Jesus Christ.

An earthquake in China has killed almost 9,000 people, as of an hour ago. That number is obviously likely to climb.

This of course follows on the heels of the the cyclone in Myanmar that has officially killed 32,000 people, with total death toll estimates in the range of 60,000 to 100,000. And then there’s the far, far (far) less extreme but closer to home and still tragic case of deadly tornadoes in Missouri, Oklahoma and Georgia.

I’m willing to place some money on opportunist “religious” folk using these unimaginable events as some kind of vehicle to condemn abortion and gay rights (but already too nauseous to verify if it has happened). But even my rational atheist self is pretty damn freaked out by this happening all at once. And perhaps rightly so. I’m no scientist and don’t pretend to be, but I don’t quite believe that global warming had no hand in any of these natural disasters.

Quite honestly, I don’t know what to say. I don’t know if there is anything to say in the face of so many lives lost. There perhaps will be as there are further developments. This will not go away overnight, and there are likely to be ramifications for many years. In many areas, there will be poverty, hunger, homelessness and violence. In Myanmar, all of this has begun or is strongly anticipated. And in addition to caring for the simple reason of our shared humanity, as feminists we know that when natural disasters strike, women suffer the most, in addition to children and those who are the most economically disadvantaged

The American Red Cross has been helping in Myanmar, and I can only assume that aid is on the way to China. You can make a donation to the International Response Fund through their website. If you would like to specify where you would like the funds to go — for instance, if you want your donation to go specifically to the Myanmar crisis — you will have to make your donation to Red Cross over the telephone at 1-800-HELP-NOW.

If you know of other/better charities or ways to help, please let me know and I will add them to the post.

[Photo of earthquake wreckage in China via National Geographic.]

If like me, you’re fed up with stupid sexist commercials, check out a few getting some feminist skewering:

I want to see more of Sarah Haskins. And I also might have to start watching InfoMania. It kind of looks like VH1’s Best Week Ever . . . but with jokes that are funny.

h/t Feministing

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.

In short, rape apologism shifts. When it’s a “date rape” people will say “how do we know she didn’t consent? It’s not like she’s covered in bruises.” When she’s covered in bruises, the victim in question will simply “like it rough.” When the woman is unconscious and therefore can’t just “like it rough,” she will be accused of misidentifying her attacker, or people will argue “well, she didn’t say no.” When she does say no, it’s “why didn’t she fight? He didn’t have a weapon.” When she did fight back or he did have a weapon, it’s “well there’s no DNA evidence.” When there’s DNA evidence, it’s “well he probably did it, but it’s not like there were any witnesses . . .” When there are witnesses, three of them in fact, who are willing and eager to testify?

When there are witnesses, they just won’t be allowed up on the fucking stand (emphasis mine).

Santa Clara County prosecutors never sought the grand jury testimony of three young women who rescued a 17-year-old girl allegedly being sexually assaulted at a house party hosted by members of the De Anza College baseball team, two of the women said Monday.

“We think our statements should have been heard,” said Lauren Chief Elk in her first public comments since state prosecutors announced Friday they backed an earlier decision by Santa Clara County District Attorney Dolores Carr not to pursue charges in the case.

“We were never asked to be in front of a grand jury,” April Grolle said. “I don’t really understand the decision.”

Both women, now 21, expressed their frustration at a lack of prosecution that Chief Elk called “a complete travesty of justice.”

Carr spokesman Nick Muyo declined to comment on why the women were not asked to testify before the grand jury, saying that Santa Clara County prosecutors would not comment on the case beyond a statement released Friday that did not address the grand jury process or other issues.

Grand juries are panels that prosecutors can convene in secret to seek an indictment when a crime is suspected.

Carr and prosecutors at state Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office have both said there was insufficient evidence to prove the alleged victim, identified only as Jane Doe, was sexually assaulted at the alcohol-soaked party in March 2007.

Yeah, insufficient evidence. I imagine there would be, if you don’t present any real evidence at all.

There is a hell of a lot to say about this case. I can remind you how hard the victim and her supporters had to fight to even get her case examined. I can remind you of the disgusting, inhuman and inexcusable comments made about the victim. We can talk about the irresponsibility of the prosecutors and the politics they’re playing. We can talk about how fucking stupid they were to grant three accused men immunity, apparently without guaranteeing and insisting that they would testify against their co-rapists. We can talk about how they were probably fucking stupid enough to grant immunity to the one man who all of the three witnesses could identify, seeing as how his ass isn’t being charged either.

We can talk about that. I hope and think that others will. But I want to talk about this:

Lately, I’ve been hearing a hell of a lot about “real rape,” About how using the word “rape” to describe a silly little thing like your boyfriend raping you is trivializing real rape. About how committing rape without a struggle is “wrong,” but you know, promoting those cases over the really brutal ones just hurts us. It makes anti-rape activists look “hysterical,” in fact. “Hey,” these folks say, “we want to stop rape, too! But let’s just focus on the really, really bad ones of my personal choosing so that I don’t have to face the fact that I know a lot of women who have been raped/I have been raped/I might be a rapist.”

There will always be an excuse. If there is one thing to take away from this horrifying miscarriage of justice — and maybe I’m grasping at straws, because I feel like there needs to be something — it is this. No matter what the case, there will always be one that is “worse.” There will always be some way to inspire doubt. There will always be “insufficient evidence.” The woman will have always “wanted it.” Always. I promise you.

And this is why we can’t let these assholes sway us. It’s easy, when feeling like the entire world is against you and your cause to become paranoid and start wondering if maybe they have a point. Maybe spending time on less heinous crimes is a waste. Maybe your own rape wasn’t really all that bad. Maybe you ought to let this one go.

But it’s not so. And the De Anza case is the reason why.

Rape apologism shifts. It’s not static, and this bears repeating. Its a means of protecting an entire culture, an entire legal system and an entire power structure. Of course the excuses and defenses for it will change as needed. It’s a survival strategy. And those using it are fighting for the survival of their right to rape, or for their continued belief in the world as they know and understand it.

There were nine men in that room. We don’t know how many of them actually committed rape — and how many of them didn’t get their “chance” — but standing there and watching a woman be raped, not doing anything to stop it, probably getting off on it, makes you the equivalent of a fucking rapist in my book. Three women saw it. Three women did the right thing. Three women who did not know the victim, had never met her, had nothing to gain and their own safety to lose by intervening. They were brave enough to see and not ignore, brave enough to act and brave enough to speak.

They were brave, and our society is fucking cowardly. The rapists go free and will be declared victims of an over-zealous legal system, the victim will be branded a liar, and more and more men horrible enough to entertain the idea will realize just how goddamn easy it is to get away with rape.

And there will be millions of excuses about how this is okay.

By letting the “less bad” rapes go, by accepting the excuses, we’re not just selling out the women who are actually representative of most rape victims. We’re not just selling out victims of date rape, intimate partner rape and acquaintance rape. We’re not just selling out the women who didn’t fight back. We’re also selling out the woman here, who will have to live her life knowing that the nine men responsible for her rape while she was passed out, ill and helpless, have been vindicated by our judicial system. Because this ploy that ignoring the more common rapes will help victims of the more heinous ones, it’s all a lie. And it has worked. The way that law enforcement, district attorneys offices, judges, juries and members of the community ignore some rapes lends credibility to the idea that the crime isn’t really so bad. By “letting go” of some rapes our society has effectively managed to let go of all of them. Once the arguments are given merit, you can keep on applying them to just about anything.

Including the victims who these apologists claim they’re trying to help. Including cases with impartial witnesses. Someone tell me: if three witnesses can’t get a rape conviction, what the fuck can? And when will the excuses stop?

Story via SAFER

UPDATE: This column will enrage you (particularly the end), but it’s important because it provides a couple of additional key facts.  On the extremely terrifying and disturbing side, the vomit that the victim was covered in is very strongly alleged to not be her own.  On the positive side, the victim is filing a civil suit.  Thanks Nick.

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

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.

On the one hand this messages sounds about as basic as it can get. “Women who are trafficked are forced into sex, forced sex is rape, those who engage in the forced sex are therefore rapists.” Yes, clearly. Just like those who drink too heavily become drunk, driving while drunk is against the law, and those who engage in driving while drunk are therefore . . . *gasp* drunk drivers!

But while this sort of thing seems screamingly obvious to me and many other feminists, the message is one that is painfully needed. I believe that those who commit rape always know that they are having sex to which their partner did not freely consent — they just don’t want to acknowledge the immorality and violence in their actions by calling it “rape”. I don’t think that most Johns who rape trafficked women see their actions as rape (even the most evil rapists in the world don’t want to think of themselves as rapists). I don’t think that most people see Johns who “hire” trafficked women as rapists. But they need to.

In fact, I floated a similar suggestion a while ago:

Making Johns believe that they will face legal prosecution for reporting a suspicious brothel is certainly not going to help matters. These women are generally held prisoner. They can’t come forward. The men who visit brothels can.

For that reason, I personally see benefit in taking out bold ads alongside those in the paper for sex workers stating something along the lines of “X number of women are trafficked into the sex industry every year. If something seems wrong, it probably is. Not leaving could make you a rapist. Walk away and report it.” We need to make men see the difference, to help Johns develop some sort of a conscience, to finally inform them that paying to “have sex” with a trafficked woman is rape. Though, of course, this would only work if the government did actually decide to legalize proper brothels, so that sex workers and brothel owners would not face other legal action in the case of a false report. This is yet another road block.

The idea was probably already out there in a lot of places, though I don’t ever consciously remember seeing it elsewhere. In any case, I’m glad that someone else had the idea. Because it’s one that I honestly did not expect to ever see the light of day, at least not anytime soon.

Now, before it starts: no, this is not going to end sex trafficking, it is not going to end violence against sex workers and it is not going to stop men who visit prostitutes from continuing to visit them. This much should be obvious.

So what is the point? The same as it ever was: to inspire a shift in public opinion. I’ve said before and I’ll say again that I do not thinking highly of Johns. Many sex worker advocates disagree with this position, and despite my agreeing with most of their arguments, this is one view that has not shifted as I have become more educated on this issues. Quite frankly, Johns’ views and actions scare the shit out of me. While reform is a noble and necessary project, I’ve always thought that preventing men from becoming rapists is a lot easier than dealing with them once they have already raped. And I do think that we have a chance every day to prevent more men from becoming the kind of men who do not care about consent, whether it be with a girlfriend or a sex worker. We have the chance to change the common view among women that men are not to blame for their sexual assaults or infidelity with prostitutes, but that the sex workers are. And I think we have the opportunity to draw a line in the public consciousness between selling sex and selling rape.

Of course, it doesn’t take backlash long to begin. Highly ambiguous headlines are appearing: Men told sex trade “is rape”. (The phrase “sex trade” can describe many things.) Message boards that I am not going to link to have members arguing that prostitution prevents rape (because rape is all about unfulfilled sexual desire, and of course prostitutes just can’t be raped) and repeating the same tired but still outrageous line that it’s not rape so much as “theft”. Even some “feminists” are getting in on the action. Want to know why I finally stopped reading Broadsheet, despite the fact that they’re good for the occasional story I haven’t already seen? Lots and lots of reasons, actually, but really it’s because of shit like this. There are, apparently, no shortage of people who are willing to make the argument that, as Marcella so beautifully frames it, “she was really raped but he isn’t really a rapist”.

They are really rapists. A person who rapes is always a rapist. I’ve made the argument before and I stand by it — though because it is rather graphic, I will link to it rather than quote — that Johns absolutely know when they are paying to rape a trafficked woman. If they don’t, I can only believe that it’s because they don’t care enough to pay attention or let the possibility cross their minds. And rape by “negligence” is still rape. Failing to make sure that you have affirmative and non-coercive consent before sexual contact begins is always rape. Again: they just do not care or, as virtually all rapists do, see rape as something entirely different from what they themselves are doing.

With regards to what I already know about this campaign, I have only one concern: are those falsely reported to be potential trafficking victims granted immunity? Prostitution in Britain is technically legal, but many actions with relation to prostitution are not. If men trying to do the right thing are merely going to end up causing non-coerced sex workers to face arrest and prosecution, and therefore be driven underground, I don’t see any net benefit. Helping trafficked women to safety only to put voluntary sex workers in more danger is an ugly and immoral deal, one that’s both difficult to refuse and impossible to accept. If the British government is going to do this, they damn well better make sure that it’s done right, with the goal of reducing all violence, and with the best interest of women in the sex industry in mind, regardless of whether they are voluntary or forced. If they merely intend to protect some victims deemed worthy while creating new ones who are not, my support is revoked.

And seeing all of the things that are right with this campaign, that would be a very sad thing.

What are your thoughts?

It’s only partially about the whole ugly Johnny Vegas thread situation. I’m feeling much better — and I wanted to take a moment to say thank you to everyone who commented or emailed me with such kind words. It really has meant a lot and it did help me through it. You’re great people.

But the situation did come at a rather bad time, since I had a particularly stressful and somewhat emotional week as it was. This has been the worst blog attack that I’ve undergone such far, even worse than the hellish Guitar Hero experience, even if it was only because the attacks were so fucking personal and cruel. Having someone call you a horrible ugly cunt because you criticized a video game is pretty fucked up, but not nearly as bad as being told that you’re mentally unstable and a hysterical exaggerator because you dared to speak about your own sexual assault and to condemn those committed against others. I have such a thicker skin than I did before I began this wonderful blog adventure. But some things . . . some things don’t roll off your back so easily.

Anyway, I’m probably about as over it as I’m going to get for the time being. But the suggestion of a break that I floated ended up sounding like a really good idea for my mental health nonetheless. And I’d rather rest and go back to writing good posts than continue feeling drained and writing some of the half-assed shit that I have been lately.

I’ll see you very soon. Probably by Thursday or Friday. Don’t go away.

[Oh! Since upgrading to wordpress 2.5, I've been getting a lot of complaints about my spam filter. So I've turned off SpamBam and am trying out a new service called Defensio. I think that it will be a big improvement, especially since turning it off allowed me to discover that the reason my blog never received trackbacks and pingbacks, a problem that was driving me mad, was SpamBam's fault. Fuckers. But please let me know if you continue to have problems.]

My apologies that I didn’t get to this sooner, but I’ve been alternately busy and dealing with various personal shit. I can’t say that it has been the best week. But even though my memory is slightly less clear than it was when I should have written the post, I did still want to write about Equality and Justice Day.

It was a bit surreal to be back in Albany, in the legislative building and the convention hall. I was last there, as some may remember, a little bit under two months ago for the Family Planning Advocates of NY conference and lobby day. It also just so happened to be the day that ex-Governor Spitzer was revealed to be a customer with a high end prostitution ring. Even weirder, he was supposed to speak at the conference that morning, and canceled 30 minutes before he was supposed to take the stage. And the group I was lobbying with first heard the news in the afternoon from a gloating Republican legislator who will remain nameless, as we gritted our teeth in strained smiles.

Now that I don’t feel so much like NY is doomed or that the incident will cost the Dems the November election, I now see the whole bizarre, hectic experience as kind of cool. But at the time, I can assure you that it fucking sucked.

Equality and Justice day on Tuesday was much better. As I was joking with my new friends for the day, any day in Albany that doesn’t involve a prostitution scandal, I now consider to be a good day in Albany.

First of all, let me say that The Empire State Pride Agenda did an excellent job with organizing the event (well, with the exception of the lunch mix up). I honestly thought that their people were funny, energized and all around great. I also thought that they did a generally excellent job with diversity in terms of sex, age, and gender identity, though racial diversity was a bit lacking. For the most part, I thought that they displayed a genuine commitment to intersectionality (more on that in a bit). Here would also be a good place to note that they broke a record this year — 1300 people turned out for E&J Day!

The attendees were really cool, too. Since we were divided up based on district, I was separated from the group that I came with and spent the day with people I had never met. Once you get to know me, you’ll probably have a difficult time shutting me up, but when around strangers I’m usually very shy and quiet. But I felt really comfortable around everyone very quickly — there seems to be something about activism that brings people together. I think that it’s instantly knowing that these total strangers share your values and took the time and trouble to come out for something that you also care about. In my experience, it’s incredibly bonding, and this was not an exception.

My favorite part of the day was the rally outside of the legislative building — despite the fact that it was fucking freezing. I was so impressed with the speakers they got to come out, and I also took an instant liking to the MCs.

[I'm the brunette between the woman holding the pride flag and the person in the white jacket, in front of the blue sign.]

First up was Donna Rose, who was listed in the conference information as being a nationally-known transgender activist. I thought that I recognized her name, and when she started speaking she gave me the clue I needed to place her. She used to be on the board of the Human Rights Campaign. She is the transwoman who quit in protest of the organization’s shameful stance on ENDA and wrote this brave, kick ass resignation letter. (For the record, it seemed like no one from HRC (officially) was present at the event, though I don’t want to speculate as to why that was.) Greatly admiring her protest against HRC, I was enthralled, and she was an enigmatic speaker. Unsurprisingly but very importantly, she gave a speech about how you can’t take the T out of LGBT, the importance of community and how we mustn’t turn our backs on the rights of some people unless we want to turn our backs on human rights. I couldn’t agree more, was inspired by her speech, and so heartened to hear the roars of approval from the crowd.

Next, Rev. David Parsons from Lutherans Concerned spoke. His speech really touched me and had my eyes welled up with tears — not for the first or last time of the day. He came out and explained that he is a white, straight man, and that as a result, he has never had to face questions about who he is, where he’s going and whether or not he has a right to be there. His eyes held true humility as he spoke about when he became an LGBT ally. In the 80s, he apparently worked in an opera theater with many gay men. And like so many, he saw the AIDS epidemic hit. He talked about watching his friends die, watching people not care, and then watching his friends’ parents go and take everything they used to own from their sons’ partners. He spoke about being requested to do same-sex marriage ceremonies, and having to explain that he would perform a ceremony but could not legally marry them. And he began to cry as he spoke to “those who were told by their churches that they were not good as their Creator made them.” I’m getting choked up thinking about it now . . . I’m an atheist who very rarely appreciates religious speakers, but I absolutely loved this guy.

H. Alexander Robinson, who is the chief executive officer of the National Black Justice Coalition, spoke next, and he was great, too. His sentiments were similar to those of Donna Rose, but he also talked about race issues. He discussed how civil rights are human rights, the importance of community and how unless we fight for the rights of everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion or gender identity, we are leaving our community behind. I was really happy that they got someone to speak about the intersections between racial justice and LGBT rights, and to connect them as one social justice movement.

They also had a speaker who got to talk more directly about the intersections between LGBT and feminist movements. President of NARAL Pro-Choice NY Kelli Conlin spoke, and I was really surprised and happy to see her there. You know, NARAL (and other reproductive rights organizations, including Planned Parenthood, who I work for) has a lot of work to do when it comes to intersectional politics and adopting a reproductive justice framework. I’m not gonna lie. But I thought the fact that she came down in solidarity with the LGBT community was a great step, and the kind that is taken too infrequently. Alan Lubin from New York State United Teachers also spoke about how LGBT rights are a worker’s rights issue.

Of course, we also did some lobbying. There were three issues on the table. The first is the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA), which would prohibit harassment of students in school (on the basis of virtually everything), change school policies regarding harassment and provide the support that these schools need to live up to the requirements. The second bill is the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), which would expand anti-discrimination legislation to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression in areas such as housing, employment and education. And lastly was, of course, Marriage Equality.

We ended up meeting with the offices of three legislators, one senator and two assembly members (unfortunately, my assemblyman was the one we didn’t get to meet with). We didn’t get to meet with any of the legislators directly, which always disappoints people who are lobbying for the first time (including me), but is generally agreed to actually be preferable. I’ve been lobbying twice before with Planned Parenthood, and things generally went great . . . but not so much when we had to meet with the actual legislators. You see, they’re politicians. And politicians have big egos. Politicians also love to talk about themselves.

(Funny, only tangentially related story: the guy I mentioned above who broke the Spitzer news to my group absolutely loved to talk about himself. He was also a white dude, and our particular lobbying group was, after a few others drifted off, made up of several white women and several black males who were mostly teenagers. It seemed that he felt really uncomfortable, because out of nowhere — we were discussing funding for sex education — he started talking emphatically about he used to own his own business, and he believed in equal opportunity for everyone, so it didn’t matter if someone was a woman, or what color they were, he hired the best person for the job! No, really, he did! There were many frozen faces with tight, polite smiles staring back at him. In trying to relate to the teenagers, he also said that he understood where they were coming from, was once a teenager himself, and knew how important it was to have “the real scoop.” In short, the visit was painful.)

Legislative aides, on the other hand, tend to listen a lot more — or at least make more of an effort to pretend that they are listening. They don’t talk much, except to ask a few questions, tend to write things down and actually give people time to make their personal cases for support of the legislation. It has also been my experience — and don’t ask me why, because I can’t explain it — that the aides of Republican legislators tend to be more liberal than their bosses. On more than one occasion, they’ve actually said that they support the legislation and have been talking to the senator/assembly member about it and were happy to have the additional information to present. And quite frankly, legislators take the opinions of their staff a lot more seriously than the opinions of lobby groups. It can actually be easier to get them on your side by using a middle(wo)man.

Anyway, I thought that the visits went well. The meeting with the Senator’s office, the one we expected to be the most difficult, was a bit shaky. But I think that we got out okay, and that there’s a good chance he’ll at least support DASA. The second meeting, in my opinion, went excellently, and the third seemed to me to go much better than expected.

The people in my group had a lot of great stories to tell, and I was tremendously impressed by their willingness and bravery in opening themselves up to total strangers. As someone who really hates feeling vulnerable, this courage is really something that I admire. In discussing DASA, several teenagers told their painful personal stories with bullying in school and the horrible responses or lack of responses from administrators. We also had several transwomen in our group who told their personal stories of discrimination, bigotry and violence. One woman in particular had me and several others in the room — including the aide — choking back tears. As I didn’t get their permission to do so, I don’t feel right telling their stories here, even anonymously; they’re not mine to tell. But it was a moving and emotional experience.

For my part, I didn’t talk a whole lot in the legislative visits. There were things I could have said, but I felt like it was more important for people to have the chance to tell their own stories, especially since there were more of us present than had time to speak. I think that many allies, definitely including myself, find this to be a difficult line to walk. You want to be there and show your support, and at the same time not appropriate messages or take time away from those who the issues actually affect personally. It also drives me up a wall that people tend to take the opinions of allies more seriously — men when they talk about sexism, white people when they talk about racism, straight people when they talk about homophobia and transphobia — and I think that it’s a problem in itself. I also know that while it sucks and I want to see it change as soon as possible, this is a big part of the reason why allies are important.

So I ended up speaking to only one aide. He was the one male we had a meeting with, and was a bit of a macho guy with a hard, expressionless face. At first, he acted fairly hostile, but seemed to let down his defenses a little bit by the end. As we were leaving, he shook all of our hands, and I was the last out of the room. I was feeling like he needed a push. So I said to him (in a somewhat politic and pandering way) “I just want to point out that this isn’t an issue that only a small group of people care about. I’m a straight, non-trans woman (I doubted he would know the term cisgender), and these issues are important to me, too. I traveled four hours to come here today to show my support, and so did lots of other people — and all of the straight, non-trans people I know also support these issues. It matters to a lot of people.” And again, while it really pisses me off that it took that little speech to do it, he opened up and seemed really energetic and supportive for the first time — he actually said something along the lines of how it was good to have the additional information we brought, “and you know, it’s really hard and important because there is so much ignorance surrounding these issues, and we (I think he meant “we in Albany”) really need to work to change that.”

And I’m right about the broad support. It shocked me to learn that the Pride Agenda’s recent poll showed 78% of New Yorkers support GENDA. In 2006, their poll showed that 53% supported full marriage rights, and since support for marriage equality seems to be increasing everywhere, we can probably assume that it’s currently at least slightly higher — especially since at the time, 72% supported civil unions. And really, how many people are willing to stand up and say that they support unchecked bullying and discrimination against children in schools? They’re out there, but I’d be shocked to learn that they’re a majority. Progress is slowly but surely being made — in fact, the day after Equality and Justice Day, GENDA was passed through the assembly’s Government Operations Committee.

Anyway, I guess that’s about it (and probably more than enough)! You can read more about the day here, here, here and of course at the Pride Agenda’s blog. Thanks to all of the sponsors who provided scholarships for registration and transportation, because without it many people, including myself, would not have been able to attend. And thanks to KaeLyn for inviting me! By any chance, were any readers there?

[First photo stolen from The Agenda blog. Second photo stolen from The Legislative Gazette.]

cross-posted at Feministe

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.

He also posted this on a message board. It happens every so often: a man who I’ve banned — and it’s always a man — can’t believe that some uppity woman tried to silence him. He has a penis! He has a right to say whatever he wants to say wherever and whenever he wants to say it! So in his righteous anger over my banning him, because of my totally irrational anger to something silly like rape (not being able to comment on a blog > sexual assault), he sends a whole slew of trolls my way. And those trolls leave comments like these [sic to just . . . everything]:

Your immediate banning of somone who disagrees with you in a very civil and reasonable manner does far more harm to your cause than good.

Nobody has attempted to say that people who are sexually assaulted did not experience (and continue to experience, often) a terrible ordeal, and nobody has said or even remotely implied that any form of sexual assault is less than reprehensible. However, equating an alleged forced entry with a single digit with, say, being held down and forcefully penetrated several hundred times over the course of an hour is an indefensible position.

I’ve little doubt that everyone commenting (myself and Rev. Campbell included) would (assuming the allegations are true) gladly throw the full force of the law at the fat unfunny prick for such a despicable act - doubly so for trying to make a joke of it. But we won’t know now that you’ve banned everyone, will we?

Give people with reasonably expressed points a chance, however strongly you disagree, or everything you do to support any of your causes will just entrench your opposition further.

I find he descriptions of this “comedy” act disturbing and the lack of action taken by any member of the audience or theatre staff in attendance shocking and appaling.

I do however feel it necessary to point out that what occured wasnt rape. I think it is important to highlight that the 2003 Sexual offences act classifies rape as; Intentional pentration of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person, with a penis.

This act was therefore, under UK law, not rape. It was assault by penetration, which is such penetration but with a part of the body or any other object.

Without the woman involved coming forward to press charges, sadly nothing can be done legally under this offence but perhaps with broad interpretation of the public decency laws, actions by a thrid party who was present could be brought against the performer?

By the way, this is part of the “civil” comment that the first commenter is referring to:

It’s unfortunate when the people brave enough to speak out against unacceptable behaviour are also so pathologically stupid that it serves only to completely undermine their cause. You can print as many made-up definitions of rape as you like, but the only one that counts is the one in law, and in law nothing Vegas did counts as rape. If you had him brought up in court to answer for his actions on those grounds, the case would be thrown out in seconds.

I explained this in the comments on the post, but for those who clearly didn’t comprehend it the first time, here it is again:

Rape is forced sexual intercourse, including vaginal, anal, or oral penetration. Penetration may be by a body part or an object.

* Rape victims may be forced through threats or physical means. In about 8 out of 10 rapes, no weapon is used other than physical force. Anyone may be a victim of rape: women, men or children, straight or gay.

So, folks. I don’t care what the law is. I never said that penetrating a woman against her will with a finger fits the legal definition of rape. In some sane places, it does. In many others, it does not. I don’t give a shit. In many places, a man who has nonconsensual sex with his wife has not legally raped her. But he still raped her. In many places, a man who has sex with a woman who is unconscious has not legally raped her. But he still raped her. In most places, a woman does not have to say “yes” to give consent, but simply fail to say “no.” A situation where she did not say “no” but does not want sex and did not agree to it is still rape. No matter what the law says. Rape is the nonconsensual sexual penetration of another person. It’s not that fucking difficult to grasp.

I still think that Vegas’ ass should be in jail. But I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to presume that rape charges would be thrown out. I never said that they wouldn’t be. If actually taken to court, the highest charges that he could possibly be convicted on would be those falling under sexual assault that is not rape.

But if Vegas penetrated the woman with his finger, he still raped her.

I don’t know why people can’t understand that. I don’t know why people look to the law as some kind of fucking gospel and assume that it is always right. The law is not always right. That’s why we still elect legislative bodies and expect them to do the job of passing and amending legislation — because we have not yet reached a place where laws are timeless and perfect. And I doubt with all my might that we ever will. I can only assume that they’re arguing with me on legal terms because they don’t have anything else. Nope, Vegas will not and probably cannot be tried on rape charges. I never argued otherwise. What the hell is your point?

I also never compared rape with a single digit with gang rape by a stranger with the use of a weapon. I just said that they’re both rape. And they are. Just like injecting someone with a lethal dose of morphine against their will is a hell of a lot “nicer” than stabbing them forty times, setting them on fire and watching them drown in their own blood. If I was forced to choose one of those fates, I would go with the former in a heartbeat. But both are still murder.

If using the word “rape” to describe rape is somehow denigrating feminism, then I sure as hell won’t stop until the entire movement and body of theory doesn’t have a single ounce of credibility left. Luckily, those making these remarks are not feminists, don’t know a damn thing about sexual assault and don’t care enough to do some research before spewing bile all over my blog. If someone agrees with them and calls themselves a feminist, their feminism is certainly not my own, and they are a person with whom I absolutely do not want to be associated.

I said upfront on the post about Vegas’ actions that the story had a strong affect on me personally. It did. However, the fact that this story triggered me doesn’t make me any less credible. In fact, it shows that I know what the fuck I’m talking about. And in any case, this was never about me. Campbell wants to make it about me. He thinks that I only give a shit because I’m psychologically damaged — and says that he doesn’t want to minimize what was done to me, right after calling me crazy, and right before calling me a hysterical exaggerator. (It doesn’t take very long to go from “angry woman” to “hysterical,” does it? Oh, I forgot . . . same thing.)

And you know what? I am psychologically damaged. Sadly, I know that all too well. I think that most victims of sexual violence are. That doesn’t make us crazy or incapable of rational thought. It doesn’t make us less able to see sexual violence for what it is than a man who seems to very clearly have never experienced it. Do my own experiences encourage my speaking out on the subject of sexual assault? Most likely. But I write about sexual assaults that I have ever personally experienced much more than those I have — Every. Fucking. Week. I write about them with the same anger, the same disgust, and the same profound sadness over the state of humanity. And so do other wonderful feminist bloggers, and the amazing people who regularly comment here.

I stand by what I said on the Vegas comment thread — that comments from those like Campbell keep me from talking about my own experiences in detail. The word “exaggerator” stings particularly strongly. Words like this are the reason that I have personally told exceedingly few people about the assaults, and even fewer in any amount of detail. Remarks like Campbell’s are the reason that, though they can read about it here and someday probably will, I’ve never discussed it with my own family. His words are the kind that kept me in denial for so long and that still keep me from being able to actually use the word “rape” to describe what was done to me. Words like this keep me cowardly, and are the reason that I have such immense respect for those who do publicly talk about their own sexual assaults. Because I know what happens. And honestly, as I began speaking out more and more, I knew that it would eventually happen to me, too.

I know that they’re wrong. I believe with all my heart that I am right. But while I don’t want to say it and give them the satisfaction, you know what, it’s the fucking truth. This kind of shit hurts like hell.

What kind of kick people get out of it, I do not know. I am doing my best to ensure that they don’t silence me. I have closed comments on the Vegas thread for obvious reasons. But I stand by every word I said there. I may have to close comments here, too. I hope that I don’t.

Every so often, comments that I get here throw me over the edge and make me want to burst into tears. This is one of those times and has me considering a break. I don’t know. I do know that I will not be reading the things being said about me on Campbell’s message board thread. I do know that this is my space and I only have to publish the comments of my choosing — and right now, my choosing is going to be in my own best interest, and the best interest of a safe space for those who have survived sexual assault. This has always been my goal. Sometimes my argumentative personality gets the better of me. And clearly, I need to do better at not engaging with these kinds of people.

If Campbell reads this — and he can’t, but I’m sure it will get back to him — I’d like to say that no, his email is not what we call sexual harassment. His email is what we call acting like a shitty excuse for a human being.

I would like to note that less than a year ago, I didn’t know a damn thing about the disability rights movement. I was only vaguely aware of its existence. Blogs — and this is perhaps the thing that I love most about the blogosphere and what it can do when at its best — opened my eyes. I’m exceedingly far from being an expert on disability rights now. But I have done some research. I read more than one disability rights blog regularly. I’ve struggled to overcome a lot of my own prejudices in that time. Which is precisely why it amazes me that I wrote this post last year — Disability Rights Are a Feminist Issue — and still agree with it now. I’m glad and a bit relieved to say that I can recommend your reading it.

A few things I didn’t note in that post that I would like to note now:

If feminists believe in reproductive justice, disabled or not, we must be particularly concerned for the rights of people with disabilities. Their reproductive rights are in some of the greatest danger, and we really need to work to overcome our own prejudices on that matter and recognize that reproductive justice is for everyone, not just some. The problems with the pro-choice movement are precisely why the term reproductive justice was coined, and if we’re going to use it in a way that is more than mere appropriation, we need to recognize that attitudes towards the reproductive rights of those with disabilities was and still is one of those problems.

We also must be particularly concerned for the rights of people with disabilities if we care about violence against women. Women with disabilities are much more likely than women without disabilities to be sexually assaulted. Women with disabilities also have a much higher rate of being victims of intimate partner violence.

And really, if we just care about women, if we care about feminism, we should care about the rights of those with disabilities. Women are a large part of the disabled community, and they face discrimination on a daily basis in terms of medical care, housing, employment, the right to make personal decisions and much more. Women with disabilities are women. We are feminists, and may have disabilities ourselves. It is our job to fight legal and social systems that prevent women from the opportunity to live happy, safe and free lives. The argument for why disability rights are a feminist issue really is that simple.

Diary of a Goldfish has the roundup from the blogswarm. It’s holds a huge amount of posts and is full of great bloggers, so I strongly encourage you to read through it. For more on the intersection of feminism and disability activism, I couldn’t more strongly recommend F.R.I.D.A. as a source to add to your blog readers.

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.

Here is a guy whose ass I would like to see in fucking jail. Pretty much forever. During a “comedy” act, Johnny Vegas sexually assaulted a woman; he threatened her, groped her breasts, put his hand up her skirt while she tried to stop him and inserted a finger into her.

Of course, not only will he not see the inside of a jail cell, he won’t even see the inside of a police station. He’ll pass it off as a “joke” numerous times. If the heat gets bad enough, he’ll maybe apologize publicly, as if that does anything for the woman that he raped on stage. Honestly, I don’t expect a single fucking consequence. He might even incorporate a joke about the instance into a later act.

I can’t recommend reading the comments on that article. At all. I scrolled through them briefly, and since I really need something to rant at, this one caught my eye:

Not totally defending him but I’m sure that the point was that pathetic individuals/society are totally enthralled with celebrity and let them get away with murder. She, and others, could have told him to get lost but didn’t probably for that reason. He obviously was taking advantage but that is the point, he can, because our society is full of Spice Girl/Big Brother/Football groupie wannabes.

I think he’s prepared to take the vitriol to make this point cos it disgusts him so much - either that or he’s an alcoholic scumbag!

Oh, I get it. Vegas raped a woman on stage because he thinks it’s disgusting that a famous person can get away with raping a woman on stage. Well that makes a ton of fucking sense, and makes me feel much better. I’m sure that the woman feels a lot better, too.

The asshat does have something of a point, though. He’s absolutely right about why Vegas got away with public sexual assault. It seems that the men on stage and a good chunk of the audience were not okay with what was happening — but the dude’s famous. They paid to see his show. Do you think this would have played out the same way if it was the goon down at the comedy club? People ignore crimes, walk away and do nothing all of the time. But usually, they do not when forced to sit or stand there and watch the violence happen. (Why didn’t the woman do anything to stop him? First of all, she was probably terrified, and secondly it doesn’t fucking matter you stupid rape apologist asshole.) Vegas knew he had the power to get away with this. He used it. And he, along with some audience members, laughed about it.

Thanks to O’Hara for bringing this to the public’s attention. But for fuck’s sake, it does not need to be “debated” there’s no “asking” whether or not Vegas “crossed a line.” If raping a woman on stage is not over the line, I don’t know what the hell could be — and we really need to redraw that line immediately. That so many in the audience disagree, that they think an assault that I’ve personally experienced is fucking funny . . .

This has upset me more than anything in a very long time.