Advertisement
“A dream you dream alone is only a dream; a dream you dream together is reality.” — Yoko Ono
Apr
30
Pro-Choice Event in NYC
Filed Under events and excursions, feminism, parenthood, pregnancy, reproductive justice | Leave a Comment
I got an email about an event in NYC, apparently a part of a series being run by NARAL Pro-Choice New York, called “Choices.” Check out the info below:
Choices: Parenting
Thursday, May 7th
6:15-8:15 pm
Sistas on the Rise
835 Dawson Street
Bronx, NY 10459NARAL Pro-Choice New York presents “Choices”, a six-part series of events examining the full range of reproductive choices available to women.
The second installment of the series will be “Choices: Parenting”, a look at the work being done on the ground to ensure that parenting is an accessible and supported reproductive choice for all. Co-sponsors and presenters include Sistas on the Rise, Baby’s First Home, The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and the Red Hook Initiative.
Free with RSVP to lhoward@prochoiceny.org or 646-520-3506.
Event is open to all and space is wheelchair accessible.
While the pro-choice movement does of course support the option of parenting, it’s often one that goes overlooked in our pro-choice discussions about reproductive options. I think we all know that coerced choice is not a choice at all, but still far too many women feel as though financial constraints leave them with no option other than abortion. Of course that option should be available to them — but so should the option of parenting when they would otherwise want to carry to term. It’s something that deserves our serious attention, and not the crisis pregnancy center “here’s some baby clothes, good luck!” kind. The structural, legislative and community-based “how are we going to make this world a more hospitable and just place for all women and their children?” kind.
So this event sounds really interesting and important, and I encourage people who are able to make it out to do so.
Apr
29
Ruminations on a Song
Filed Under Gratuitous Beatles Blogging, feminism, misogyny, patriarchy, pop culture, race and racism | 12 Comments
In 1972, John Lennon, with a new and growing interest in women’s liberation, thanks primarily to his relationship with Yoko Ono, wrote and recorded a song called “Woman is the Nigger of the World.” The phrase, it bears noting, was coined by Yoko Ono in 1969, and John later decided to write a strangely and infuriatingly catchy song around it.
It is, I think quite undeniably, John’s biggest attempt at an overt feminist statement in his music. It is also his most “controversial” song by far (which is saying something), and with damn good reason.
Yesterday, Renee wrote a post about this song and called it out for its use of the word, the way that its use plays the oppression olympics, and the fact that it erases black women entirely. You should read it. Further, all of these issues were addressed a few months ago in a thread on Racialicious with regards to a video that shows John on the Dick Cavett show, quite literally defending his use of the word by holding up a letter from an Official Black Person that declares it’s okay.
Seeing as how I keep finding this song floating around, and since I have been asked on several occasions what I (as Feminist Beatles Fan Extraordinaire) think of it, I thought it was time to officially address it.
I want to state first of all that I absolutely, unequivocally agree with Renee’s take. I also agree with a majority of the sentiments found in the Racialicious thread. The song, to put it simply, is incredibly fucked. And his defense of it is one of the most ignorant, epic fails ever. I find it embarrassing as a fan and as a person.
Apr
28
Accused Serial Rapist Finally Convicted of Felony Rape
Filed Under courts, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 3 Comments
About a year and a half ago, I wrote about Jeffrey Marsalis (trigger warning), a man who was accused of drugging and raping at least 30 women but almost certainly raped many, many more, and who was then acquitted in the rape of 10 of those women, with only two lesser charges of sexual assault sticking.
Now, there is some incredibly bittersweet news on him, via Abyss2Hope. Marsalis, who was extradited to Idaho in yet another rape charge, has been convicted on one count of felony rape — which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
It’s bittersweet, of course, because the woman in this case is yet another woman who Marsalis victimized. It’s bittersweet because he has finally been convicted, but only after so many charges against him being horrifically and falsely ruled invalid, and becoming the poster child for rape apologism in action. And it’s bittersweet because this case shows us that some DNA evidence is worth far, far more than the testimony of 10 women who have never met each other telling pretty much the exact same story.
And another note in Marcella’s post on this got me thinking. She mentioned that among the evidence incriminating Marsalis was testimony from eye witnesses saying that the victim was observed as appearing so intoxicated that she could barely walk. She could barely walk out of the bar. And people saw her. They saw her, and still, Marsalis was left to rape her.
This just really hammered home to me yet again the importance of what Nora and Ashley are always talking about over at the SAFER blog — bystander training. What if just one of those people who saw Marsalis trying to leave with this woman who could barely walk stopped and said something rather than just watching them walk out that door? What if other people in the bar had then backed that first person up? What if the bartender had looked at her, noted that she’d only had a beer and a shot, and said “this isn’t right”?
And how many other rapes by Marsalis began with a woman who he drugged appearing this intoxicated? How many of those rapes could have been prevented if someone was just willing to stand up and say something? How many could have been prevented if they had been taught how to stand up and say something?
Yes, yes. Of course, Marsalis and Marsalis alone is responsible for his intense misogyny and violence.
But I think that we, too — all of us — have a responsiblity to those around us. And it’s time to stop being afraid of being taken the wrong way, and to start stepping up to it. It’s time to start ensuring that all of us know how.
Apr
27
In Support of GENDA
Filed Under LGBTQ, bigotry, discrimination, gender, human rights, legislation, trans, transphobia and trans misogyny | 4 Comments
As I imagine most of you reading this blog know, transgender people face enormous amounts of bigotry and discrimination in the U.S.
But what some of you may not know is that that there is also currently no federal legislation that protects against such discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression. And in most states, there is no such state legislation, either.
Currently, 13 states and DC have some kind of laws on the books that do protect against discrimination on this basis — though that number drops to 12 states and DC if you’re looking at laws that include protections against employment discrimination. Several states, in fact, have passed anti-discrimination legislation to protect on the basis of sexual orientation, while leaving protections on the basis of gender identity and expression behind. And while some local jurisdictions have passed their own laws to protect citizens, in other areas of the country, discrimination is entirely legal.
What kinds of discrimination? Housing discrimination, for example. In places without non-discrimination laws prohibiting it, it’s entirely legal for someone to deny housing to a transgender or gender non-conforming person. Employment, of course, is another. Again, where protections are not in place, it is legal to fire someone because of their gender identity. It’s also legal to, on that basis, not hire them at all. Transgender people are also denied credit, and discriminated against in terms of public accommodations, and kicked out of restaurants, hotels, etc.
Again, this bears repeating: in New York state, for example, it is entirely legal to refuse to hire someone because they are transgender (or otherwise do not meet someone’s gender expectations), to refuse to provide them credit to buy a home, to refuse to rent to them, and to refuse them service at your place of business. Just because of their gender identity. And not a single one of these things is at all uncommon.
Statistics on these matters are hard to come by, but what is available suggests the obvious effects. The number of transgender people who are or have been homeless is outrageously high. The unemployment rate is huge; so is the rate of people who have been fired based on gender identity and gender expression.
GENDA (pdf) is a piece of New York legislation that would protect New Yorkers on the basis of gender identity and gender expression in matters of housing, employment, credit, and more everyday areas that the privileged among us like myself don’t even usually have to consider. It is basic justice. It is common sense. It would bring the law up to par with state protections already in place on the basis of sexual orientation. Perhaps surprisingly, it even has overwhelming support on the part of voters.
And yet, it has been languishing without passage for several years. For several years, the New York legislature has refused to provide basic rights for its citizens. Too risky. Not important enough. Whatever the reason, it’s outrageous, offensive and inexcusable. And it needs to be corrected right now.
The good news is that we’re getting closer to seeing GENDA become law. The NY State Assembly voted last week to pass GENDA. (Big shock – my Republican representative voted no.) They did the same last year, shortly after Equality and Justice Day.
But last year, of course, the bill died in the Senate. The hope is that now the Senate has a Democratic majority, GENDA will go through. But sadly, a Democratic majority is not the same as a pro-LGBT majority (and a pro-LGB majority is not necessarily a pro-trans rights majority), any more than it is necessarily a pro-choice majority. And so, unfortunately, we don’t yet know.
It’s not just a “shame” that GENDA is not yet law in supposedly progressive NY State. It’s a downright travesty of justice. And yes, it is also an embarrassment.
No piece of legislation can ever correct every act of bigotry; that much should be obvious. In practice, it can’t even correct every act of bigotry that it is designed to correct. But what it can do is create a standard that people are worth protecting; it can create a standard of what counts as basic rights that cannot be denied based on bigotry. And it can give legal recourse to those people who are still victims of those kinds of bigotry in spite of the law.
That’s why GENDA is the primary reason that I will be present at Equality and Justice Day tomorrow, April 28. And it’s why any New York resident reading this should contact their senator now to ask them to support GENDA. And then immediately spread the word.
Apr
25
Beatles Rock Band Updates
Filed Under Gratuitous Beatles Blogging, fun | 6 Comments
No, dear readers, the above image is not a fan-made mock up. It is the real packaging for the Beatles Rock Band game (at least, if you’re buying the bundle pack). For those who haven’t seen it, such packaging has indeed been released. I thought I’d share the good news, along with other Rock Band revelations, for those who do not follow such things quite as obsessively as I, or who would at least care to discuss them.
First up, in addition to packaging, the contents of the bundle pack have been revealed. It will contain a Hofner Bass Controller, microphone with mic stand, and Beatles-branded Rock Band drums. Details on the drums have not yet been confirmed, but this is what extraordinarily exciting things Kotaku has been reporting:
Beatlesque and Ludwig-branded Rock Band drums with classic pearl finish, a metal kick pedal and a vintage replica drumhead
In other words, fucking sweet. And I’m going to finally have to teach myself how to play drums.
Apr
24
Seattle Weekly Furthers the Myth of Common False Rape Allegations
Filed Under assholes, media, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 18 Comments
Last week, the Seattle Weekly published an article on the supposedly common phenomenon of false accusations of rape. Using as framing the very rare case of a man who was arrested for what seems to be an actual false allegation, the writer goes on to suggest that false accusations happen all the time, and are ruining the lives of poor men. Also, it’s because of these supposed false allegations that the really real rape victims are not believed — not because of things like misogyny, rape apologism, or the conviction that “he’s not like that.”
The most frequently cited major study of unsubstantiated rape charges was published in 1994, when Purdue University sociologist Eugene Kanin looked into sexual-assault reports at a Midwestern police department and determined that 41 percent were false. More recently, the Pentagon’s 2008 report on sexual assault in the military noted that of 2,700 reported sexual assaults, most from women, 39 percent were dropped as unfounded or lacking evidence.
Last January, the Virginia-based American Prosecutors Research Institute published a report arguing that such studies are based solely on whether or not the initial investigators drop the case, and ought to be independently evaluated. The Institute points to another, ongoing study by the nonprofit End Violence Against Women International, which has been collecting data from eight different U.S. law enforcement agencies since 2005. Of the more than 2,000 cases examined thus far, researchers have classified about 7 percent as false.
Whatever the frequency, false claims, like the one that put Bekele in jail, do happen—and often in an extremely public way. From the notorious Tawana Brawley case of 1987 to the Duke lacrosse-team fiasco two decades later, there have been a number of horrific and high-profile instances of false rape claims, often with extremely hard-to-discern motives. The cases not only have been destructive to the accused, but undermine longstanding efforts to get rape accusations taken more seriously.
That study by the American Prosecutors Research Institute (pdf) that is so swiftly glossed over actually does an excellent job of debunking the bullshit Kanin study. You should take the time to read it. It not only points out that that research which is actually methodically and rigorously done shows false reporting rates consistently in the 2% to 8% area. It also shows that actual false reports are usually not the “date rape” kind that are so regularly pointed to as acts of vengeance, but the kinds where the story mirrors that of a stranger jumping out of the bushes.
And still it goes further, to point out one of the biggest flaws done with most of the research that arrives at high numbers, and one that is made in the quote from the article above — the idea that cases which are dropped as a result of lacking evidence or being decided by authorities to be “unfounded” are necessarily false. This would, in fact, only be true if real rape always left DNA and bruising behind, and if authorities were always unbiased against rape victims — a view that is in reality quite widely held, despite the fact that it is patently false. You can get even higher numbers than these when you classify every rape case that goes to trial and comes back with a “not guilty” verdict as false as well — which, of course, many MRAs and other rape apologists do, despite the fact that a jury having “reasonable doubt” that a crime was committed is not even remotely the same as proving that it didn’t happen.
Apr
23
Sexual Assault Awareness Month may be almost over, but you know that we’re always about sexual assault awareness around here. Check out this video made for SAAM by the Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services. It’s called “One Thing,” and it’s pretty great attempt at breaking the silence surrounding sexual violence and exposing some rape apologist myths:
There’s a 30 second version also available on YouTube, though I have to say that I definitely prefer the more informative “longer” version.
I’d love to see a nation-wide campaign like this, where survivors get to speak for themselves, tell the truth, show their support for other survivors and demand acknowledgment and respect. What do you think?
Apr
22
Breaking: Allen Andrade Convicted of First Degree Murder
Filed Under courts, trans, transphobia and trans misogyny, violence against women and girls | 10 Comments
Allen Ray Andrade, the man who murdered Angie Zapata (left), was just minutes ago convicted on the two main charges of first degree murder and bias-motivated crime (hate crime). He was also convicted of the significantly lesser charges of vehicle theft and identity theft.As far as I’m aware as of writing, those are the highest convictions on all charges against him. And for his heinous crime, at 4:00PM MDT, Andrade will be sentenced to mandatory life without parole.
It took the jury only about 2 hours to deliberate. Only about 2 hours.
The trans panic defense failed, seemingly by a landslide. Like my co-blogger Jack and others, I am not convinced that this is actually justice for Angie — when a woman is dead and nothing can bring her back, I don’t really think there is such a thing as “justice” anymore. But it is the best we could have hoped for in this particular case. And I am in relieved shock.
Apr
22
Defense Attorney Argues That No Doesn’t Always Mean No
Filed Under International, assholes, courts, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 6 Comments
Via the Hand Mirror (h/t Lauredhel), I came across a story this morning about a line of questioning used by a New Zealand defense attorney in cross-examining a woman who alleged that a taxi driver attempted to rape her:
After a long cross-examination, the taxi driver’s lawyer, Letizea Ord, put it to the complainant [that she] said “no” in a joking, flirting or teasing way.
“What I am suggesting to you is the way you used the word `no’ is you weren’t using it seriously,” the defence lawyer said.
The complainant – the primary witness in the case – strongly denied Ms Ord’s suggestion.
After wondering for the umpteenth time whether or not defense attorneys are actually born with a conscience (while simultaneously recognizing the genuinely dire reasons that defense attorneys are needed for a just legal system), and of course yet again going through the fact that a supposedly “joking” no, assuming women actually gave them, should always be verified as joking rather than assumed as such, period, I had to ask myself: what did this attorney hope to gain by this line of questioning?
Really — did she think that the victim was going to have an “aw crap, I didn’t think anyone would realize that despite my struggling, I wanted to have consensual sex with this man and was so incredibly embarrassed about it and desperate for no one to ever find out about my private thoughts that I filed legal charges of assault for an incident that no one would otherwise ever know about!” moment right up there on the stand?
Well, that would be a pretty dumb thought to have. And no, misogynistic defense attorneys who use rape myths in court to defend rapists aren’t actually that stupid; the problem is, they’re really, really smart. Smart enough to make this bullshit work. So I thought about it some more. What could she be trying to gain?
The answer that I came up with, of course, isn’t pretty.
Obviously, the victim was going to deny her ludicrous charges of actually desiring consensual sex in the back of a taxi with, as Anna put it, “a stranger who got his wanger out by way of introduction,” despite the admitted fact that she said “no.” But that was precisely the point. By forcing her to deny such ludicrous charges, the idea was planted in the jury’s mind that such a ludicrous charge might actually have some merit. Why else would she bring it up in court? And isn’t that what women do, anyway? Have sex and then regret it in the morning, therefore deciding the “ruin” the life of some poor chump by filing rape charges? And say “no” in order to preserve some kind of illusion of their “virtue,” while really meaning a hearty, desperate “yes”?
Remember, juries actually believe this stuff.
And even worse than that, I bet that the defense attorney expected the woman to be offended, upset, and flustered by her outrageous, misogynistic, insulting, accusatory, and downright triggering line of questioning. She would have expected her to nervously deny it, perhaps with a quaver in her voice, perhaps a little “too” adamantly. How could most of us not? And she would have hoped that a jury would see her quavering voice not as upset and shock but as uncertainty, and a vigorous denial as an attempt to cover up a lie rather than valid self-defense.
I could be wrong, of course. I’m not this defense attorney. I don’t know precisely what’s going on in her hateful mind. But you tell me: if she could not have been reasonably been expecting an admission by the victim (and seriously, she couldn’t), what could she have been going for, other than what I outlined above?
And if you do come up with an alternate answer . . . I can pretty much guarantee that it’s not going to be any better than this.
Apr
21
British Prosecutors to Challenge Rape Myths in Court
Filed Under Europe, International, bigotry, courts, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, slut-shaming, stereotypes, violence against women and girls | 5 Comments
I am seriously a month behind on this story out of Britain, but the news is interesting enough that I still think it’s worth our time to take a look at. It has apparently been made an official part of policy in rape cases for prosecutors to “robustly challenge” rape myths in court:
Prosecutors have been told to “robustly” challenge myths surrounding rape victims, such as women are asking to be attacked if they drink, when in front of juries.
Other myths include victim provoke rape by the way they dress, rape is a crime of passion and if the victim did not scream then it was not rape.
Revised policy guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service pledges it will not allow such stereotypes to influence its decisions and told prosecutors to dispel such attitudes when in the courtroom.
Other myths to be challenged are the way a victim acts proves whether she was raped or not, victims cry rape if they regret having sex or want revenge, only gay men are raped and prostitutes cannot be raped.
I think this is absolutely brilliant, and also long overdue. I’ve been wanting to see this happen for a long, long time. First of all, it’s no secret that our culture is steeped in rape myths, and that jurors bring those rape myths to court. How could they not? It’s also no secret that defense attorneys play heavily off of these myths, and openly promote them in support of their clients as a supposed form of “vigorous defense” (see the entire “rape and sexual assault” category).
The revised guidelines are apparently at least in part a response to the stomach-churning results of a recent government poll, which showed that myths about domestic violence and rape still run rampant. I don’t think that it’s enough to wait to educate jurors until they actually have to decide on such a case (there should also be a vigorous public education campaign). And there are other myths I’d like to see challenged (perhaps included in the guidelines but not in this article; I don’t know), including the “well she didn’t say no” myth, the “trans people can’t be raped” myth, the “waiting to report means it didn’t really happen” myth, and more. Perhaps most importantly of all, I imagine that it will also be up to individual prosecutors to dedicate themselves to actually using this strategy.
But I’m glad that someone in a position of power took a look at that poll, was at least somewhere near as appalled as us feminists are, and decided to do something about it. And with all of the problems with the legal treatment of rape cases, it’s a hell of a lot better of an idea than this other one, to set target conviction rates (which seems to merely result in fewer cases being tried).
It seems like perfect common sense to me, to pull apart the myth that the defense is using to sway the jury. I seriously hope that it helps with conviction rates, though at this point I’m unsure if it will, and if it does it will probably take some time. But I think that at the very least, it’s important in the sense that it gives victims that extra sense of dignity, to have someone stand up next to the lying rape apologists and say, in essence, “this is bullshit.” At the very, absolute bare minimum, surely they deserve that much.
Subscribe to The Curvature
“Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” — Susan B. Anthony
