-
BlogHer Ad Network More from BlogHer Advertise here BlogHer Privacy Policy -
"In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a masochist." --Gloria Steinem
-
May
11
“A Complete Travesty of Justice”
Filed Under assholes, courts gone crazy, education and schools, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 23 Comments
A grand jury has found that there is not enough evidence to move forward in the De Anza rape case (trigger warning for this link and the rest of the post).
I am so angry that I can hardly see straight.
Allow me to jog your memory. This would be the case of gang rape where nine men allegedly attacked an unconscious teenage girl while she was covered in her own vomit. This would be the case where three very brave other girls forced their way inside the room, rescued the victim and took her to a hospital.
What we have here is one of the most clear-cut kind of rape cases in existance: the victim was unconscious, had to be taken to the hospital, and there were three eye witnesses to the crime. Normally, you hear “it’s her word against his, no one knows what happened in there.” You’ll hear the lack of impartial witnesses as an excuse for acquittal or even lack of an arrest. Here, there were eye witnesses. Three of them. And are we on our way to a conviction? No. These nine men will walk free to happily live the rest of their worthless rapist lives.
Popularity: 16% [?]
Apr
17
Maryland Court Rules That No Actually Means No
Filed Under assholes, courts gone crazy, legislation, media, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 1 Comment
Maryland’s highest court has overturned a horrid ruling and joined seven other states in recognition of the fact that a woman (and hopefully any person?) can revoke her consent to sexual activity — and that, shockingly enough, when a person continues sex after being told to stop, that sex becomes rape.
I’m thrilled that the court has made this ruling. Though I really shouldn’t have to applaud them for what basically amounts to common sense, I do. It’s also extremely reassuring that the decision was unanimous.
But it makes me want to bang my head against the wall that we are living in two thousand fucking eight, and until yesterday forty-three states in the USA did not legally regard as rape certain kinds of sex that continue once one of the parties has clearly said “no” or “stop.” Especially since that number of states still today holds at forty-two. And though wholly unsurprised by it, I want to rip my hair out at the misleading nature of a lot of the reporting/blogging. (Please do not google this case; doing so made me want to cry.)
Popularity: 18% [?]
Apr
8
What’s at Risk in Kansas
Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, courts gone crazy, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, politics, pregnancy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 7 Comments
Today the Kansas Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of whether or not embattled late-term abortion provider Dr. Tiller should be forced to turn over the medical records of 2,000 patients. This battle has been going on since 2006, but has been stalled and had verdicts flipped on technicalities. The women whose medical records are being used in a game of tug-of-war by the state had this to say:
The patients, using pseudonyms to protect their identity, argue that the subpoenas represent an unconstitutional intrusion into their privacy, and that the grand jury isn’t entitled to the records because there has been no finding that the documents contain evidence of a crime.
The records contain detailed medical information, including physical and mental health histories, of women who terminated their pregnancies, sometimes under tragic circumstances, attorneys representing the patients argued.
In some instances, the patient had an abortion after learning of a severe fetal anomaly, and the medical records often include photographs of the fetus taken after the abortion, they said.
“These photographs … may also include pictures of the fetus with baby clothes, stuffed animals or blankets that the parents had hoped to give their child.
“To have these personal histories paraded out before the members of the grand jury for their scrutiny and judgment is not only a gross intrusion on the patients’ privacy, it is cruel,” stated attorney Jim Lawing.
Of course, the anti-choicers who are responsible for this legal circus (they used an obscure Kansas law that allows citizen to petition for a grand jury investigation with little or no evidence), argue that all identifying information will be removed from the records. Unsurprisingly, this argument is rather disingenuous. While the possibility of abortion patients being “outed” is of grave concern, removing identifying information doesn’t solve the full problem. The fact that the patient’s identifying information will be removed doesn’t answer the question of privacy violation. Imagine a total stranger breaking into your house and going through your personal things — photo albums, prescriptions, bedside drawers, dirty laundry, your email, etc. — but somehow turns out to be the worst robber ever, and doesn’t manage to find any bills, letters, etc. that would provide identifying information. The fact that you don’t have to worry too much about identity theft will be some relief — but you’re still going to feel hugely violated.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Apr
6
This is How Much a Woman is Worth in America
Filed Under assholes, courts gone crazy, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sexism, violence against women and girls | 26 Comments
Trigger Warning
UPDATE: Tressa Gross’ cousin has shared his victim impact statement with us in the comments. I’ve verified his relation through this news article, which also provides some insight into Berger’s light sentence — assuming that his lawyer is telling the truth, which is always a gamble.
A St. Louis man named John Berger was sentenced in the death of Tressa Gross. You can see his photograph in the article; I was going to post it, and then decided that I couldn’t stand looking at his horrible fucking face for that long.
Berger admitted — is not accused of, admitted — to drugging Gross with GHB for the purposes of raping her. And the dose he gave her was a fatal one. He has apparently done this to countless other women, but this time I guess he made a mistake in his quest to derail a woman’s life with rape and ended it instead. Berger raped Gross. And then she died.
This man raped and killed a woman, a woman who he had only met that night. More than just being a horrible person, he’s a menace to society. This could have been anyone.
And for that, he will spend 5 years in jail. Maybe. He’s eligible for parole in four years.
For admitting to raping and killing a woman.
Popularity: 33% [?]
Apr
4
Maximum Sentence
Filed Under courts gone crazy, parenthood, patriarchy, violence against women and girls | 4 Comments
Cesar Rodriguez has received a maximum sentence for the manslaughter of seven-year-old stepdaughter Nixzmary Brown. Nxzmary died of child abuse syndrome, specifically from blunt impact to the head with subdural hematoma. It followed years of abuse at the hands of her stepfather who beat her, starved her (she weighed 36lbs), tied her to chairs, apparently left her naked during/after beatings (i.e. almost certainly committed some form of sexual abuse), and forced her to urinate in a litter box. After a very ugly and disturbing trial, the judge did the right thing. Emphasis mine:
As he faced the judge about to sentence him for causing his 7-year-old stepdaughter’s death, Cesar Rodriguez said he was sorry. He said he loved his stepdaughter, Nixzmary Brown. He said he would serve his time. Still, Mr. Rodriguez said Thursday before a packed courtroom in Brooklyn, “I can honestly say that I’m being accused of something I did not do.”
Mr. Rodriguez’s assertion carried little weight with Justice L. Priscilla Hall of State Supreme Court. She sentenced him to the maximum term — 26 1/3 to 29 years in prison — for his role in the beating death of Nixzmary in 2006. The minimum was 15 years.
Mr. Rodriguez, 29, who was convicted last month of first-degree manslaughter and unlawful imprisonment, will be in his 50s before he is eligible for parole.
The sentence brought some comfort to prosecutors; they had charged Mr. Rodriguez with second-degree murder, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, but had to settle for the manslaughter conviction. Several members of the deeply divided jury have said that although they deplored Mr. Rodriguez’s conduct — he admitted beating Nixzmary daily in the final weeks of her life — they could not agree that he had shown “depraved indifference,” the standard for second-degree murder, in causing her death.
[. . .]
In her plea for the maximum sentence, Ms. Dwimoh reminded the judge that Mr. Rodriguez had a record of bad behavior. She noted that he was discharged from the Army in lieu of court-martial for sending sexual pictures of himself to a minor; that he was convicted of assaulting a relative; that he was charged with assaulting a U.P.S. driver; and, recently, indicted on charges of trying to smuggle homemade knives into his cell at Rikers Island.
“There is no end to Cesar Rodriguez’s violent ways,” she said.
Ms. Dwimoh also urged Justice Hall to consider Nixzmary’s five siblings. No sentence, she said, “could bring their sister back to them or the loss of the innocence of their childhood.” She said that Javier, Nixzmary’s older brother, had told prosecutors Wednesday that “he has prayed that when Cesar gets out of jail he is very frail and weak so that he can’t hurt any other children again.”
Rodriguez’s lawyers are still engaging in disgusting antics, including trying to have the verdict overturned, accusing the prosecution of withholding evidence (with no basis that I’ve seen reported), and outrageously claiming misconduct by the jury who somehow managed to find that this fuck did not have “a depraved indifference to life.”
I still find it utterly outrageous that Rodriguez managed to receive only a manslaughter conviction. But I do take some comfort in knowing that he will not be eligible for parole for 26 years. The sad, innocent hope of Nixzmary’s brother Javier is moving and distressing, but against the odds, I hope with him.
Popularity: 11% [?]
Apr
1
Taking the Word “Judge” Out of Context
Filed Under books, courts gone crazy, media, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sexism, slut-shaming, stereotypes, violence against women and girls | 9 Comments
A new UK book about sexual assault reveals some judges’ disturbing if not particularly unexpected views about victims of sexual assault and their personal role in “interpreting” sexual assault laws.
Judges have undermined a law intended to stop defence lawyers cross-examining women in rape cases about their sexual history, by continuing to insist on their discretion to allow it, a new book discloses.
Interviews with 17 judges in London and Manchester found that some insisted they still had a wide discretion to allow questions on sexual history, although the law was changed in 2000 to impose severe limits on questioning.
One judge described the provision as “pretty pathetic because it’s get-roundable”.
Another said: “I’m not one for being unduly fettered. I’ve been appointed to do a job on the basis that I have a certain amount of judgment, and to be fettered or shackled by statutory constraints I don’t think helps anybody.”
In other words: “I’m a judge goddammit. That means it’s my job to judge. Who said anything about the law?” Or, perhaps: “Oh yeah, well I judge that your law is stupid! In your face!”
Popularity: 15% [?]
Mar
19
“Conscience” has nothing to do with it
Filed Under anti-choice extremism, class and economics, courts gone crazy, discrimination, human rights, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, reproductive justice, slut-shaming, women’s health | 14 Comments
Yet again, an Illinois court is hearing a case about the state’s requirement that all pharmacies dispense emergency contraception. This time it’s in the Illinois Supreme Court hearing the same old tired crap about how requiring a person whose job is to provide medical care to actually provide medical care is somehow breaching their rights.
The rule doesn’t require pharmacies to stock Plan B, but it does require pharmacies to order the medicine if a patient requests it.
The patients whose prescriptions were returned by Vander Bleek and Kosirog’s pharmacies didn’t ask that the medicine be ordered when told that the businesses didn’t stock Plan B. But if asked, the pharmacies would refuse to order Plan B. That could result in suspension of their licenses to operate, Rienzi said.
Okay. Good. I actually doubt that the state would have the nerve to suspend their license, but if they did? Good. They should. I don’t think I’ve made it any big secret that I absolutely do not believe pharmacists should have the right to refuse to dispense EC. While pharmacies are indeed private businesses, they also happen to provide a public service. Refusing medical care is not okay.
Popularity: 20% [?]
Mar
18
Breaking: Nixzmary Brown’s Stepfather Convicted of Manslaughter
Filed Under courts gone crazy, misogyny, parenthood, patriarchy, violence against women and girls | 18 Comments
Cesar Rodriguez – stepfather of Nixzmary Brown, the 7-year-old girl who was subject to persistent physical abuse that eventually killed her – was convicted of manslaughter.
A jury in Brooklyn acquitted Cesar Rodriguez, the stepfather of 7-year-old Nixzmary Brown, of second-degree murder Tuesday, but convicted him of a lesser charge, first-degree manslaughter, for fatally beating her as punishment for stealing a snack and jamming his computer printer with toys.
The lower charge carries a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison; second-degree murder carries a possible life sentence.
The verdict, reached on the fourth day of deliberations after an eight-week trial, brought an ambiguous end to the first trial in one of the most horrific child deaths in the city’s recent history, one that triggered an overhaul of the city’s child welfare system. Nixzmary’s mother, Nixzaliz Santiago, is to be tried later on murder charges.
The difference between second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter is subtle. In convicting Mr. Rodriguez, 29, of first-degree manslaughter, the jury determined that Mr. Rodriguez had caused Nixzmary’s death by recklessly engaging in conduct that created a grave risk of serious physical injury. To find him guilty of second-degree murder, the jury would have had to determine that he acted with “depraved indifference to human life.”
During the eight-week trial, Mr. Rodriguez’s main lawyer, Jeffrey T. Schwartz, told jurors that though Mr. Rodriguez, who admitted beating Nixzmary regularly, was a child abuser, he was not a killer and that he never thought any of his beatings would cause Nixzmary’s death.
How, exactly, the jury felt that the man who beat his stepdaughter to death – after keeping her tied to chairs, forcing her to urinate in a litter box and feeding her so little that she weighed about as much as your average 4-year-old – did not, without a reasonable doubt, have a “depraved indifference to human life,” I do not know. But apparently, they did.
I have written about this case, and particularly the trial, with disgust. This has been over both the murder of a 7-year-old girl and the defense attorney who defended him by claiming that Nixzmary was a troublemaker who just had to be tied to chairs, and wasn’t actually at an unsafe weight. The guy has been defended by others who think that he is just doing his job, and hey, might have even been using a repulsive defense in order to increase the chances of conviction while not appearing as though he had failed to vigorously defend his client. But interestingly enough, he has repeatedly called for a mistrial, accused the prosecution of “cheating” (with no explanation that I found) and is now promising to appeal the decision instead of convincing his client of the absolute truth, which is that he got a better deal than he deserved and anyone could have reasonably expected.
In the end, I don’t really think that 25 years (assuming that he gets a maximum sentence) is enough. But I am glad to see that this guy’s ass will be going to prison. No one should be allowed to treat anyone this way, particularly a child, and get away with it.
What do you think about the verdict?
Popularity: 21% [?]
Mar
9
Report IT Now!
Filed Under action alert, activism, courts gone crazy, feminism, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 4 Comments
A group of sexual assault survivor advocates has begun a campaign called Report IT Now! The idea behind it is to empower sexual assault survivors to break their silence while raising awareness about the huge number of sexual assault cases that occur in this country and go unreported. It’s also about something I’ve brought up a lot, lately — the way that the legal system routinely revictimizes those survivors who do come forward.
If you have been sexually assaulted, please consider filling out this form. You may also fill it out for another person if they are unable to do so themselves (i.e. the survivor is disabled, a child, or no longer living). This is not a police report. But if you’d like to make a legal report, the campaign will forward your report to law enforcement officials. Any sexual assault can be reported, regardless of type, severity, or how long ago the assault occurred. Survivors of every gender may report. Though the campaign is very clearly geared towards Americans, there is absolutely nothing on the form that prevents a person of any other nationality from using it to report. Though they will ask for your name, you can choose to not provide it. Regardless of whether or not you choose to provide your name, your report will be used for survey purposes only and your personal information will be kept confidential.
On April 29th, the statistical information gathered from the reports will be used as a part of the protests outside of courthouses around the country for Angela Shelton Day.
I strongly encourage any survivors out there to report. I did so myself, yesterday, and I can’t say that it was fun. In fact, it was pretty difficult. But it was also therapeutic. And I’m glad that I did it.
The campaign has been put together as a collaboration between PAVE and Angela Shelton. If you’ve never heard of Angela Shelton, check out this page about her book and film. (At first I was puzzled, thinking that she was just the most self-absorbed activist in the world who decided to name a day after herself. I assure you that it’s is far more interesting than that.) Thanks to Holly at Menstrual Poetry for the head’s up.
Report IT and spread the word!
Popularity: 19% [?]
Mar
7
Bad Ass Women’s Activist(s) of the Week: Smacking Down Rape Apologists Edition
Filed Under Europe, International, activism, bad ass women’s activist of the week, courts gone crazy, feminism, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, rape and sexual assault, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 14 Comments
A defense attorney has yet again made a highly offensive argument about how a victim was advertising her desire to be raped by her choice of clothing. But this time, instead of just saying “oh well,” or “tsk tsk” or “everyone deserves a defense no matter how misleading and unethical,” a government official is actually doing something about it (emphasis and brackets mine).
An MSP is demanding action from the legal profession after a lawyer used the way a teenage sex assault victim was dressed as a defence for a client.
Iain Smith also brought up the 15-year-old’s sexual history and said she was not vulnerable.
His client, Rikki Tainsch, was given three years probation for plying the girl with drink then attacking her.
SNP MSP [Scottish National Party Member of Scottish Parliament] Roseanna Cunningham has lodged a parliamentary motion calling for such comments to be banned from the courts.
Tainsch, who had never met the 15-year-old before the day he attacked her, took her to his home in Tibbermore, Perthshire, in August last year.
He then gave her enough vodka and Irn Bru to make her violently sick.
She went to bed feeling unwell but woke to find the 24-year-old assaulting her.
During the trial at Perth Sheriff Court, Mr Smith said the teenager had been “scantily clad”, wearing shorts, black boots and a white top.
He also stated: “There was a suggestion the girl had been sexually active before.
“I don’t think it is fair to say this was a very vulnerable person.”
Damn straight these kinds of comments should be banned from court. I’ve made this argument more times than I can count (you’ll find many examples under the slut-shaming and courts gone crazy categories). Thank you, thank you, thank you Ms. Cunningham. If it hasn’t been made clear yet, she really is a bad ass:
Popularity: 53% [?]
Mar
5
Not the Kind of Consent I Support
Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, courts gone crazy, discrimination, legislation, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, reproductive justice, sex and sexuality, slut-shaming, social conservatives, women’s health | 5 Comments
Arizona, apparently discontented with simply attempting to strip pregnant drug addicts of their human and civil rights, has now decided to work on destroying any rights that pregnant teenagers in the state may have left. A new bill would mandate that the only way a teenage girl can get a court waiver for an abortion without parental consent is to prove that she is mature enough to make the decision. Sound kind of vague? It is. And that’s precisely the point.
A minor would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she is mature enough to get an abortion without her parents’ consent, under a bill passed Tuesday by the House of Representatives.
Supporters say that HB 2263 just codifies a 2003 ruling on the existing parental-consent law by the Arizona Court of Appeals, in which the court specified criteria that can be used to determine if a minor is mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion.
Under the bill, the court could consider factors, including whether the minor has traveled on her own, handled her own finances, lived outside her parents’ home and made other significant decisions.
The measure also requires the court to weigh whether she has considered all her options and the potential consequences.
You know, the standard “a teenage girl who can’t confide in her daddy about an abortion needs her legislators and judges to take his place, and a daddy’s job is to restrict his daughter’s life no matter what the consequences” kind of fare. But what the hell does “mature enough” mean? Does anyone know? And what teenage girl handles her finances while living outside of the home before age 17? A few, certainly, but come on, now.
In this article we get a vague but somewhat more reliable description of how “mature enough” will actually be interpreted:
Popularity: 22% [?]
Mar
4
International Sex Workers Rights Day
Filed Under blogswarm, class and economics, courts gone crazy, discrimination, feminism, human rights, misogyny, objectification, pornography, rape and sexual assault, sex and sexuality, sex work, sexual exploitation and harassment, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 26 Comments
As I briefly mentioned earlier, yesterday was International Sex Workers Rights Day. I missed it; I didn’t know that it was going on until I’d already posted for the day, and I just didn’t have the time for a second post. So I planned to write about it today instead. I felt slightly guilty about that, but now that I’m well aware that the issue didn’t get nearly as much coverage as it should have, I feel really guilty. I tell you this not only by way of explanation, but also to say that if you blog, I know it’s easy to miss things and to not blog about something when you should. And it’s not too late to make it right.
That being said, to those who purposely avoided blogging on the topic, I understand why. Talking about sex work causes fighting, and not the feminist vs. troll kind, but the feminist vs. feminist kind. Positioning yourself in that argument isn’t a fun thing to do, particularly if you think that each side has at least a couple of good points, and it’s easy to avoid the question all together (this is of course, what we call “privilege”). But that doesn’t make avoiding it right. I’m fine with everyone voicing their opinions, but I do want to let everyone know up front that I will not allow things to get ugly, personal or insulting. And while I’m not going to insist that everyone post from a pro-decriminalization standpoint, I do insist that comments come from a perspective that promotes rights for sex workers — however you believe that those rights are best obtained. I’ve never had to ban a feminist before, or even ask one to stop posting; please don’t make me start today.
So. Why sex workers’ rights? Well, it’s pretty simple. Even those sex workers who enjoy their jobs get a hell of a raw deal. All around the world, sex workers are: investigated and arrested for making a living, deported even when there is evide