• BlogHer Ad Network

  More from BlogHer

  Advertise here

  BlogHer Privacy Policy

• Categories

  2008 election abortion action alert activism Africa anti-choice extremism Asia assholes Australia bad ass women’s activist of the week beauty myths bigotry blogging blog news blogswarm books class and economics courts gone crazy cross-post Democrats disability discrimination education and schools Europe excursions fat-shaming feminism fun gender homophobia and transphobia human rights International legislation LGBTQ issues marketing media misogyny objectification offensive remark of the week parenthood paternalism patriarchy politics pop culture pornography pregnancy products race and racism random rape and sexual assault religious fanaticism reproductive justice Republicans reviews self-promotion sex and sexuality sexism sexual exploitation and harassment sex work slut-shaming social conservatives South America stereotypes videos violence against women and girls WOC issues women’s health work

• Archives

  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007

• "In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a masochist." --Gloria Steinem

  
  
• 
  

• "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." —Margaret Mead

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

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.

Read more

Popularity: 16% [?]

VERY STRONG TRIGGER WARNING

The story of Romona Moore’s murder is horrific, not only because of the terrifying brutality involved, but because of the terrifying apathy that allowed it to occur. Moore is dead because she and those who tried to help her were ignored. It’s a really shitty consolation, but the very least we can do, to pay attention now. If you think your mental health can handle it, I urge you to please read the full story.

You know, I’m one of those feminists who thinks that racism is indeed a feminist issue, just like poverty, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and much more are feminist issues, simply because these are factors that oppress women on a daily basis and prevent them from living lives freely, safely and to their full potential. I’m sad that so many seem to disagree — but even if you do disagree on the basis outlined above, I don’t know how anyone could read Romona Moore’s story and not see how racism is a feminist issue, when racism is allowing and assisting the unspeakably violent rape, torture and murder of black women. As for the lawsuit, I hope like hell that her mother wins it.

The failure of authorities to care about the unexplained disappearance of a black woman is not an isolated incident. Not by a long shot. And neither is average people failing to do the right thing when given the chance.

All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.

There are many reasons that people do nothing, and sometimes they are justified. It may be believed (often very rightly) that doing the “right thing” will result in more violence or more severe consequences than turning a blind eye. Sometimes one’s own life is on the line. But I don’t see that this was the case here, either for the police officers that refused to even open an investigation, or for the man — probably numerous men — who saw Moore after she had been tortured raped and was probably about half-dead, and did nothing. Not even an anonymous phone call . . . that is, not before it was too late.

I read stories like these, and I find myself wondering where the hell the good people who do something are. And sometimes I wonder how “good” we can really call the people to do nothing. SAFER has an excellent post about bystander training and learning to be the person who does something. Despite our hunches and hopes for ourselves, I don’t think that any of us truly know if we are that person until put in the position. But at the very least, I want to believe that we can learn from the fatal mistakes of others.

Story via What About Our Daughters?

cross-posted from Feministe

Popularity: 7% [?]

Did anyone doubt that my first post back would be about a rape-related issue that is considered “controversial”? If not, you know me well.

This makes me very happy.

. . . Well, almost.

You see, the British Home Office has released this campaign to fight the sex trafficking industry — and from what I can tell, I love the concept (I have a practical criticism later). But, nowhere can I find the full text on the poster or an image large enough to make out the small text myself. As the Home Office has received my criticism before for some pretty terrible anti-rape ads, I’d like to know the full text before I sing its praises. If you find it, please send it on! I’ll be looking for it over the next few days; just be aware that my opinion is subject to change or expand on that basis. But here’s what we know:

Posters will appear in clubs and pubs from Monday warning men against paying for sex in brothels with exploited or trafficked women.

The posters, which will be piloted in men’s toilets in Westminster and Nottingham, will say “Walk in a Punter. Walk out a Rapist”.

They are part of a six-month home office review into tackling the demand for prostitution, which began in January, and aim to point out that trafficked women are forced into selling sex, and that forced sex is rape.

“So if you pay for sex with a trafficked woman what does that make you?” the posters ask.

They also urge Johns “if [they're] man enough” to call Crime Stoppers if they come across something suspicious.

Read more

Popularity: 15% [?]

Rev. Stuart Campbell sent me this email in response to this post about Johnny Vegas:

Sexual harrassment

…is what you will doubtless describe this email at, since you seem to be on only the remotest of nodding terms with your marbles. However, I do urge you with the greatest of sincerity to reconsider your approach to what you incredibly damagingly describe as “feminism”. I have no idea whatever of your personal circumstances beyond the comments you make on your blog, but it appears that you’ve suffered some kind of sexual assault short of rape, but desperately wish to channel the anger of those who have been raped.

I have no desire to minimise whatever you suffered, but as someone who’s worked with several rape victims I find this behaviour deeply troubling, and rather more importantly know it to be greatly counter-productive in terms of attitudes to women. Perhaps things are different in America, where it appears to be widely acceptable to call for the murder of abortion-clinic doctors and the like, and adopt a rather cavalier approach to human life in general, but in the rather more rational environment of the rest of Western society your attitude only serves to encourage and empower misogyny and the trivialisation of all forms of sexual violence by portraying genuine victims as hysterical exaggerators. Your attitude to debate, rather astonishingly in the circumstances, only makes your position even weaker.

Regards,
Rev. S. Campbell

If Campbell actually has worked with rape victims, I offer those victims my greatest sympathies and hope that they find the actual help they need.

Read more

Popularity: 29% [?]

UPDATE: The Guardian has removed O’Hara’s blog post about the Johnny Vegas incident and Vegas has filed a complaint. This does not surprise me, actually, as Britain has very strong libel laws and the post called the actions “sexual assault” in the title even though he was not charged or convicted of anything. Personally, I don’t think that this means the incident did not happen. The facts are supposed to be in dispute, but this will be the case with any crime. Again, I’ve seen no one dispute the sexual assault — I have seen disputes over whether or not penetrative rape took place. I also haven’t found a statement from Vegas about the incident, a statement from the woman who was allegedly assaulted, or a statement from O’Hara in defense or retraction of her article.

Of course, I feel that I made it clear in the blog post that he has been neither charged nor convicted of any crime. And I stand by everything I said, in the context of an opinion about what the nature of these actions would be if they occurred, and so long as its recognized that the opinion on this specific instance was based off of an eye-witness account that was corroborated and printed in a major international newspaper. I am reopening comments, but will absolutely close them again if things get out of hand like they did last time.

Warning: I personally found this to be very upsetting and triggering.

Read more

Popularity: 41% [?]

Will someone tell me what the fuck this shit is?

A study has concluded that men often “misinterpret” women’s subtle messages during a sexual encounter when the message means “stop”. But my WTF is not towards the study, which is nonetheless very interesting to talk about — my outrage is at the blog post from Broadsheet (emphasis mine).

Now, for the ear steam: I think it’s unfair to blame this sexual miscommunication on men. Just as men are misreading women’s indirect resistance, women are miscalculating how men will interpret their cues to slow down or stop. (Interestingly enough, in previous research, Motley found that women use indirect messages of resistance to avoid upsetting men, but most men easily accept direct resistance.) I also find it hard to blame men for not correctly reading women’s indirect resistance; women are often expected to, in the very least, put on a halfhearted performance as the steadfast sexual gatekeeper — even if it’s clear that she ultimately intends to abandon her post for the night. Given that cultural script — first she resists, then she consents — how is it any surprise that a guy would misinterpret a woman’s subtle suggestions to slow down?

What. The. Fuck.

Of course, the commenters think that it’s the best damn thing since sliced bread.

When Clark-Flory began this post with anger for the concept of “faulty male introspection,” I was with her. The idea sounded pretty damn offensive to me, too. What, guys are just too stupid to talk to women and ask what they mean when unsure? Women are a whole different species that we can’t expect men to actually communicate with? It’s not that he’s sexually assaulting you, ladies, it’s that he has faulty male introspection.

But no. That’s not what she was mad about. She was mad because it placed all the blame on guys. Due to ambiguous writing, I’m not even sure if she merely thinks that women need to take some of the blame, or if she thinks men should be entirely off the hook.

Read more

Popularity: 24% [?]

Because John McCain is a misogynist nutbag. As are his fellow Republicans.

Yesterday, Republican Senators successfully filibustered — that’s right, not just voted against but fucking filibustered — a bill that would provide those who have been the victims of discriminatory pay with more legal recourse. In other words, they filibustered a civil rights bill. Because Republicans have so learned the error of their prejudiced ways.

Republicans said the proposal to ease the time constraints would prompt more lawsuits and lead to litigation over outdated cases. “This debate today is not about allowing, favoring or supporting discrimination,” said Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia.

[. . .]

Mr. McCain, who was campaigning in Louisiana, skipped the vote but told reporters he would have opposed the bill since it could contribute to frivolous lawsuits harmful to businesses.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, accused Democrats of unfairly trying to paint opponents of the bill as unsympathetic to victims of salary discrimination. “The only ones who will see an increase in pay are some of the trial lawyers who bring the cases,” he said.

Um, what exactly, Senator Hatch, is being unfairly represented? Victims of unfair pay discrimination need a recourse, and you are actively denying it to them. You’re openly protecting companies who have a history of discrimination. And you are allowing, favoring or supporting discrimination, Senator Isakson, by refusing to hold those corporations who have engaged in it responsible for their actions. This is pretty fucking simple.

John McCain didn’t show up to vote — but did support the “it would provoke lawsuits” argument (um, assholes, that’s the point), and had this to say:

“They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else,” McCain said. “And it’s hard for them to leave their families when they don’t have somebody to take care of them.

“It’s a vicious cycle that’s affecting women, particularly in a part of the country like this, where mining is the mainstay; traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work, to say the least,” he said.

Oh, I see: so Senator McCain, you’re going to start supporting flexible work schedules and reduced working hours for both parents? You’re going to promote men taking a more active role in child-rearing and support social services that help women with child care? You’re also going to support those who are genuinely stuck in low paying jobs because a lack of educational opportunity with resources, and work to improve school systems and economic equality?

Um . . . no. McCain supports the “free market” — the very same free market that allows employers to discriminate against women, racial minorities, the disabled and LGBTQ individuals. He’s just using an opportunity to remind everyone that women belong back in the kitchen with a child on each hip. He also needed to point out that women are only paid less is because we just can’t stop popping out the kiddies, are uneducated and don’t do equal work — even though the Ledbetter case shows that this argument is a bunch of shit.

Below the jump, what I think of McCain and the Senate Republicans (all but six of whom voted to block the measure).

Read more

Popularity: 18% [?]

Victim ‘had sex with her captor willingly’

And this is where we have a conversation about how exceedingly few fucking people in the world actually understand what rape is — and about how cops are some of the worst rape-deniers.

Here is the back story.

I’d say more, but pieces of my head seem to be scattered all over the room . . . and once I collect them all, I do believe there’s a fetal position with my name on it.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Trigger Warning

Via abyss2hope comes this disturbing and nauseating story about a wedding disc jokey who has been arrested for allegedly sharing an instructional video on how to sexually abuse children.

A New York disc jockey has been accused of sharing an instructional video showing how to sexually abuse children.

The case was referred to the Queens district attorney’s office by police in Illinois who said they found two child porn videos in an Internet file-sharing program the DJ was using in February.

Police say one video shows a 4-year-old girl having sex with a man and the other gives advice and examples on how to sexually abuse minors.

Sigh. Everybody say it with me: a 4-year-old cannot have sex. This called rape. This other article describes the video slightly differently as showing “4-year-old girl performing a sex act on a man.” While desperately trying to avoid an image in my mind’s eye, I can make an educated guess as to what that “sex act” was in order for them to describe it as the 4-year-old girl performing it on the man. But I can assure you that he was indeed the one raping her. As a 4-year-old, she was not doing the “performing,” assholes. For fuck’s sake.

This is all a tangent, but Theologian said here that feminists need to work on a way to hold the media accountable for the language they use, and I couldn’t agree more. Especially since (as a general rule) when I do google news searches, more stories about rape come up under the keyword “sex” than under the keyword “rape”. Often, media outlets will excuse this language on the basis of “he’s only alleged to have raped her! To say ‘rape’ would be misleading!” First of all, that’s generally bull. Secondly, it doesn’t fly in this case, as under absolutely no circumstances can a 4-year-old consent to sex act.

Anyway, back to the story at hand.

Read more

Popularity: 18% [?]

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.)

Read more

Popularity: 18% [?]

Who remembers the 2005 and 2006 California propositions that tried to instate parental notification rules for minors seeking abortions? You know, the ones that failed? Well, not so fast. Looks like it’s probably going to be on the ballot this year, too. Meet the man you can thank:

Jim Holman, owner of the San Diego Reader, has spent millions trying to persuade Californians to pass a law requiring parents to be notified before their underage daughter has an abortion.

After two failed ballot measure campaigns, Holman said last year that he didn’t want to try again.

But when other anti-abortion advocates, including winemaker Don Sebastiani, launched a third campaign, Holman couldn’t resist opening up his checkbook once again.

“Sebastiani was not deterred. He said, ‘We have to go back again and again,’ ” Holman said. “He led with big donations and I sort of followed.”

The result could make California political history.

The $1.8 million donated by Holman and Sebastiani so far is likely to put a parental-notification initiative before voters for the third time in four years. The measure would require a physician to notify a parent or guardian 48 hours before performing an abortion for a girl under the age of 18.

If the measure qualifies, it would be the first time since the California initiative process was established in 1914 that the state’s voters will consider the same measure so many times in a four-year period.

Planned Parenthood is arguing that Holman, while not doing anything illegal, is abusing the electoral process, and I agree. No, money alone does not get an initiative on a ballot, but if you spend $1.8 on an issue that inspires the kind of passion abortion does and don’t manage to get the just-under 700,000 signatures needed in a very large state, you’d have to be pretty damn inept. Holman is, of course, perfectly within his rights — that doesn’t mean there’s nothing unethical about it.

Read more

Popularity: 17% [?]

I love the folks over at SAFER, and you really ought to go check out this post.

In short, some guy wrote a really obnoxious opinion piece about rape for his student newspaper. (The jackass starts off by saying that rape is “controversial” — WTF?) Essentially, he was playing the How Far Can I Go Before It’s Rape? Game. Where’s the line in the sand? Can you please tell me the exact point at which sex that is incredibly ethically dubious technically turns into sexual assault? Consent is just so confuuuuusing. How can I knoooow? (psst: consent is when she says YES.) He also throws in a bit of “if the woman who was raped doesn’t call it rape then it’s not” . . . and fuck all the social conditioning that says women who have been raped are damaged goods and that what happened to them is their own fault. Also, ignore that using the word “rape” only to have your experience invalidated hurts more than if you don’t go out on that limb.

But in the middle of it all, he manages to let an inadvertent nugget of truth slip out. I can only assume that it was an accident. But there it is, and Ashley pounces on it and makes the excellent point that yes, sometimes definitions of sexual assault can go too far — and when they do, it hurts women and anti-rape advocates a hell of a lot more than it hurts the rapists. And while I don’t really think that this is an exceedingly common occurrence — in fact, the opposite problem is one that comes up a lot more — I’ve seen it enough that it needs to be addressed. So go read the post.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Next Page →

•