May

30

University of the Pacific Says Date Rape is Not Rape

Filed Under assholes, courts, education and schools, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 21 Comments

Last year, three male basketball players allegedly raped a woman (also a basketball player) at a party.  The assault took place on campus at the University of the Pacific, where seemingly the rapists and victim were all students.  Now, the woman has filed a lawsuit alleging that the school did not treat her case seriously; the woman herself left the school once the administrators refused to remove the accused from the campus.

Sounds bad, right?  Like we’ve got yet another university that doesn’t take rape seriously.  Oh, indeed we do.  But even more than I’m interested in what the university did and did not do behind closed doors, I’m interested in what they have to say openly to the media (trigger warning):

A woman identified in court papers as Jane Doe claimed in a March lawsuit that two basketball players raped her at a May 2008 party at Townhouses, campus housing on Pershing Avenue, and that a third player came into the room where she was and assaulted her as the first two players were leaving.

Pacific spokesman Richard Rojo said Thursday that the school does not consider the incident to be a rape.

“We would call it date rape,” he said.

Rojo said the university considers “outright rape” and date rape to be different, in that date rape does not involve “a rapist jumping out of bushes and attacking people randomly.”

He said, “These are people who knew each other. … It’s a social situation and unfortunately an all-too common problem at universities.

“It doesn’t make it right. It’s a sexual assault, and that’s why the university took action in this matter.”

Doe said in her lawsuit that Pacific’s handling of the matter was hostile, causing her to feel unwanted at Pacific. Doe, a freshman, left the school

I stared at this a good, long, hard time before I could believe what was really in front of my eyes.

Not because I’m surprised that the view is out there.  Please, I’ve had it expressed directly to me with regards to my own rape.  What I’m shocked over is the fact that a university would, seemingly with no shame at all, openly and publicly express such a view.  “Date rape is not rape.”  When I regularly use that example of the man jumping out of the bushes as what many people believe to be the only real rape, some people think that I’m exaggerating.  Quite clearly, I’m not.  As you can see right above, it’s coming out of the mouth of the spokesperson for a university commenting on the school’s handling of a rape on their campus.

Read more

May

29

Reaction vs. Prevention

Filed Under Republicans, patriarchy, politics, violence against women and girls | 4 Comments

Sometime recently — and I receive so many action alerts in my inbox that it’s impossible to remember when — I apparently emailed my congressional representative about the issue of funding for programs that prevent intimate partner violence.  Of course, I asked him to support for an increase in such funding.  My representative’s name is Chris Lee, and he, or rather someone on his staff, just responded with the following:

Thank you for contacting me in support of increased funding for programs that help prevent domestic violence. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views.

There can be no excuse for domestic violence, and I strongly support the important programs that provide support and counseling for victims of domestic violence and families affected.

Now it’s worth nothing that Rep. Lee is a Republican, and I voted for his opponent.  And sad though it may be, this is probably the closest I’ve ever come to agreeing with the man and one of his patronizing, non-committal form letter responses.

But does anyone else see the old switcheroo he played?  I see it all the time, and Lee is hardly the only culprit.  In fact, I’m pretty positive that I’ve seen Obama do it.  But in all cases, it bothers me like nobody’s business, and I think it’s about time to talk about it.

I wrote my representative, as he said, about programs that help prevent domestic violence.  He responded by acknowledging that, and telling me how much he supports services for victims of domestic violence that has already been perpetrated.

Which tells me that while he’s purportedly willing to tell victims, who are overwhelmingly women, that the violence committed against them is not their fault, he’s not willing to hold men, who are the vast majority of perpetrators, to higher standards and to work towards the goal of actually stopping violence before it starts.

Probably because it would involve admitting that such violence is rooted in misogyny and creating a world where women are, I don’t know, respected and considered equals.  Moreover, probably because it would require actually acknowledging that someone with responsibility exists — that domestic violence doesn’t just happen, it’s committed.  And while it’s relatively easy in today’s world, in fact probably expected, to at least say you support funding for women’s shelters, it’s a whole lot harder to commit to what it takes to create a more just world.

Contrary to how frequently you’ll see this bait and switch method used, and as important and vital and underfunded as victims services are — please dear god, can we have some more funding for these services? — reaction to domestic violence is not the same as prevention of domestic violence.  And until we learn that difference — hell, until we admit that one even exists — we’re not going to get anywhere.

May

28

Anti-Choicers Push South Carolina “Born Alive” Bill

Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, legislation, reproductive justice, women’s health | 7 Comments

Via Daisy, I’ve learned of a new bill moving through the South Caroline legislature being referred to as the “born alive” bill.  The legislation would purportedly prevent “abortion” through the method of allowing a fetus/baby born alive to die without medical treatment.

A bill that would prevent a fetus from being thrown away as medical waste or to die outside the mother’s body as a form of abortion moved one step closer to law this morning after it passed a Senate subcommittee.

Senators amended the House-passed bill to note that nothing in the legislation affects state or federal laws on abortion or affects generally accepted medical standards.

The “born alive” bill now moves to the full Judiciary Committee.

The legislation defines a person as anyone who is breathing or who is born with a beating heart, no matter the means of birth or whether the result of an abortion.

If this bill sounds vaguely familiar to you, it’s likely because you’re thinking of a very similar one that was considered in Illinois — and which then Senator Obama was lambasted for opposing.

The question, of course, is what this bill is about.  Because if you know very much about abortion, you’ll know that the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed before it’s even remotely possible that a fetus could be born alive, and that with those abortions that are performed past that point — almost universally for medical reasons — a fetus being “born alive” is ridiculously rare.  In fact, the discovered fetus that spurned this legislation may not have been aborted at all, but miscarried — there’s seemingly no evidence where it came from.  Further those who know anything about medical ethics also know that doctors are already required by oath to provide medical treatment in such a circumstance.

Which means two things: 1. the bill is unnecessary because it legislates a situation which virtually never occurs and 2. even if the situation did arise at an even remotely frequent rate, this law wouldn’t change anything.

So, what’s the point?  Well, many would argue that it’s to extend the definition of personhood to include fetuses and thus undermine abortion rights.  It’s certainly possible, but if the definition described in the article quoted above is correct, it explicitly excludes unborn fetuses, as they do not breathe and, um, have not been born.  So while that’s always the first suspect, I’m not seeing it here.  Others could argue that it’s to scare doctors away from performing abortions.  But again, this would only work if aborted fetuses being born alive was an even remotely frequent occurrence, and if doctors were actually willing to then throw them out with medical waste while still breathing, therefore giving them something to worry about.  And you could say that it’s about undermining women’s health and safety by forcing doctors to use different methods of abortion, but the current methods work just fine and ensure that the chances of such botched abortions are negligible at most.

Therefore, I think that this is all about something else entirely — politics, of course.  The point is to portray fetuses as “babies,” to further the myth that abortions regularly take place at the late stages of pregnancy, and to remind everyone of how icky the procedure is.  It’s also to further the myth that abortion providers are heartless, baby-killing monsters who just throw living fetuses out with the trash.  It’s to present the exceedingly rare occurrence of an aborted fetus being “born alive” as common, and for doctors to kill it outside of the uterus as similarly frequent.  And lastly, it’s to place pro-choice politicians in a bind — either accept and reinforce this myth, or risk also being portrayed as heartless monsters.

Which is, in the end, about undermining a woman’s right to reproductive health care after all.  Just in the court of public opinion, thus setting the stage for future actually restrictive laws, rather than in the law books.

May

27

Help Send Single Mothers to the Allied Media Conference

Filed Under action alert, activism, events and excursions, media | 2 Comments

speakThe Allied Media Conference, which is about “[sharing] tools and tactics for transforming our communities through media-based organizing,” is being held this July.  I’ve never been, but I know that it’s a really important event to a whole lot of womanists, feminists and radical women of color.

And I’ve just learned through BFP’s blog that the AMC needs a lot of money to help ensure that single mothers, who so often get left out of conference events, will be able to attend and participate.  She writes:

Why do we need single mamis at this conference?

It’s funny you should ask. Mamis of color are leaders in creating media that services the communities most in need radical media justice. They’ve created zines, blog communities, news papers, radio shows. They write and speak with children on their hips, on their breasts, and with the most limited resources possible. They can make a meeting happen with three people in three different cities, one car, and an awesome white dude. They don’t leave their neighbors behind because it’s a car with four seats, they make more seats in the car.

This is leadership. Single mamis of color are the leaders of the media justice movement, and I really am not sure why or how we would have a conference if they weren’t there.

So they need your help getting these women there in July.  Click here to contribute by buying a SPEAK! CD. The CD itself includes all kinds of amazing stuff.  And the suggested donation amount is $12, but you can also choose to donate more than that — as much as your heart desires and your wallet will allow.

Go, now, donate! And then put the call out on your blog, your twitter, facebook, whatever it is you use, and get the people you know to do the same.

cross-posted at Feministe

May

26

Serial Rapist Convicted of Raping His Daughter

Filed Under Australia, International, courts, disability, media, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 8 Comments

Strong Trigger Warning

Sometimes these stories are just too horrible to convey in words.  The rapist in the story below (h/t Lauredhel) had a long history of sexual abuse towards his vulnerable female family members:

At the time of the offences, the man had been out of jail for a year after serving 10 years for repeatedly raping his step daughter from the time she was 10 years old.

The court heard the man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his victims, was in a relationship with a woman from 1979 to 1983 and they had a daughter in 1982.

He left that woman to begin a relationship with the woman’s 17-year old daughter from a previous relationship.

The 17-year old already had a three-year old daughter of her own, and when the little girl was nine, years old the man began a sexual relationship with her while living at a Sunshine Coast caravan park.

He raped the girl for the first time around her tenth birthday.

The abuse continued until 1997 when the girl was about 16 years old.

He also raped another 16-year old family member in 1996.

In 1997, the man was sent to jail for a total of 35 offences and was eventually released in 2007.

Let me first get the obvious out of the way, yet again: you cannot have a “sexual relationship” with a nine-year-old child. The correct terminology, by absolute necessity, is “the man began sexually abusing her.”

Secondly, rapists who show a history of repeated and continuous sexual offenses against those to whom they are close have a high rate of offending again.  Which is why it’s a bad idea to let a child rapist convicted on 35 counts out of jail after only ten years.  Because he just might rape his daughter when he gets out. Read more

May

23

Target Women: Laundry

Filed Under feminism, fun, marketing, media, sexism | Leave a Comment

(Click here if you can’t view the embedded video.)

Oh Sarah, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways . . .

May

20

New York Statewide GENDA Call-In Day

Filed Under LGBTQ, action alert, activism, bigotry, discrimination, gender, legislation, trans, transphobia and trans misogyny, work | 3 Comments

CALLING ALL NEW YORK STATE RESIDENTS!

You may have heard a whole lot about the marriage equality bill currently awaiting a vote by the state Senate. What you have likely heard significantly less about is GENDA, the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (pdf). GENDA would provide anti-discrimination protections on the basis of gender identity and expression in areas of housing, employment, and much more. The legal right to not be discriminated against is something that transgender New Yorkers currently live without.

Today, Wednesday May 20, is the statewide call-in day to help get GENDA passed! GENDA passed through the Assembly back in April (before the marriage equality bill). But now it’s still awaiting a Senate vote. This legislative session is ending shortly, so it’s absolutely vital that the bill be brought to a vote now.

Details on making your call(s) from the NY State Pride Agenda:

We need you to get on the phone and call the lead Senate sponsor Tom Duane and your Senator to tell them that you want them to bring GENDA to the Senate floor and pass it. We’re in the final stretch and it is vital that they hear from you.

With more than half of the Senators indicating their support for GENDA, we know that we have enough votes to get it passed in the Senate if it comes to the floor for a vote. So now is the time to call Senator Duane and your State Senator!

Talking Points:

Reach Tom Duane at (518) 455-2451 and find your Senator’s Albany phone number here. Call their offices on Wednesday to tell them that the time is now to end discrimination against transgender New Yorkers.

Remember to give them the number of the GENDA bill (S.2406).

Ask your Senator to vote for GENDA, and ask lead Senate Sponsor Tom Duane to bring the bill to the floor for a vote now.

Tell them about the broad support for GENDA statewide, including:

  • 78% of New York voters
  • Unions representing 2.1 million working New Yorkers
  • 27 Fortune 500 companies based in cities like Rochester, Corning, New York City and White Plains.
  • 344 clergy and lay leaders, representing over 20 different denominations

Working together, we can make this happen! Start making those phone calls now!

It sounds like Duane’s phone may be ringing off the hook, but calling your own senator (assuming it’s not Duane) should only take you a moment or two.

If you’re still wondering what to say, something along the lines of “I’m a constituent of Senator X, and calling to ask him/her to vote for GENDA, which is S.2406. GENDA would protect New Yorkers from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and has the support of 78% of New York voters” should be more than sufficient.

So get calling, and tell your like-minded friends and family, because every call is going to count.

cross-posted at Feministe

May

19

A Quick Note on Misogynistic Body Standards

Filed Under assholes, beauty myths, fat-shaming, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, pop culture | 13 Comments

in-touch

I know way, way, way better than to waste my time analyzing tabloid magazines.  Which is why I pretty much never do it, and I’m not going to bother saying much very now.  Because of course, we pretty much see the same shit above every fucking year around this time.

But I saw this magazine in the checkout line in the grocery store, and masochist that I am I had to see who was cruelly and ridiculously shamed on the cover this year with a “worst” label.  And upon seeing Uma Thurman there with the phrase “Saggy Boobs” emblazoned underneath her, it just hit me in the gut like nobody’s business. Because I’m at least used to butts similar to mine getting sneered at.

I’d say “way to go telling women that the way their bodies naturally look is repulsive,” but of course I know that’s the point of virtually everything in this magazine.  But. There is a little fucking thing in this world called gravity, and strangely enough, boobs are subject to it.  Especially big ones. (You know, the same kind women are supposed to feel bad about not having.)

It’s incredibly past the point of bad enough when we’re mocking the “lumpy butt” of a woman who is already thinner than most (while simultaneously mocking a woman for being too thin), as if bodies exist for judging and ones that carry an ounce of fat are hideous and shouldn’t be let out the house.  Can it get any worse when we’re mocking a body “flaw” that is not only shared by huge portions of the population, but that we also can’t even pretend can be “fixed” by spending every waking hour of your life in the gym?

Finally, they’re at least acknowledging the truth that it’s not about getting women to “take pride” in their bodies or “work harder” at them. It’s just about reminding us that close to all women’s bodies, no matter how much “pride” you take or how hard you “work,” will ever be considered good enough.

May

18

On Gender and Sexual Insults

Filed Under assholes, gender, misogyny, patriarchy, sex and sexuality, sexism, slut-shaming | 18 Comments

Yesterday, a piece by India Knight about the breakup of Katie Price and Peter Andre appeared in the Times Online (h/t Gauntlet).  It seems that these two are reality television stars in the UK.  I’ve never heard of them before in my life.  So let’s just get it out of the way that I have absolutely no dog whatsoever in that fight.

The argument in the article revolves around Price’s reported and repeated insults regarding Andre’s penis size and sexual prowess.  And if what is reported here is true, I agree that she certainly is an absolute, major asshole:

Having dissed on record everyone she’s ever gone to bed with, she even used an insult to reel Andre in. The pair met in 2004 on I’m a Celebrity. . . Get Me Out of Here!, the reality show on which C-listers are humiliated in grotesque fashion – bug-eating and so on – for viewers’ pleasure. Andre was a rabbit caught in Price’s headlights. She liked him, too, so she looked in his shorts and told him he had a tiny penis.

They eventually got married, even though she kept on telling him – and a million or so viewers every week – that he still had a tiny penis. I don’t mean once or twice – I mean repeatedly, for years on end. Recently, on The Graham Norton Show, following a complaint from Andre about infrequent sex, Price said he took “too long” (45 minutes, since you ask), and on a recent episode of their reality show she repeatedly trotted out her favourite line about her husband’s “acorn”. He dumped her shortly afterwards, although it is still unclear whether the dumpage will lead to divorce or to a lavishly remunerated reconciliation via the pages of OK! magazine.

My problem isn’t with Knight sympathizing with Andre, in the least.  In fact, it does indeed sound like he deserves some sympathy.

My problem is with the conclusions that Knight draws about men in general and women in general (who are all assumed to be heterosexual), and how they relate to one another in romantic relationships and in the aftermath of breakups.

Read more

May

16

Canadian Provinces Deny Transgender Health Care

Filed Under International, LGBTQ, bigotry, discrimination, legislation, politics, trans, transphobia and trans misogyny, women’s health | 11 Comments

In the past few weeks, two Canadian provinces have denied transgender people funding for their basic health care needs in a country which touts a universal and public health care system.

First came Alberta, which previously covered sex reassignment surgery (SRS) (also known as GRS — gender reassignment surgery or gender reaffirmation surgery).  The province decided to delist (stop funding) SRS procedures, ostensibly as a part of their bid to address the current budget deficit.

Only problem is that cutting coverage for such surgeries amounts to only $700,000 in savings.  The overall heath care budget for Alberta is almost $13 billion; the deficit is approximately $4.7 billion.

Now comes Manitoba. The province currently only funds a couple of SRS-related surgeries and doesn’t even cover hormone treatments for trans people.  They have now just rejected a proposal (ads on site may be NSFW) to fully cover hormone therapies and SRS, citing “the economic downturn.”  This is despite the fact that the province has increased spending overall this year by 4.4% and still expects to have a $48 million surplus.

Both Alberta and Manitoba have claimed SRS and other specifically trans-related health services do not deserve coverage in this economic downturn while others still do based on the notion that such services are “cosmetic” and/or “unnecessary.”  Which means that they’ve clearly misunderstood the idea that just because not all trans people want or seek out the same medical procedures/care as a part of transition, or any procedures/care at all, it doesn’t mean that it’s not a necessity for a good bulk of those who do.   Either that, or they just don’t care — and don’t expect a vast majority of taxpayers to care, either.

What this is seemingly about in Alberta is pretending that they’re doing something about the damn budget by disparaging and harming an already oppressed and marginalized group.  They’re using that age old tactic of pretending that a certain group that society holds bigotry against is a drain on taxpayer money, while erasing the fact that trans people are taxpayers too, and that even if they weren’t, the point of the system is to guarantee health care for all.  And in Manitoba just doesn’t want to be bothered with extending full rights to all of its residents in the first place.

Of course, we have the same problem down here in the U.S., too.  First of all, we don’t have a public health care system to begin with, and so many trans people lack insurance, and those who do have it are often denied coverage for the care they need — again, because it’s seen as “a drain” and “unnecessary” and “too expensive.”  It’s seen as a “lifestyle choice” rather than a part of health care, and a very important part, and a necessary part, for many people.

In other words, it’s really just another way that cis-controlled society and power structures can illegitimize trans identities as less real.  It’s a means of valuing cis health and lives way high above trans health and lives, not to mention placing physical health above mental health.  It’s saying that those “15-20″ people in each province who would seek out SRS each year just don’t fucking matter.  And on top of all that, it’s also scapegoating.

It’s the height of transphobia, and it’s going to have a very real, extremely harmful impact on the lives of those affected.  And thanks to the fact that transphobia is inherently dehumanizing, the powers that be just don’t give a shit.

Next Page →