the rapists of Acan's wife and children have been caught and possibly punished. Various parties have attempted to help the victims restore their self respect and faith in themselves. However, if the public still observes the matter from a mythical aspect and draws assumptions which are totally wrong about women and rape, our humanity, with emphasis on female welfare, will be at stake. And you may be certain that Jakarta will be weeping once more. Every day, as was proven a day after Acan's wife and daughters were raped, rape is happening. Rape is happening everywhere and repeatedly. The victims may be children, a sister, mother, aunt, an older sister, or someone we love. Prevention and coping with the problem is not enough. Truly. Listen to us: the voice of women.