Self Esteem and Street Harassment

Mandy van Deven over at the Bitch Magazine blog brought up a problem about the way some self-proclaimed feminists judge people (usually women) who are flattered by street harassment that I have always felt but never articulated. Namely, that sitting in judgement of the victim of street harassment's reaction to their harassment is just as counter-productive as victim-blaming when trying to reduce any other crime.

...The message they [commentators] hold is clear: if you're a girl or woman who likes receiving overt sexual attention from men and boys (in public), it's because you lack the self-respect necessary to throw off the confines of external validation regarding female sexuality and beauty. We hear this self-esteem argument in various places, including conversations about female promiscuity, girls and women who wear revealing clothing, and the reasons women become sex workers. The underlying assumption in this logic is that desiring or expressly seeking out male sexual attention is the result of having low self-esteem.

For starters, comments of this kind set up a false dichotomy of women who have self-confidence and those who lack it (as though we don't all struggle with confidence in various circumstances), which allows the speaker to denigrate and "other" women who engage with men unfamiliar to them in a sexual manner on the street, blame these women (at least in part) for the problem of street harassment, and bolster one's own sense of personal integrity and moral superiority.

I thought Mandy's points in the rest of the article (which I highly suggest you read) were really spot-on and insightful. I especially appreciated that she mentioned how fine but distinct the line between flattery and street harassment is. I thought she put it well when she said, "Who determines the difference between a compliment and street harassment? The simple answer is: you do. The not-so-simple-answer is that we all do... and it depends heavily on context."

I do have one criticism with Mandy's article, however. While she quite rightly states that the distinction between flattery and street harassment is partially defined by what the target of the comment or gesture thinks it is, I think she should have clarified that street harassers aren't people who meant to pay a compliment and were just misunderstood. Street harassment, like sexual assault, is not the result of the perpetrator finding their target so irresistible that they cannot control themselves. It is about the perpetrator trying to exert power over and intimidate the person they are directing their comment or gesture at and it is not okay.

While I don't think Mandy was in any way disagreeing with what I said, I do wish she clarified what she meant. Street harassment is unfortunately so normalized and accepted that many targets of it feel they don't have a right to be upset about it or take action against it. In our current environment, myself and my fellow feminist bloggers out there need to be careful that we do not accidentally reinforce an upsetting misconception by not clarifying our meaning.

All in all though, I thought Mandy made some really great points and I applaud her for taking on this issue and pointing out a common problem in the way people talk about victims of street harassment.

Dan Savage advice: "total shit"

**Trigger warning: sexual assault and victim-blaming **

Dan Savage, who writes a nationally syndicated advice column on sexuality and sex, makes me wonder, what the hell was he thinking?

A woman in an open marriage wrote in to Savage explaining that five months ago a former partner had sexually assaulted her and since then she has found herself unable to be intimate with her husband, saying that his attempts to initiate sex made her "skin crawl". At the same time, however, she has not been having any trouble being intimate with her boyfriend, and even said that sex with him "is amazing and leaves [her] feeling loved and whole and wonderful."

The woman said that this situation left her husband feeling "depressed" and "angry" and that he told her to stop sleeping with her boyfriend until their marriage was "back to normal." This woman expressed hesitation about leaving her boyfriend, saying it pained her "to think about cutting out the one positive relationship remaining."

Savage responded, among other things:

"You're being a total shit."

That is a direct quote.

via Deeky at Shakesville, whose post I suggest everyone read as well.

Victim-Blaming Travesty of the Day

**Trigger warning for description of sexual assault**

As we have written before, victim-blaming in cases of sexual assault is an all too common practice. And this bullshit is even worse than usual.

High school football star Rakheem Bolton and two others were indicted for sexual assault of a child–identified only as H.S.–at a post-game party in 2008. According to H.S.–a fellow student and cheerleader at Silsbee High–Bolton, football player Christian Rountree and another juvenile male forced her into a room, locked the door, held her down and sexually assaulted her. When other party-goers tried to get into the room, two of the men fled through an open window, including Bolton, who left clothing behind. Bolton allegedly threatened to shoot the occupants of the house when the homeowner refused to return his clothes.

In September 2010, Bolton pled guilty to a lesser charge of Class A Assault and was sentenced to one year in prison, a sentence that was suspended by the judge in lieu of two years probation, a $2,500 fine, community service and an anger management course.

Silsbee school officials had two responses to the incident. First, they urged H.S. to keep a low profile, such as avoiding the school cafeteria and not taking part in homecoming activities. With the support of her family, she refused to do so, rejecting the notion that she had anything to be ashamed of. Secondly, school officials kicked her off the cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer for Bolton. No kidding.

Bolton had been allowed back on campus during a brief period when one grand jury withdrew the charges before another grand jury reinstated them. During a basketball game, H.S. cheered for the entire team but refused to cheer “Rakheem” during his free-throws, so she was off the squad.

H.S.’s parents sued the school for violating her right to free speech, but an appeals court dismissed her case earlier this month.

Please get angry about this and contact the school superintendent and principle.

Women, just act more like men and your problems will disappear

I found this piece in the BBC Magazine about how there are significant pay gaps in Britain, and how they can be attributed to differences in how women and men approach asking for raises, and even differences in pay expectations.

The author discussed the huge differences in the amount of money men and women expect and think they deserve to earn five years into their careers. Men believe that they deserve 25% more than women feel they deserve.

Emphasis mine:

I think this illustrates not only the fact that there is a disparity in what we pay men and women, but also that your expectations affect your behaviour and help sustain the status quo.

Actually, I think that expecting women to change their behavior/expectations without looking for ways to change the system is what helps sustain the status quo. "The system" - the way women are not only taught to be quiet and pleasant, but the way that when they do speak up for themselves (like men), they are portrayed as bitches - this is what keeps the status quo intact. Women are taught from a young age that standing up for themselves can have negative consequences, yet that is exactly what this piece seems to think will solve the problem of unequal wages in Britain.

I disagree. This is not a problem of individual women as much as it is a problem about societies that still do not see women as being equal to men.

Argh.

I was watching the news before work this morning, and they were reporting on Andy Dick's arrest for sexual battery and marijuana possession. As they were wrapping up the story, one of the news anchors said,

"Oh, too bad, that sure dosen't sound like him."

Oh, really, random substitue news anchor. Do you know Andy Dick well? Because if not, maybe you should keep your personal comments to yourself. Save the pity for someone who wasn't just arrested for exposing a teenage girl.

Moron.

Legal Shenanigans: How to Blame That Lying Whore

As a pre-law student and a feminist, the antics of defense attorneys in rape trials is always of particular interest. I've been sitting on these stories for about a week now, formulating my response. Without further ado, a glimpse inside how the American legal system dispenses justice to those lying sluts and the poor slandered men:

1. Ask trick questions

From abyss2hope:

''Did you have sexual intercourse with Mr. Vanderbeek?'' [defense attorney Maureen] Coggins asked the alleged victim. She replied that she had not.

Coggins then asked that the charges be dismissed. Greth denied the motion. Coggins then asked that the alleged victim take the stand again for a clarification. The alleged victim then testified that she had engaged in sexual intercourse, but that it was not consensual.

First of all, rape is not sexual intercourse. I would hope that a defense attorney would be aware of this fact. Doubtless, Coggins was aiming for a dismissal regardless of the answer. If she had said yes, then the term "sexual intercourse" implies consent. When she said no, that implies—falsely and only to someone with no legal training or common sense—that no penetration took place (which is doubly absurd, because many forms of sexual abuse do not require vaginal penetration). The only dismissal that I think would be appropriate in this instance is the dismissal of Coggins from her job.

2. Ban the use of the word "rape"

If I thought that the above was horrible, I was sorely mistaken when I discovered via Jezebel and Shakesville that if you have a vagina, and someone sticks a penis in it without your permission, you are not allowed to call that "rape" in a courtroom lest you bias the poor stupid jurors:

It's the only way Tory Bowen knows to honestly describe what happened to her.

She was raped.

But a judge prohibited her from uttering the word "rape" in front of a jury. The term "sexual assault" also was taboo, and Bowen could not refer to herself as a victim or use the word "assailant" to describe the man who allegedly raped her.

The defendant's presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial trumps Bowen's right of free speech, said the Lincoln, Neb., judge who issued the order.

This boggles the mind. How else are you supposed to describe the crime committed against you on the stand? This kind of shit is akin to an assault case in which the witness is forced to say that he "accepted a fist offered to my face" instead of "the defendant punched me". Witnesses and victims are supposed to testify honestly and completely to the best of their abilities. Banning the use of the only word that describes what happened is absolutely ludicrous, and not only implies that the defendant had consensual sex, but also that the witness is lying. Which brings me to my next point:

3. Force victims to perjure themselves to protect rapists

Using "sexual intercourse" to describe rape is completely inaccurate because it misses an extremely relevant point: the lack of consent. Defense attorneys are not required to use the term "rape", so why are prosecuting attorneys finding that they must use a term that implies no crime took place?

Simple: because in the minds of rape apologist judges, no crime took place. The only crime is that some disgusting whore is out to ruin a poor upstanding boy's life for her shame over giving it up too soon. The best way to make sure that the jurors understand the horrible crime that is being perpetuated against the innocent victim of a liar is to require the "liar" to use a term that implies consent, which then implies that she filed a false report.

Of course, to anyone with half a brain, this method of victim blaming is called perjury and is extremely and blatantly illegal. Like I said above, if defense lawyers and judges are not willing to conduct trials without a working knowledge of the nuances of the English language and the crime they are discussing, they should be disbarred.

4. Load the jury pool

Via The Curvature's coverage of how a defense attorney selected his jurors:

“Would you take into consideration that none of these young women, when they were removed from the situation, called 911?” he asked a potential juror. Parrinello asked other potential jurors if they would consider that there were “no eyewitnesses” and “no DNA” and that none of the alleged victims had gone to the hospital to have what’s called a “rape kit” examination for signs of assault and evidence.

[District attorney] Tantillo, meanwhile, asked potential jurors if they would consider that the girls might have been too scared to immediately report what had happened to them or even confused.

Parrinello later asked the panel of potential jurors: “Does anybody know what’s so confusing about whether or not you’ve been raped?”

Hey, I might be new to this legal game, but I'm pretty certain you can be disbarred for loading the jury in a case against a Muslim with jurors that are blatantly and unashamedly racist. The same principle should, but doesn't, apply to rape trials: you don't load the jury pool with jurors that have ignorant assumptions about rape and rape victims.

5. Question the testimony with medieval assumptions about intercourse and scare the jury

Parrinello is expected to crack away at the alleged victims’ credibility, drawing attention to the fact that three of them had consensual sexual relations with Wido before the alleged attacks. “How do you know any of them said ‘no’?” he said.

The defense attorney pointed out that the women were slow in notifying authorities and said there is no DNA evidence or eyewitnesses, “no credible evidence.” He asked the jury: “Is this a rush to judgment? Is this a slanted prosecution? Is this a Duke lacrosse prosecution?”

A good defense attorney would attempt to prove that the sexual encounter in question was consensual. Parrinello, however, goes for the tried and true, "once consensual, always consensual" tactic. I remain completely unaware of any sort of legal statute that states once I have sex with someone, I am not allowed to withdraw or withhold consent for the rest of my natural life. The assumption Parrinello makes here harkens back to a not-so-distant past in which men owned their wives because they had consummated their marriage. Since marriage is not a precursor to sex today, apparently a man does not have to buy a shiny bobble before he claims ownership over her body forevermore. All he has to do is get her to consent to sex once!

If the jury was not taken in by the throwback reference to the fact that women are property, they must be scared into submission by reference to the Duke lacrosse prosecution. To this day, I am not entirely certain that the Duke lacrosse players were innocent or guilty. As Cara over at The Curvature says, the Duke case has become the new "women are lying whores!" rallying cry. What a reference like this does is circumvent the question of the accused's innocence or guilt. It plays upon the jury's hesitance to wrap their minds around the fact that such a popular, attractive, white athlete could commit such a crime. It also asks, "are you willing to ruin this guy's life just because he probably raped someone?" After all, sports before justice. A man's right to rape and play sports is always more important than a woman's right to say no and seek justice.

6. Just plain harass and verbally abuse the victims

If all of the above fails—which it probably will not—the defense attorney can just become a pedantic asshat to make sure that all rape victims know what awaits them lest they seek justice (via MPN Now):

While the prosecution witness — one of Wido’s three alleged rape victims — was still seated, the argument began, with Parrinello at one point highlighting previous testimony that she had willingly performed a sexual act on Wido in the weeks before the alleged rape — only Parrinello used crude, street language to describe the act, drawing out both Tantillo and the judge, William Kocher.

“What Mr. Parrinello just did was outrageous in the presence of this witness!” Tantillo shouted, calling it “abusive,” “harassing,” and “disgusting.”

Parrinello fired back, “You know that’s what happened — I’m not making it up… I have a right of free speech.”

Parrinello then briskly approached the judge, coming within a few feet of his bench and pointing his finger while defending his actions. A security guard rushed to Parrinello’s side.

“I want him away from me,” Parrinello told the judge of the guard. Then Parrinello pointed at the guard, face to face, and hollered, “You’re not to get near me.”

Parrinello then told the judge: “He’s not going to intimidate me. If he does it again, we’re going to have a big problem: I’ll have him arrested.”

Judge Kocher ordered the defense attorney not to “make such editorial comments” and asked him several times if he understood. Repeatedly, Parrinello told the judge that no, he did not.

Amid the fiery exchange of words, the alleged rape victim began to wipe tears from her eyes, eventually breaking into sobs. The young woman was led out of the courtroom by Sarah Utter, the victim and witness advocate from the D.A.’s office.

The best way to shut those uppity women up is to be a violent loud jerk and reduce her to tears. Threatening judges and guards is also highly effective. Nothing feels better to a woman reliving her rape through testimony than a defense attorney that describes you and the situation as vulgarly as possible, and then lambastes from his arrogant soapbox about his right to be an abusive moron. Which, of course, would be:

7. Defend your antics with the highly ironic appeal to the First Amendment

I hope you caught that bolded passage in the quote above. Parrinello thinks that he has more of a right to the First Amendment than the victim. Oh the appalling irony! Why is it that when I see someone invoke the First Amendment, they are nearly always white men defending their right to be pedantic abusive asshats? I have a shocking idea: how about we use the First Amendment to protect the victims from perjury instead of defending an egomanic defense attorney?

And so, there you have it, the reason why only 16% of rapes are reported to the police, 8% of reported rapes are deemed unfounded (not false, but not prosecutable), less than half of those arrested for rape see trial, 54% of rape trials end in dismissal or acquittal, 21% of convicted rapists never serve time, and 24% of the convicted receive less than 11 months behind bars (statistics from Rochester University).

Considering that only 2-3% of reports are fabricated—a statistic no different from the false reporting rate of other crimes—there is a very large chance, almost an inevitability, that if you rape a woman she won't report it. If she reports it, it probably won't see trial. If it goes to trial, you probably won't get convicted. If you get convicted, you probably won't serve any time at all, or less than 11 months. Which means that in the eyes of the law, a convicted rapist is less guilty than a robber, a burglar, a drug addict, a drug dealer, and anyone who misuses a weapon for whatever reason; all of which receive more time on average than a convicted rapist.

This is how the justice system treats a rape victim: it looks for any and all excuse to discredit her and drag her name through the mud. In the end, if she perseveres, defies the odds, and gets a conviction, she probably could be rubbing elbows with her rapist in less than a year's time.

In this patriarchy, raping a woman is more excusable than stealing a television. Which leads me to conclude that not only has the justice system, by its actions, defined women as property, that they also think of them as particularly useless property at that. Considering that women/property may be raped without much of a fuss from the legal system, I do not think it illogical of me to say: the legal system regards women as property and it also implies by the reality of the extremely low rape conviction that the purpose of a woman is to be abused at will.

(Cross-posted)

Makeup: A Rad Fem's Dilemma

Makeup was my right of passage to womanhood. My parents absolutely refused to let me wear it until I was thirteen, and then only in muted shades and small amounts. Looking at the over-sexualized images of pre-teen girls in the media and my younger brother's yearbook, I can honestly say that I am grateful to my parents. Makeup wouldn't have made me less self-conscious, and would have taken a sizable chunk out of my allowance--and when I was 16, wages.

Now, I do not wear anywhere near as much makeup as I used to at 16, and even 18. Although I am in my 20s, I am often mistaken for a teenager because of my short stature and lack of "smoky sex kitten" makeup; even while bar-hopping I prefer light makeup.

However, my guilt over buying and wearing eye liner, blush, powder, and mascara persists. Am I a bad feminist because I sometimes like how I look with makeup better than au natural? Given that I self-identify as a radical feminist, am I somehow falling sort of the label? Do I invite men to look upon me as an object or sexually available?

I know that people perceive me as stereotypically feminine the more makeup and gendered clothing, like mini-skirts, I wear. More doors are held open (literal, not metaphorical), I am addressed as "honey" instead of "ma'am", and men smile at me more. Although, I never get the respect I want from co-workers and professors no matter how little makeup I wear, or how much. Professors that are enthusiastic about taking my male peers under their wing hesitate to do the same for me and fellow female classmates because we are female. A male professor, and most of mine are male, sponsoring a female student is rare simply because the professors are afraid of the perception that they are sleeping with us, or they simply don't think of us in any sense other than a sexual one. Even in sweatpants and no makeup, my male professors will not invite me to lunch to discuss further the symbolization of Aristotle's classical dilemmas because being female means that I am always potentially a sex object, never a peer or a prodigal student. All of my sponsors in my field have been female. I am lucky that my university employs many female Philosophy professors, because otherwise, I sincerely doubt that I would have had the opportunity to do as much as I have.

This constant perception of being a sex object: am I only fueling it by wearing makeup and gendered clothing? If I'm not dressed up, am I still responsible for the actions of others because of my female mannerisms?

My answer is a resounding no. My choice of clothing and face-paint should not affect my opportunities in life. How much eye shadow I do or do not wear does not affect the poignancy of my thesis. In my ideal world, men and women would wear as little or as much makeup as they please, and it would not affect any situation outside the contexts where makeup and gendered clothing are relevant.

Besides, I am kept at a distance professionally by male superiors regardless of how little makeup I wear or how long my skirt is. Feminism, I think, is about choices. I choose my gender-identity. I like being pretty and female. What I do not like is being patronized, belittled, and sexually objectified in a context in which such attention is entirely inappropriate.

In the same way that "promiscuous" women are responsible for the bad behavior of their male peers, every woman is held responsible for the sexism of their colleagues because of how she dresses or acts. Too frumpy and she is a slacker or a frigid bitch. Too feminine and she is a sex object or a coy flirt. I am always defined in terms of "fuckable" or "not fuckable" every second of the day because women, regardless of how they dress, act, or look, are members of the sex class and thus may be belittled, shamed, over sexualized, and harassed with the justification that anyone with a vagina is simply "asking for it".

My choice to wear makeup is my business. A woman's choice to get breast implants is her business. It should be obvious that the choice to sexualize women out of context and act like sexist dog is precisely that: a choice.

How people attack women who choose to do something perfectly legal that makes her feel good about herself and defend those who choose to be assholes is completely illogical. The phenomenon of blaming the victim saturates every justification of harassment, violence, and injustice that women and even young girls suffer daily.

I say, enough already! If the choices I make are always wrong and the injustice I suffer is always right, then what choice do I have? I choose to please myself, and only myself. Fuck everyone else. I sharpen my eye pencil and apply it to my upper lid because I think I look good when I do. If my best male friend thought he did too, I would let him borrow mine without a sideways glance.

Treating women like objects is also a choice. The idea that it is the fault of the evil female temptress, her gender fallen from grace by the actions of her ancestor in the garden of Eden, is nothing but unadulterated bullshit and should be treated as such.

The Mundane Rape

Warning: this post could be a trigger for victims of sexual violence.

In the wake of Amelia's posts on rape and the disgusting spectacle of Johnny Vegas raping a woman onstage in a sorry display of dudely humor, I wanted to share how utterly mundane and common rape is.

A huge misconception is that only the psychologically deviant rape women. In that link, uncovered by Twisty over at I Blame the Patriarchy, the author claims that it is "staggeringly insensitive" to post fliers around a college campus that read "Man up, get consent". Why? Well, because the "ridiculous idea that rape is not caused by the sociopathic tendencies of individual men, but because men as a whole watch too many Michael Bay films".

The author clearly as never heard of the tabula rasa theory which states that our socialization and upbringing have much more to do with how we interact with the people and the world around us then genetics. Simply put, there is no "rape" gene. Scientists will never pin-point the exact sequence of DNA that makes some men rapists and others "nice guys" because it does not exist.

This fiction of the psychological illness of rapists, similar to the myth of pedophilia, causes the deadly culture of silence that aids and abets sexual assaults, rapes, and other forms of violence against women every day. The patriarchy and its underlying premise that men are not responsible for treating women like pieces of meat baptizes each and every one of us in Dude Culture as young as possible.

For as long as I can remember, I can say that I would rather be maimed and handicapped than ugly. My identity and success in life, because I am a woman, is directly correlated with my ability to titillate and treat myself like the plaything of men. My self worth is boosted every time a man looks me up and down. I wait behind good-looking men in the line of a local fast food joint and wish for them to notice me. My worth is directly tied to my sexuality. I am the Sex Class, I am a woman.

And I was sexually assaulted and raped repeatedly by my first serious boyfriend and the man I lost my virginity to.

Rape is not uncommon. By law, what that asshole did to me was not rape because I cannot prove it. However, I was repeatedly goaded into various sex acts while I feigned sickness or exhaustion to get out of seeing him. After he moved out of the suburbs, and into an adjacent dorm, I would make excuses to have study sessions with my very large and loud male English peer review partner. Seeing him was a nightmare. The sex was awful. I fooled myself by thinking that it was about time I got rid of my virginity anyway (I was 18) and that if I asked him later I would eventually get an orgasm out of the deal. However, if I did not want to kiss, I was groped and fingered through my clothes when he would visit my dorm after his classes. If all I wanted was a massage, I got my bare breasts pawed at for an hour while I pretended I was asleep so that he would go away. He would belittle my opinions, ignore my desires, and take advantage of me whenever he so wished. I was an accessory to his life, I was his masturbation aid. I was not a person.

When I finally broke up with him, he would invite himself along with my friends and hang all over me like I was his possession. I remained silent throughout it all because I thought it that was normal that I was taken advantage of and I did not wish to make a scene or make others uncomfortable. It was my fault that I did not enjoy the sex. I was frigid. I was wrong. I was a whore.

I have never shared this farce of love with anyone. Over two years later, I have not been in a serious relationship with a man due to serious trust issues. Until just recently, I thought that there was something wrong with me. Now I finally know that what he did to me, and what he took away, can never be replaced. It was sexual assault, and if the law was less sexist than it is, my entire relationship was months of rape. I will never see justice because there is no evidence other than my word and my pain.

My ex-boyfriend is not a sociopath. He is a normal college male who wanted some tits to paw at. When breaking up with him, he asked, "does that mean I do not get booby privileges anymore?" He probably has a girlfriend now, who lets him finger her after she feigns a headache to get him to go away. He is a rapist. I am a rape victim. He is a product of a sick society, and I am the victim. I am the loser, because I was born with a vagina and indoctrinated in the ideology that my worth as a person is indistinguishable from my ability to please men.

Women, because of socialization, are raped every day. Why? Because we as a society have placed women in the Sex Class, and by doing so, have furthered the disgusting agenda of rapists the world over. Rape only happens to women that fight it, that are raped by strangers, that have evidence and did not orgasm. I was raped. I never fought it, I knew my rapist and introduced him to my friends and family as my boyfriend. I have no proof other than my hole in my heart where my faith in humanity used to be. My body reminds me of the pain/pleasure that it suffered/enjoyed to this day.

Sociopaths do not rape women, men rape women. The only thing insulting about asking men to get consent, not the absence of resistance, is that we have to fucking ask in the first place. I know first hand how rape happens and what a rapist looks like.

I also know what a rape victim looks like. I see her in the mirror every day.

Rape, Power, Fear, and What To Do About It

My other rape post seemed to miss the mark with some of the early readers who seemed very attached to the idea that when women do certain things, or dress/act in certain ways (aka being stupid), they should expect certain consequences (among those, I'm assuming, is rape). What I was trying to get across in that post was the fact that just because women make certain choices, some of which might be considered "stupid," doesn't mean that they should have to be faced with a consequence/punishment like rape.

No comments from non-feminists on any of the rape-related posts on Female Impersonator have addressed the problems that a) rape is about power, and b) women shouldn't have to live in a society that faces them with "consequences" such as rape when they decide to dress/act in certain ways. I would like to briefly address those two issues.

Rape is about power, power in the sense that the rapist gets what they want at the expense of another person's body. It does not have to be physically threatening. A weapon needn't be involved. It does not have to happen in a dark alley. It does not even have to be perpetrated by a stranger. Even rape that happens between two people who have sex on a regular basis is about power: the power of the rapist to have their desires met and put above those of the person being raped.

On that second point, the problem with American society is that women are afraid. We are not stupid. It is not that we don't realize that doing certain things or acting/dressing in certain ways will increase our chance of drawing attention from the wrong kinds of guys, the problem is that it shouldn't be that way. Why must women be the ones taking the precautions against rape? Those sorts of attitudes seem to be backwards. Since a large number of reported rapes (I hesitate to say "the majority" because I have no statistics to back this up at the moment) are perpetrated by men against women, it seems bizarre to me to tell women to take all the responsibility for preventing this crime that so many men are committing.

The problem with rape is that it is a topic that is not discussed enough in our society, and silence will only allow rape to continue. I believe that education on the topic would be a great way to start toward solving this problem. Rape was never discussed in my high school sex education class, except for in a movie maybe, but it was not very clear. Why is that? Sex ed is something that nearly everyone has to take, why not introduce discussions about rape? Defining rape, talking about social circumstances that have proved to be fruitful for rape, discussing where to get extra information about rape and where to get help, and ways to prevent rape. It seems to me like a productive idea that is sorely missing from this sort of public discourse, even though many people would likely benefit from this sort of exposure.

When it comes to preventing rape, I would like to put one idea out there: affirmative consent. Because rape can, and often does happen between friends and even spouses, this is a great place to start when it comes to rape prevention, and it is something that every sexually active reader of this blog can practice and talk about with their friends.

Affirmative consent means that without a "yes," consent has not been granted for sexual intercourse (or otherwise). Sexual intercourse without consent is rape. There are, to be sure, many ideas when it comes to consent, and some would argue that as long as a woman doesn't try to physically stop a man from initiating intercourse, consent has been granted. Or that unless the woman screams, "No!" consent has been granted. These arguments overlook the possibility that women who are being raped are often in situations in which they lose their voice. They may feel threatened, either physically, or by fear of social repercussion, to keep their mouth shut, but that does not necessarily mean that they want sex.

The only way to be 100% sure that your sexual experience is consensual is to ask your partner if they want to have sex and have them answer "yes." And if at any point in time during intercourse, you get the feeling that your partner is not enjoying it, ask. Watching NO! The Rape Documentary helped put into words some of my own feelings about consent: "Yes means yes. Everything else means no." That means that if you are not sure if your partner wants to have sex, ask them. Clarify. Clarify. Clarify.

The real reasoning behind this post was an extremely aggravating instant messenger conversation I had with one of the blog's readers. I explained to them my ideas about affirmative consent, in a few less words than is stated above, and I got this response: in your opinion. that is your problem, you just think that everbody else is going to accept your world veiw, but you are to idealistic.

I have no idea where they got the impression that I thought anyone would necessarily accept my "world view" (which was actually only about rape and consent), and I don't know why thinking that people should be made aware of and try practicing affirmative consent as a means of being sure that their sex is consensual is idealistic. But whatever. That did provoke this post.

For more on affirmative consent, check out Girly Thoughts.

"Rape has never been a punishment for stupidity"

I wrote down this quote in my feminist methodologies class yesterday when we were watching NO! The Rape Documentary because it seemed to be a great argument against all the victim-blaming I hear when it comes to rape and other forms of sexual assault. When has rape ever been the prescribed punishment for making a bad (perhaps "stupid") choice? And who decides which actions and choices are "stupid?"

I wrote this post out and hesitated for a long time before finally deciding to publish it, fearing that people might think I was not taking this topic seriously or that I was trying to make fun of people. Neither of those is the case. Rape is a tough topic to discuss, especially when it comes to responsibility, but that doesn’t change the fact that rape happens and it needs to be talked about. The idea behind this post is to challenge the ideas of some of the comments on this blog. I will provide you with a sample of some of these comments (names excluded), followed by my own “translations” with the regard to the “stupidity of women.” I feel that providing real examples of victim-blaming might help make this post more effective.

I would like to note that my translations may not be exactly what the authors of those comments intended, but they certainly are one way to view their arguments, and I hope that they might read this post and re-think what they said.

This post is meant to be in-your-face. It is meant to be challenging. It is meant to make people re-think some of their arguments.

Here it goes:

Comment: If you act like a 10 cent whore, you will be treated like a 10 cent whore.

Translation: If you women are stupid enough to act/dress sensually, then you will be raped.

Comment: You can dress and act any way to please, but you still have to deal with the consequences…If you want to "drink, to flirt, to walk alone at night,"…you will, in return, be faced with adverse consequences. I make it very clear that this does not apply to EVERY rape case, but the riskier life YOU lead, the more risk YOU are susceptible to.

Translation: If you women are so stupid as to think that you can take the same “risks” as men (like drinking, flirting, and walking home alone), it is more likely that you will be raped.

Comment: Rape is not the victim's FAULT but by placing yourself out there in outfits that say "come and get me, i'm cheap" certainly increase the risk of getting raped.

Translation: If you women are stupid enough to not understand how your manner of dressing will cause a man to react, then you increase the likelihood of getting raped.

Comment: It is impossible to re-educate men. As a feminist, you'd think you would know that. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. It is not something you are going to be able to do unless you cage all men and force them to be so afraid of women that they wouldn't dare try anything... but I'm pretty sure that that is highly illegal, so there's no chance of that happening in the near future.

Translation: Men are stupid, so if you women do something stupid, like wear a skirt or flirt with the stupid men, you will tempt them to rape you. So stop it, because the poor stupid men can’t change. You women must change for them.

Note: A lot of these comments try to validate their claims by saying things like “this doesn’t apply to all rape cases” and “not all rapes can be prevented by the victim,” but they still imply that it is the woman’s fault if she does “stupid” things that appear “risky” (but why are these things considered risky in the first place?)

“Rape has never been a punishment for stupidity.” - Loretta Ross, NO! The Rape Documentary

How do those arguments sound now?

Sexual assault on stage is still sexual assault

I've been thinking about this story for awhile. The article goes into greater detail, but essentially a British comic, Johnny Vegas, is on stage during a comedy show. He sees a girl he likes in the front row and has people bring her on stage "pallbearer" style. As she's lying on stage, he starts touching her breasts and legs, pulling her skirt up as she tries to pull it back down. He straddled her and kissed her, open-mouthed. Additionally, he was allegedly "fingering her through her clothes for a second or two" (James Williams, NOTBBC).

The article goes into much greater detail about the whole "act," so I'd suggest checking it out.

There's been a lot said on other sites - that it's comedy and things shouldn't be off limits for comedy, that she probably liked the attention or enjoyed it, etc. The F-Word does a pretty good take of the people writing about it and different responses.

I'm going to riff a bit on the Portly Dyke and say this - if that girl on stage wasn't giving repeated postive affirmation, saying "Yes, yes, please continue touching me in that way," it was unwanted and very much sexual assault.

I don't care if someone says "she enjoyed the attention," or "she probably liked it." If audience members didn't hear her give explicit permission to start and continue touching her, it's NOT ok. It's sexual assault and a crime, regardless of who is doing it and if it's in front of a group of people.

The fact that it occured in front of a room of people who didn't do anything (or weren't successful) to stop it just makes it all the worse.

I've thought about what I would do if I was in that audience. Would I have said anything? Mary O'Hara, the author of the article in the Guardian, wrote, "I shouted 'get him fucking off of you' but obviously not loud enough." I'm glad she shouted - but she shouted to the woman, not to the perpetrator. Again the woman is responsible for stopping the attack, not the person who did the attacking in the first place. Not that the audience or the woman is to blame - it falls squarely upon the shoulders of Johnny Vegas, so-called comedian.

Would I have said anything? I don't know. I'd like to think so... but you never know until you're face to face with making the choice.

And by the way, if this passes for comedy these days, count me out.

Links to Jezebel, Feministing, and The F-Word.

The Modesty Survey... Go ahead. Tell me I'm not modest.

It's the end of the semester and I've got a paper to finish before tomorrow, so this is an old post from my personal blog. Still fucking pisses me off.

The Modesty Survey

Does that piss anyone else off too? I'm glad to know they're taking the time to tell me what THEY'VE decided is immodest. Let me run out and change my wardrobe now.

47.5% of their all-male respondents chose agree or strongly agree to "A purse with the strap diagonally across the chest draws too much attention to the bust." How about 100% of me, myself and I say that a purse with the strap diagonally across the chest means I've never forgotten or lost my purse in the entirety of owning one, I don't have to worry about it being stolen, and it's more comfortable.

71% agree/strongly agree with "The lines of undergarments, visible under clothing, cause guys to stumble." You know what causes me to stumble? Teenage boys thinking it's their place to tell me what they have issues with in the way women dress.

63% agree/strongly agree that it's immodest for girls to reach into their shirts to adjust bra straps. Let's see you wear one and then complain about it being immodest to fix it.

I think the thing that pisses me off the most is the fucking presumption and audacity to do a whole survey of what specifically males think is immodest. Where's the partner survey on what girls think is immodest? I think being a prick is immodest, but no one's asking me to rate it on a 5 point scale. Other gems of this survey - conceived by two teenage guys (big suprise). The logo alone is infuriating. It's a white woman covering her the lower half of her face, suggesting that guys can go ahead and tell us what's not modest and we'll comply, but they sexualize and whitewash the image nonetheless. Go on head, fill out the survey and we'll hop right to, fixing our immodest lifestyles so you won't "stumble" anymore. Let's just cover ourselves right up so YOU don't have to worry about being tempted into sin. We can't have you wear a burqua, though, 'cause that's what the terrorists make their females wear.

I'm adequately pissed off now, thanksverymuch. I don't let teenage boys dictate my wardrobe anymore than I let George W. Bush dictate my politics.

To Clarify

I am very frustrated with many of the comments on my blog posts at this site. And as I have been reading through my responses, I realize that because of this frustration I have not always been able to clearly make my point, so I just wanted to post an opinion post to clarify some facts and explain how I feel.

I have never been raped; however, I have grown up as a woman and experienced all that this entails: catcalls, sexual harassment, inappropriate gestures and innuendos from a very young age. I have had unpleasant encounters with men three times my age and felt violated more than once. And I am only eighteen.

It has been widely reported that nearly 1 in 4 women are raped during their lifetimes. And most rapes don’t occur in an empty alley, committed by a gun-wielding stranger. The vast majority of rapes are acquaintance rapes, and it is these occurrences where women are left with the most of the blame. Look at how she was dressed, she obviously wanted it. We slept together before. If she got that drunk, it was for a reason. But she was flirting with me at the bar; why else would she have talked to me?

Many of the posters have emphasized that most men don’t rape, and that is obviously and thankfully true. However, the existence of rape cannot be ignored; it is real, and the danger to women is everywhere. It is hard for a man to realize the powerful, semi-unconscious fear that pervades most women’s lives. Women can’t comfortably study at the library after dark. Women are warned to avoid parking cars at the far end of the lot. Women shouldn’t run in parks alone. Women are even warned against pulling over in a secluded area if a cop is flashing his lights, for fear he is an imposter. To follow all the restrictions, warnings, advice, and guidelines is to limit the living of one’s life.

While I am not advocating going to a bar alone, dressed provocatively, chatting with strangers, and downing a few shots, I am also not saying any woman who does should be blamed for the actions of the men who surround her. These men are autonomous human beings who have control over their biology. They are not sex-crazed animals, insatiable in their lust for women. They have the ability to ignore the woman or put her in a cab. If they choose to do otherwise, it is solely their decision and solely their responsibility.
_____
Please read here to see where this discussion started.

Also, please visit Men Can Stop Rape.

Victim Blaming: International Edition

A new study from Ireland came back with some fairly depressing findings.

• One in four people believe women who have been raped are partly to blame for the crime because of how they dressed, their sexual history or how much they had to drink.
• More than 30% think a victim is some way responsible if she flirts with a man or fails to say no clearly.
• 10% of people think the victim is entirely at fault if she has had a number of sexual partners.
• 37% think a woman who flirts extensively is at least complicit, if not completely in the wrong, if she is the victim of a sex crime.
• One in three think a woman is either partly or fully to blame if she wears revealing clothes.
• 38% believe a woman must share some of the blame if she walks through a deserted area.

This is blatant victim blaming. Period. Stop. I'm going to refer to an old comparison: If a man is walking through a deserted area at night and is mugged, he is not blamed. If a man's wallet can be seen though his back pocket and he is robbed, he is not blamed. If a man pulls out his wallet with cash visible and he is robbed, he is not blamed. If a man has been robbed in the past, he is not blamed.

We had a similar discussion on our radio show before break, regarding the way women dress and subsequent expectations of behavior. One of the main points we tried to convey is that men are not mindless sex maniacs. They have the ability to stop, to resist the oh-so-enticing women in the miniskirt. A poster on Feministing.com put it best:

"I'm a guy and I am appalled by the thought that so many people still believe that we are just animals who aren't able to control our actions once they see a nice pair of legs or breasts. Arousal may be unconscious, whatever follows isn't."

But if a man makes that conscious decision to continue when his partner's consent is not given, he is solely to blame and nothing a women is wearing, has worn, has said in the past, or has done can exempt him from that blame.