Why Being Knowledgeable is Insufficient: RUU PKS, Victim Blaming and Misinformation

I thought that being well-informed was enough. I couldn't be more wrong. 

2020 has bombarded all of us with constant repetition of similar tensions and awful news without mercy, a few of those happened this week and I felt the necessity to put my response in writing.

My heart ached after the House of Representatives decided to withdraw the plan to further discuss the vital sexual bill (RUU PKS) this year, saying that it is "difficult". I attempted to decipher the reasoning behind such decision, so I drowned myself in a sea of debates on the issue. What I found from the opposing standpoint was the lack of coherence in the arguments that they seem to have been oversimplified. Each rebuttal has been either based on prejudice, misinformation, or lack of knowledge—political motives might have played along but I will not have a preconceived idea about this matter. Some political parties have argued that the bill supports the affirmation of the acts of adultery and nontraditional sexual orientation such as gay and lesbian. Nothing could be further from the truth. Such statement is nonexistent in the bill. It only presents the fact that the forms of sexual violence vary from one to another, including those that are based on nontraditional sexual orientation. On the contrary, it is aimed to protect all victims—men and women—without any gender discrimination. I will not discuss further about the million reasons why the bill should be passed, if you want to know more please click here or here.

In relation to the above issue, I saw a video posted by Ernest Prakasa about the misconception of sexual violence that focuses more on victim blaming. In the video, he negates the idea that victims are sexually abused because of the way they dress or behave. He presents two points: 1) statistically speaking, the 3 highest categories of sexual assault victims dressed "modestly" during the assault. The research done by perEMPUan suggested no correlation between sexually suggestive clothing and sexual violence. 2) He debunks the saying "there's no smoke without fire". He says there is a decision-making process in every cause-effect relationship. We are equipped with conscience to identify right from wrong. I could not agree more with him. But what triggered me the most were people's comments on the video, I was so mad that I clenched my teeth a few times while reading them. "Women should dress appropriately, men should have the conscience to hold their sexual impulse" or "maybe the results (of the research) were unreliable because those who dress modestly are not used to being sexually assaulted, and those who reveal their skin too much are." I tried so hard to hold my 'impulse' and not jump into the conversations. I would have respected them more if they presented a contrasting set of data, or questioned the methodology of the research.

I reflected on these two phenomena and this is something I noticed: jumping into conclusions without any prior research or valid reasoning is only a derivative of a greater paradox between critical thinking and the uncontrolled flood of information. What can we do about it then? 

Educate, educate, educate

I thought that not being ignorant about a certain issue was enough. "As long as you learn and do good for yourself, it's all fine". I rarely shared my views with friends, let alone with the public. However, I began to realize I do not live in my own bubble. I share this city called Jakarta with millions of others, I need other people to survive as they do me. What is the point of being knowledgeable if you can't share it to others? It does not do you any good either, especially in the context of social and political issues. It is good to educate yourself, but like happiness (in reference to what Emile Hirsch says in 'Into the Wild'), knowledge is only real when shared. People often fall into logical fallacies such as personal attacks or cultural generalizations because they are not well-informed, have no ample reference, or do not speak in the same 'language' figuratively.

Barack Obama wrote on Medium:

"When we think about politics, a lot of us focus only on the presidency and the federal government. And yes, we should be fighting to make sure that we have a president, a Congress, a U.S. Justice Department, and a federal judiciary that actually recognize the ongoing, corrosive role that racism plays in our society and want to do something about it. But the elected officials who matter most in reforming police departments and the criminal justice system work at the state and local levels." 

The above quote indeed focuses on the current criminal justice system and white supremacy of the United States, but the relevance of such thinking is far from trivial in our social and political circumstances. Top-down approach will not be as impactful as it is when combined with bottom up—gradually stitching together the small components into a larger piece. Victim blaming is deeply entrenched in our culture, and something that is rooted for a long time cannot be abolished instantly. In order to change a system and how a society behaves in relation to that system, we need to work on the smallest element of society, that is our individual selves.

Start small

In marketing, online ad campaigns and social media influencers are important to spread awareness to consumers, but referral strategies work much stronger in converting people to actually consume a product/service. The same goes with shifting a person's attitude or behavior towards an issue.

Education and communication are keys to understanding, and can result in behavioral change. Start having small conversations with your inner circles, may that be with your mom, dad, children, friends and whatnot. This is the real challenge. Sometimes we want to influence people that we do not know, but we forget to engage with those that are close to us. I, more often than not, have an opposing argument to my parents'. Instead of not being bothered to convey my opinions, I now try to share mine once in a while. I am not saying it is easy to convince them to understand my stance, but they are slowly aware that opinions can vary, and being in the same house does not mean you will have the same take on every aspect in life.

Two-way communication is a lot more potent to acquire and understand knowledge than one-way is. Each side is able to get and send feedback, each can puzzle out the opposing perspective better and clearer. It is indeed easier to hold an opinion than to change it. The point is not to force people to change their beliefs, but to make both us and our closed ones aware that there are perspectives other than our own and to admit whenever we are wrong, through open conversations.