Assault Actually Is All Around
Since I wrote about Meghan Markle's interview with Oprah I've been fascinated by Royal Family conspiracy theories. It's part morbid intrigue, part disbelief at the stories fans can concoct. I've read that family members are anywhere from vampires to giant lizards to cannibals.
Personally I see no reason they couldn't be all of the above.
My personal favourite theory is that the 2003 hit film Love Actually was a prophecy for the relationship between Meghan and Harry
Yea, that’s a thing.
At best the theory boast some unlikely similarities: ginger kid loses mother, falls in love with biracial, American performer, and they live happily ever after. It's an insane, albeit amusing, conspiracy that is somehow less credible than the Queen eating children.
It's also a great excuse to revisit one of my favourite holiday movies over Easter weekend.
Giphy
If you're watching the movie as a prophecy, there's one element that snuck past the clairvoyant editor - workplace harassment.
Throughout the film men lust after their subordinates, harass women on the job, and give radio interviews about their best sexual partners. Mia, the devil/secretary, has no problem demanding "pretty presents" from her boss, opening her legs suggestively at work, and planning the office Christmas party at a gallery filled with nudes.
The whole thing is a modern HR nightmare.
Interestingly, the least cringe-worthy relationship is between the two nude body doubles.They continually ask for consent and learn real details about each other while miming sex scenes - a far cry from the writer who falls for his housekeeper without speaking a word of the same language.
My favourite storyline is David’s (Hugh Grant, obviously). As Prime Minister, he quickly falls for the woman on his staff that can’t stop swearing. #Relatable. Natalie, who is at least a decade younger than her boss, is referred to by her coworkers as the "Chubby Girl."
It's immediately clear that her looks are an inconvenience to David. He's frequently distracted by her presence and grapples with his attraction. And it's not just him. When the US President comes to visit he blatantly comments on her looks as a form of bonding. He then tries to kiss her the second he finds an opportunity.
Trump anyone? On second thought, maybe the movie was a prophecy...
David is seen as the hero after walking in on the President and using his anger to fuel a political stand. In actuality, he can't handle his jealousy and "redistributes" Natalie out of his office. What's worse, she apologizes for the sexual harassment she underwent, referring to herself as an "idiot for letting it happen".
Depressingly, Natalie's story might be the most realistic one in the whole move. Self blame is abundant in victims, and the reality of losing your job by reporting harassment (or in this case, having it happen) is ever-present. David has all the power, and Natalie was merely a pawn in his romantic fantasy. If she had to lose her job for him to keep his emotions in check, so be it.
In real life the #MeToo movement exposed predators hiding behind fancy desks and NDAs, but not all harassment is so drastic. There are subtler moments that are hard to define in the workplace. Look, for instance, at the scene where David takes an interest in Natalie. He asks her questions about her life stating that it's strange for them to be working in such close proximity and know nothing about each other. On one hand this is sweet, on the other I doubt he's doing the same for the rest of his employees.
How I Met Your Mother coined the Dobler-Dahmer theory. The idea is this: "If both people are into each other, then a big romantic gesture works: Dobler, but if one person isn't into the other, the same gesture comes off serial-killer crazy: Dahmer."
The same can be true of smaller gestures at work, but where is the line? At what point is something slightly off-putting and when is it worth mentioning? When your livelihood is on the line, you're more likely to let that small stuff slide or apologize for something outside of your control.
Hell, maybe even the big stuff gets a pass.
We know that Love Actually is a piece of fiction, and I'm not arguing to cancel the movie. It's still one of my Christmas favourites, and there's nothing you can say to make me stop watching. That said, it didn't age great.
So much for it predicting the future...
Giphy
Just Like In The Movies
A movie that seemingly hasn't aged at all is The Accused.
I’m not one to give trigger warnings, but this back half could probably use one. Read at your own risk....
If you haven’t seen it, The Accused is a court drama from 1988 where Jodi Foster plays woman who gets brutally gang raped in a bar. The scene is doubly horrific because other men watch and cheer on the assault. After her rapists get off on a plea deal, Foster and her lawyer prosecute (and convict) the men who egged-on her attack.
The Accused is haunting, hard to watch, and stands the test of time in showing the trauma of sitting trial as a victim. Foster’s character is blamed, her past is called into question, and she is forced to relive her attack in court. Her experience is echoed time and time again from survivors brave enough to take the stand.
For years I’ve been talking about this movie as a reason why victims don't come forward. A film about a sexual assault from 30 years ago seemingly shouldn’t hold up considering how much has happened since then - #MeToo, Brock Turner, Kavanaugh - but it is, depressingly, still accurate.
Hell, I even find it optimistic. In what world could men be convicted for cheering on assault? We can barely convict the rapists themselves.
What I didn’t realize is that this film is based on a true story.
In 1983 a 21-year-old woman name Cheryl Araujo was raped by multiple men in a local bar called Big Dan’s in New Bedford, Massachusetts. Onlookers watched and did nothing.
Some even cheered.
Eventually she was able to break free and run naked into the road where three men stopped and took her to hospital.
The story took off in the media and became know as “Big Dan’s rape.” Four men were charged and convicted for aggravated assault, and two brothers were tried for encouraging the rape. The most time any of them served was six and a half years.
Like Jodi Foster's character, Araujo was relentlessly accused of bringing on the attack. Her name was not protected, and she was bullied out of town for speaking out. In fact, the community held marches in support of her assailants. Araujo escaped only to die in an accident that same year - a brutal end to a brutal story.
To me, the saddest piece is what her case meant for victims across Massachusetts. After watching Araujo be vilified for her testimony, the amount of victims reporting attacks plummeted. Though we now protect names of those who come forward, the reality is that going to court is distressing. It's a huge ask of someone who has already undergone intense trauma.
No one watched The Accused and thought "hey, being a victim looks easy." For that version, go back and watch Love Actually.
Giphy
Snap Back to Reality
In case you need proof that the convictions in The Accused are far fetched, here's a fun headline:
This week a rape conviction was overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court because the victim got voluntary drunk before it happened.
Read that one again.
Honestly the decision makes the court drama seem like a fairytale.
Apparently this is a common loophole in Minnesota. Drugs and alcohol are not encompassed in the state’s definition of “mentally incapacitated,” which somehow means that rape is fair game. Following that logic, drinking becomes an invitation to commit a felony with my body.
Imagine saying that about any other crime. If you were high and got murdered, is the murderer any less guilty? If you were drunk and someone stole your credit card, do those online charges become invalid?
Drinking and rape shouldn't be an "or" situation. She was drunk AND she was raped. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Moreover, being drunk is often used as a scapegoat for men who commit sexual assault. How is it fair that rapists can use alcohol both as a way to prey on women and also as a way out of repercussions? Being drunk shouldn't give anyone the licence to rape just as it shouldn't strip away the experience of a victim who is assaulted. The crime is the most important part of the story, not what they consumed, what they were wearing, or how they reacted.
End of discussion.
As women we’re already afraid to leave our houses after dark, take the same route home too many times, or be without cell phone connection. We should be able to have a few drinks without compromising our safety, never mind our credibility. It feels like every breath we take taints the validity of our experiences.
So yeah, I could use a damn drink.
Giphy
The Most Important Storyline
One day I believe we'll live in a world that treats victims better than we did in 1988. The Natalie's shouldn't feel the need to apologize, the Araujo's should be praised for their bravery, and the Minnesota Supreme Court should get their heads out of their asses.
Until then, there are positives to find in every story. The heroes in Araujo's case are Daniel Patrick O'Neill, Michael O’Neill, and Bobby Silva. These are the three men that stopped to help. They took the stand in support of Araujo, and, without their testimonies, I doubt anything she said would have been believed.
Similarly Chanel Miller, who was assaulted by Brock Turner in 2015, was saved by Carl-Fredrik Arndt and Peter Jonsson who stopped their bikes at the scene. They chased Turner down, called the police, and got Miller the help she needed. Without their quick action, her story may never have been shared or solved.
I can't articulate anything better than Miller already has. In her book, Know My Name, she describes how taking the stand can take over over your whole world. She also reminds us that kindness still exists in the worst moments. In her statement to the court, Miller wrote
"Thank you to the two men who saved me, who I have yet to meet. I sleep with two bicycles that I drew taped above my bed to remind myself there are heroes in this story. That we are looking out for one another. To have known all of these people, to have felt their protection and love, is something I will never forget."
Assault may be a constant reality, but Hugh Grant's character did get one thing right: love actually is all around.
