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.

Daniel Craig in Drag for International Women's Day

Yesterday was International Women's Day. In honor of that fact, Daniel Craig stood up both in drag and in his James Bond attire while statistics were read by Judi Dench about how the life of men and women in the UK are different. I know that these statistics are UK based, but unfortunately they apply very well to the U.S. as well.



Anyway, I am not a big James Bond fan so I was not on the Daniel Craig bandwagon until my friend showed me this video. Now I totally get it. Those legs! That feminist advocacy! *drool*

Rape on College Campuses

In March, Jaclyn Friedman wrote a great piece for the Washington Post about how rape is handled on college campuses. I love what she doing with this piece, and think it is awesome that she is bringing more attention to an incredibly important issue. However, there are a few things about the article (such as her use of gendered language) that I think missed the mark a little.

First off, the awesome stuff Jaclyn said.

I love that Jaclyn brought attention to the fact that Title IX can be utilized to ensure not only equal athletic opportunities for women in educational settings, but to prohibit sex discrimination in general. This prohibition against sex discrimination in Title IX “specifically obligates schools to prevent and remedy sexual harassment and assault.” Too many young women do not realize the broad protections of Title IX gives them the right to call bullshit (legally and otherwise) when their school does not handle their sexual assault or harassment case appropriately. I also appreciate that Jaclyn, while bringing attention to how awesome Title IX is, acknowledges how hard it can be, emotionally and otherwise, to press charges against your institution for not treating your sexual harassment or assault case appropriately.

Also, Jaclyn brought up a really interesting statistic that I never knew before: Of the more than 400,000 rapes that will likely be committed on a U.S. college campus this year, “more than 90 percent …will be committed by repeat offenders who will rape, on average, six times during their academic careers.” As horrible as these numbers are, they are, in a weird way, encouraging. In Jaclyn’s words:

That rate of recidivism is actually a golden opportunity, if only schools and courts would take it. It means that all we need to do is get serious about punishing the tiny percentage of men who are committing the vast majority of assaults, and many, many fewer women will have to live through the trauma of sexual violation.

The overall message of Jaclyn’s article: that colleges and universities need to stop trying to make themselves look better by underreporting sexual assault crimes on their campus, is also a much-needed message. Jaclyn couples this message with advice to colleges to “eliminate the ‘miscommunication’ excuse that many rapists use by creating an on-campus standard that requires any party to a sexual interaction to make sure their partner is actively enthusiastic about what's happening -not just not objecting.” This was an overarching theme in the book Yes Means Yes that she and Jessica Valenti edited, and it is a point I don’t hear made often enough.

Okay- on to me nitpicking.

Throughout her article, Jaclyn refers to rapists as “he” and rape victims as “she.” I understand that it is more likely for a woman to be raped than a man and that women are most often raped by men. However, the persistent use of gendered language is why men are even less likely than their female counterparts to report that they have been raped. Also, gendered language further marginalizes those who have been assaulted by a member of the same gender.

Jaclyn says the fact that “Bucknell University is considering abandoning mediation as a way of adjudicating sexual assault cases” is a “small glimmer of hope that change is coming.” Obviously, mediation can be a horribly traumatic experience for a survivor to endure and the idea of an institution forcing a survivor to sit in a room with her or his rapist is disgusting. However, the term “‘abandoning’” seems to imply that it would not be an option for any survivor, even if she or he requested it. I do not know under what circumstances a survivor would want mediation, but I don’t think a school should bar a survivor from using any method she or he thinks she or he needs to help heal. I am doubtful many survivors would choose mediation, but in the event they do they should be able to control how their case is concluded in any way they see fit.

Anyway, all in all, Jaclyn wrote a fantastic article I suggest you all take a look at. If you get a chance to read it, let me know your thoughts in comments.

Guest Post: Thoughts on a Ruined Afternoon

Miranda Mammen is the founder of Women's Glib, a blog by and for young feminists. She graduated from high school in June and will be a freshman at Stanford University this fall.

Cross-posted at Women's Glib.

Memory: It is a delicious Sunday afternoon. Sun glitters through the trees, splashes over benches and stains the ground. It is the fourth of July, and I have spent several hours on my own, reading the intoxicating prose of one of my favorite writers, Zadie Smith, in one of my favorite places in all of New York City: Fort Tryon Park. Shoes off, feet in the grass. Sometimes the world is so beautiful it makes me ache. It's time for the ideal reading break: an ice cream cone. I walk to the truck, pay for my chocolate ice cream with chocolate sprinkles. Perfect refreshing cool, perfect crunch. I stroll back into the park under a canopy of lush leaves. Sometimes the world is so beautiful it makes me ache.

There are people in the background of my vision. One of them emerges slowly; I understand that he is moving toward me. He is an older man, probably in his early seventies, walking slowly. He stops in front of me, and I pause slightly.

He is going to say, "It is so gorgeous on this lawn."

He is going to say, "It is so relaxing here!"

He is going to say, "It is so hot today, don't you think?"

No, he is not. He is not going to say any of these things. His face is two feet from mine and he is saying, "It is so sexy watching you lick that cone."

There is a voice in my head saying: You should have known this was coming. I am still walking and I say crisply, loudly, "THAT'S DISGUSTING" and he smiles and he turns and I walk and my mouth is dry. Sometimes the world is so awful it makes me ache.

Vision: I don't walk on. I don't say anything. I laugh shrilly and he looks startled and I mash my cold ice cream into his face, his beard, it covers him and I am calm. I've won.

Vision: I don't walk on. I scream, "Leave me the fuck alone." I shriek, "You're a piece of shit." I shout, "Fuck you, prick." I've won.

Reality: I can't win. Street harassment is so mind-bogglingly fucked up. It's a cruel game that I'm playing against my will and I can't fucking win it. That's all I want: I want to win. I want to feel better than these jerks because I am. Even more than I hate harassment itself, I abhor the way I feel afterwards. At first I feel ashamed, embarassed even though I've done literally nothing wrong. Then I feel regretful, angry at myself for not reacting more harshly. I feel like a bad feminist, like I haven't spoken up properly or stood up for myself in the "right" way. Next I feel guilty. I feel mean. I make excuses for the dipshit who's put me in this situation -- I tell myself maybe he's a nice guy, maybe he didn't mean it that way. And finally, always, I feel sick, physically nauseous.

All of this shit, all of this fills my mind. It takes up so much space, so much brainpower and it's absolutely useless. Instead of being consumed by these victim-blaming thoughts, I want to feel safe and strong and sexy, sexy on my own terms.

Street harassment isn't a compliment. It's not "no big deal," and it's not isolated. It lies on the continuum of violence against women; it's meant to keep women quiet, keep us inside, keep us from coming and going as we please. It can ruin your afternoon, your emotional safety, your confidence. It needs to be stopped.

~~~~~

HollaBack! is an awesome organization that works to fight street harassment on a global level. Check out their new website, and their PSA (transcript below). I'm the one wearing the plaid jacket.



It was 8am and I was on my way to work. And over my shoulder, I hear... And I wondered, what did I do to deserve this?

I was dropping my kids off at school. Then I felt him. Was it something I was wearing?

I was walking my dog. And then I felt him. Why is it always me? Why does this always happen to me?

And then I remembered: I'm not alone. I remembered I don't have to walk on anymore. I remembered I can HollaBack. I remembered I can HollaBack. Then I remembered: I can totally HollaBack.

If street harassment is okay, then groping is okay. And if groping is okay, then beating is okay. If beating is okay, then rape is okay. And violence against women simply isn't okay. We're ending violence against women one hollaback at a time. Join the movement by holla'ing back and donating at iHollaBack.org. You can end street harassment, one hollaback at a time.

Learn From This Fail

Last night I came across a new (to me) website, Learn From My Fail. It's similar to fmylife, in that people can submit less-than-perfect moments from their life to be read on the internet. Going through some of the posts on LFMF, I found this by a user by the name of "feeling violated":

This is upsetting because it tells of an experience of violation that no person should have to deal with, and illustrates the troubling fact that there are still many people in this world who do not view women as anything more than public property.

What's worse is the tone of victim blaming.

The website is called Learn From MY Fail, which indicates that because this woman posted her experience, she is blaming herself for the uninvited actions of the "frat boys" at the party she attended. This is classic victim blaming: If only she hadn't worn that shirt, those boys wouldn't have been provoked into touching her in a way that she clearly wasn't comfortable with. It just makes me sad that she has bought into the idea that their behavior was somehow a failure on her part.

I've been a little busy as of late, but I wanted to pass along this FML:

Today, I was driving home from college when I saw a couple of
sporty chicks jogging on the side of the road. I honked at them and yelled
suggestively as I do at college, which usually gets a fun flirty reaction from
college girls. It was my next-door neighbor and her 11 year old
daughter.

Sorry, Fonz, but I'm guessing if your neighbor and her 11 year old daughter don't think it's cute and flirty, neither do the college age girls. Street harassment is harassment is harassment. Getting yelled at from a passing car is rarely fun.*

*Sometimes I think it's fun when good friends yell from their cars. Only good friends and only things they know I would find funny.

Inked: “She’s got a tattoo. Look at that tattoo.” (Part two)

In part one of this series I discussed briefly how men and women are treated differently when they decide to get tattoos. Women who have tattoos are often reduced to their sexuality and it is assumed, especially if the tattoo is visible, that somehow this woman is sexually available. For this post, I would like to focus on one particular kind of tattoo: The lower back tattoo, AKA the “tramp stamp.”

As I mentioned in my previous post, I have three tattoos. My latest tattoo was one I designed as a way to represent my feminism and my work as a blogger. Every tattoo I have gotten has been on a meaningful place on my body. For this tattoo I decided to get it on my lower back. This was a calculated move on my part.

The lower back tattoo has developed many negative connotations, and it is often referred to as a “tramp stamp.” Because the lower back tattoo is most often seen on women, the name “tramp stamp” has particularly offensive meanings.

According to Merriam-Webster, the word tramp is a noun that can mean one of the following:

1 a : vagrant b : a foot traveler c : a woman of loose morals; specifically :
prostitute (Emphasis mine)

For more insight on how the tramp stamp is thought of today, you might want to check out the Urban Dictionary entry for the word. But be warned, it’s not pleasant.

Using a woman’s sexual history (or just her perceived sexual history) as a means of shaming her seems to come easily in this society. A woman has sex before marriage or with more than one partner? She’s a dirty slut. She wears a skirt? She must be looking for sex. She flirts with a man? She must want to go all the way. She gets a tattoo on her lower back? Clearly she’s a tramp (prostitute), and that’s just shameful. Really, there’s no winning for women, and it’s something I’m sick of.

So, I decided to get a feminist “tramp stamp.” I thought the irony was irresistible and felt it might be an interesting comment on how absurd it is to assume that because a woman has a lower back tattoo, she must be “of loose morals.”

Most of the time, I don’t remember that I have a lower back tattoo unless someone mentions it when it shows a little from under my shirt. But one day when I went to a gas station next to my dorm that I had just moved into, I was relentlessly reminded of it.

This particular gas station has a bad reputation around my college campus as being dangerous. I have heard both students and faculty say that people have been shot there. But because everything on campus was closed this summer, this gas station was so close, and I didn’t have a refrigerator to keep food in, I often went to this gas station despite it making me feel uneasy. One afternoon I walked into the gas station past a group of seven men who were standing near the register. I didn’t make eye contact with any of them, but as I passed, one of the men said loudly to one of his companions, “She’s got a tattoo! Look at that sexy tattoo she’s got! She’s got a tattoo. Bet she thinks she’s fine.” I kept walking, trying to ignore him without looking at him. “I see you smilin’, girl,” the same man called after me, even though I had clearly not been smiling. I quickly made my way to the back of the store while the men remained in the front, being loud and obnoxious to the woman working the cash register. I waited until they had left before I went to get the food that I had come for. And even then, I waited a few more minutes to be sure that they wouldn’t be waiting outside. There were so many of them, and I didn’t feel comfortable with the thought of having to walk past them again.

When I got back to my dorm, I was flustered, and I quickly checked a mirror to see how much of my tattoo had been showing. Not even half an inch. This unnerved me even more, as I tried to figure out what had caught the man’s eye in the first place. I was mad that this man felt he had the right to comment about my appearance, especially because the tattoo that was being commented on was a feminist tattoo. It’s meant to make a statement about how unacceptable it is for women to have to experience harassment and have people assume things about their sexuality just from a tattoo. The irony in this experience mirrors the irony in my choice of placement for my tattoo in a sad, although not completely unexpected way.

Today in WTF!?

In light of some of the recent conversations had on this blog about street harassment, I happened upon this story on Feministing.

From BBC:

Pack gathers for wolf-whistling first

On Wednesday, Ireland's first ever wolf-whistling championships were held in Irvinestown, where men dressed up as construction workers and whistled at passing women.

The politically incorrect competition was the work of [Lady of the Lake Festival] organiser, and whistling devotee, Joe Mahon.

"It was all good fun, and we didn't get too many complaints at all - people just enjoyed the day.

Ok. So let me get this straight. Joe Mahon, here, was sitting around a table one day, thinking up events to include as part of this festival, and he gets a brilliant idea. "Gee, I really like to whistle at pretty ladies. That would make a great event! No way this could possibly be considered offensive of just plain fucked up, nope. Not at all. It's golden!"

WTF?

Tweeting catcalls

Recently here at Female Impersonator we've been talking about street harassment, walking as rebellion and potential action we can take. Here's one more thing we can do to raise awareness (mostly for men who don't understand the pervasiveness of the problem) about street harassment and catcalling.

If you're on Twitter, when someone harasses you, tweet it to @catcalled. Often she'll retweet it, but it's important to show just how often, how universal and how consistent it is, regardless of woman, city, or outfit.



Street harassment is just one manifestation of the idea that women's bodies are public property. If society starts to take street harassment seriously, we're one step closer to taking other offenses on women's bodies and lives seriously too.

via The Undomestic Goddess and thanks to rude_not_ginger

Walking as Rebellion? A Follow-Up

Wow. I had no idea that my experience would be shared by so many vocal, awesome commenters. Thank you to everyone who has shared anger over similar moments, support, solutions, thoughts, or opinions.

A few things that have been coming up in the comments that I want to address:

1. Harassment as compliments
I think a few readers have misunderstood the kind of harassment I'm concerned about. There is no way to mistake a "suck my dick" comment for a compliment. And yelling something from a car, even something meant kindly is not the appropriate way to compliment someone. Ever.
If a guy feels need to tell a girl, who he doesn't know, that she looks nice or that he likes something she is wearing, that is a totally different situation. And one that deserves a separate blog post.

2. Solutions: Silence or The Middle Finger
In the original post, I mentioned that I have a hard time ignoring the situation, so I usually flick the bastards off. I lot of commenters responded that they choose to simply ignore the situation because a reaction is what the guys are looking for. But, I just can't do it that way. I feel a need to respond, and the quickest way in my situation, which is mostly cars driving by and commenting is flicking people off. That's just me though. I do realize that ignoring the situation is probably the best, productive way to handle it, but at this point in my life it just makes me feel powerless, something I don't want to feel.

I've been thinking more about this. I was texting one of my guy friends, while I was walking home the other day. I was complaining about the harassment, and his response:

"Girl, what are you wearing?"

Now, this is a really smart, kind friend and his question didn't bother me too much at the time. But, days later, its irking me. Obviously, this parallels a rape victim being asked what she was wearing. It is a form of victim blaming and nothing new. But, I think it does brooch the importance of talking to people you know about the issue and educating them about what its like to be on the receiving end of such "compliments." A lot of commenters have stressed this, and I think it is so important.

We need to take action. So, let's start an impromptu re-education movement. Seriously, it is a slow start, sporadic, and spontaneous, but it can't hurt. I'm going to start talking to my friends, especially the men in my life, about this issue, and I'm gonna post about when I do. Any reactions or questions or miscommunication will be written about here, so people can refer to them to answer their own questions. And because I'm clearly not an expert, I want you to do the same. You can post here in the comments or email me the story and I'll make a separate blog post for it. I even set up a new gmail account katehatesharrassment@gmail.com Or start your own blog and just link here. There have been lots of awesome hollerback sites started, but this are a documentation of harrassment. I want to start a documentation of avoided harrassment and positive teaching and learning experiences.

We also need a title for this action, I think. In my internship, I'm learning how important clever titles are. Any ideas?

Alright, let's begin! Go talk.

Walking as Rebellion?

I am angry right now. And I am rarely angry.
So, everyday I walk to work. Its about a mile to the office and another mile on the way home. Then after I eat dinner, I usually go for a bike ride down by the lakefront. I like walking to work and usually even turn down ride offers from co-workers unless its raining. The walk gives me time to think, call my mom, or just enjoy the sunshine before I have to sit in a climate controlled office for the next eight hours.
The only thing about this routine that I don't like is the constant cat-calling, wolf whistling, and harassment I have to endure on these walks. I walk on the sidewalk by a pretty busy road and haven't made it through one walk without at least one comment or wolf whistle. It doesn't matter what I'm wearing: a sundress, a skirt, shorts, pants, sweatshirts, or sneakers. The attention is even worse when I'm riding my bike for some reason. I rode about six miles today to a meeting downtown, but I specifically rode out of my way on the bike path to avoid the catcalls I usually get when I ride on the street. But, even on my short street detour to the bikepath, I was harassed.
And yes, I'm calling it harassment. Because it is. It is not a compliment, as my mom tried to get me to believe. It is someone harassing me, propositioning me, and verbally assaulting me for simply being on the sidewalk, on public space. Walking to work on my birthday last week, I had an old man tell me to suck his dick. That is harassment, plain and simple.
So, how do I respond? As long as there is a safe distance between me and my harasser, I just flick them off. I hate doing this at 8:30 in the morning, but how else should I respond? I've usually barely even finished my coffee. I'm not in an understanding mood. And as a feminist, I can't just ignore assaults on my presence in the world, assaults that I endure just because I'm a woman with long hair, who dares to wear a skirt on a warm day.
How do you usually respond? Any suggestions to this far-too common problem? Any male readers want to give their perspective? I've never lived in an environment where I am constantly walking before, so as much as I've read about this problem, this is the first time I'm experiencing it on a consistent basis, and I am angry angry angry.

P.S. Please read my follow up post. Let's take action!

Guest Post: Hey sexy mama!

This guest post is by my good friend, Rachel. She's working on her M.Div at Yale Divinity School and is currently at a Summer Fellowship with Beatitudes Society in Chicago, her adoptive home. You can find her original post here.

A couple of weeks ago I realized how much my posture had changed in the past few years. When I was in college, I was often mistaken for a dancer, even at the times that I didn't have a ballerina's leanness. Shoulders back, back stretched long, hips where they wanted to be, strides long. People commented on my posture, and it felt good to move around.

Somewhere in the past few years I started, well, tucking in my rear-end a bit. This made my strides shorter and my shoulders slouched just a little. It also made my back ache just a little after some walks.

I did this because of comments from men about my body, most often about my rear-end.

Women all over the world have to do much more than I've ever done in response to sexual aggression. I know this.

I know my burden is light here, but it's just so clear and pronounced to me by changes in the way I carry myself. I walked to the fruiteria today and received multiple sexually aggressive comments and hisses. Hisses! I know not to respond to them. Sometimes the fact that I should be holding my tongue in such situations is even more maddening. I can't convince those men in that moment about why it's wrong and harmful and degrading.

I don't know what the solution is.

I should be walking in the way that feels natural. I miss that.

Advice: Workplace sexual harassment

Transcript:

Hello, I'm Prudence. Today's letter is about the Intern and the Office Lech.

Women's Voice: I'm a college age girl and last summer I had an internship at a small office. There wasn't a very strict dress code, so I usually wore jeans and a sweater. One day, an older co-worker who had been very friendly and welcoming, pulled me aside and said I was distracting him by wearing V-neck sweaters. I immediately apologized and promised that I would dress differently in the future. I wore my jacket for the rest of the day. After that, he started telling me about his past sex life and how he would have loved someone like me when he was younger. Then he told me that interns were supposed to have their pictures taken and asked me to take a few with 'more boobs'. When I left the internship, I was too embarassed to say goodbye to him. I also never got back in touch with my actual boss, even though he asked me to because I was afraid this person was going to tell him bad things about me. How much of this was my fault? And what should I have done? Signed, Dress Code.

Prudence: Dear Dress Code, you have some nerve being young, attractive and topping it off by having a pair of breasts. You're lucky this guy didn't bring a hostile work environment suit against you. Ok, even though you've left this place of employ, you need to get back in touch with your former boss and explain why you left so abruptly without thanking him. Ask for a meeting or talk to him on the phone and tell him exactly what happened. Say you were so embarassed and mortified you simply didn't know what to do and so you left but now in retrospect you need to let him know so another young woman doesn't have to go through this. Then tell him you very much appreciated the opportunity you had and you learned a lot. I bet you did.

While some of Prudence's advice regarding getting in touch with the boss was helpful, she failed to clearly address the advice seeker's main question - how much of what happened was her fault?

Here's the advice I would give to Dress Code:

None of this was your fault. That man's actions were out of line, unprofessional and constitute sexual harassment. His comments and actions made the workplace uncomfortable for you, which then impacted your work performance. He abused his position as an older, full time employee by acting inappropriately towards you as younger summer intern.

If something similar to this happens in the future, document the harassment with specific details such as what was said, when, where, if anyone else overheard it, etc. Bring it to your boss and issue a complaint against the coworker, if you so wish (and I encourage). But definitely document the harassment, in case in the future you need to establish a pattern or escalation of his behavior. By all means, get back in touch with your former boss to let him know what happened. Perhaps this man has a history of sexual harassment, and you can help prevent another woman from experiencing his inappropriate behavior.

This isn't Mad Men anymore. Sexual harassment within the workplace shouldn't be tolerated. Many women in the past have braved sexism, harassment and the struggles of the court system to establish the workplace sexual harassment laws we have today so you wouldn't have to apologize for wearing a V-neck sweater. But above all - this wasn't your fault. You are not responsible for his actions, regardless of how you were dressed.

Overheard on a train

The following is a guest post submitted by Samantha. She's a 20 year old full time college student at Knox College where she's a biology major hoping to go into research.

This weekend I was heading home to celebrate my birthday with my family and while on the train I sat across from a woman and her husband. I had taken out my computer to do some homework on the train they noticed how big it was (it has a 17 inch screen) and started making sexual jokes at me and each other, saying “it’s size that matters” or “it’s the inches that are important” or “I’d rather have longer battery life because it doesn’t matter how big it is if it doesn’t last long.” I have never met these people in my life and they felt comfortable making me uncomfortable with these sexual jokes. It’s one thing if I’ve been friends with someone for a while and they start making jokes, but complete strangers? Not ok.

Later in the ride the conductor came through telling us that we have to get our bags down early because once the train goes below ten miles an hour the lights would go off. Well the man asked the conductor when he should grab his bag. The conductor started to repeat that they would give an announcement when his wife interrupted her saying, “He meant me, I’m his bag.” The poor conductor didn’t know what to say and finally decided on “that’s not nice.” The wife’s response was “he can say anything he wants because I’ve got these” while showing all the rings that were on her fingers. There were about 4 rings and they were covered with diamonds. She is teaching her children, three girls and two boys, that it’s ok for men to be derogatory toward women as long as they give them expensive presents! They’re also teaching the boys that it’s alright to be derogatory towards women as long as they can give them shiny things in return. Also that every woman will forgive them for their remarks as long as they bribe them with something shiny and expensive. The saddest thing about this incident was that I know that there really are some women (besides the wife on the train) that think like this; that it’s ok for men to say anything they want about women and they’ll be fine with it as long as they buy them expensive gifts.

How is her daughter ever going to learn the correct way a man should treat her if the only examples she has is of her mother who lets her stepfather saying derogatory things in very public places; not that it would be more appropriate in private but if it’s a private joke or something then it should definitely stay in private. I just feel terrible for her children, it’s so sad that they have to grow up in this environment. I hope that they have some kind of role model that can show them that it’s not ok for husbands to be derogatory towards their wives as long as they can compensate with jewelry.

The Powerless White Male: A Confrontation

I want to confront the notion, that some people I consider friends buy into, that in this day and age, white American men "are powerless" and "get fucked over every day"* because they are white. Because they are male. One friend of mine in particular likes to point out that their are no "white guy scholarships," and since everyone else gets all the help, he is not privileged. In fact, he is disadvantaged. I don't want to address the issue of affirmative action in this post. Instead, I want to point out something much more pervasive in American society.

American life has been tailored to convenience white, heterosexual males.

Let us consider for a moment the endless amount of advertising that we are exposed to on a daily basis. Sexual images of women almost seem like something that should be expected in advertisements these days. But if you think more carefully about their content you will notice a few distinct patterns.

This Skyy Vodka image makes some assumptions about the viewer of the ad: 1) The viewer is a heterosexual male who would be enticed by the female in the image, 2) The heterosexual male is white, and could most effectively be enticed by a woman who looks as white as possible. This advert was clearly made with a specific demographic in mind, which is interesting considering vodka is a product that can and is used by people of all genders and sexualities.

Even adverts not directly speaking to white heterosexual males do not remove them from their privileged place in the mind of those creating the images. For example, this image of Beyoncé in a L'Oreal ad has caused some controversy about having been made to appear more like a white person. This image shows that even when an advert is for a "women's product" it is white males that are supposed to be pleased. Even if it is not an overt plot by the advertiser, this image is saying that all women should want to be white (or as white as possible) if they want to appeal to men (assumed to be white and heterosexual).

Another aspect of American life that white males can feel at home with is major national evening news shows. Some basic cable examples include World News, currently anchored by Charles Gibson and NBC Nightly news, currently anchored by Brian Williams. CBS Evening News is currently anchored by Katie Couric, but only after a line of previous anchors that has been dominated by men. It is important to note the impact of hearing about world news from someone similar to oneself. It helps determine to some extent the kinds of topics that are covered and how one thinks about the topics that are brought up.

Yet another example that is less specific, but just as important is street harassment. The fact that white males who more or less fit into the gender role society expects them to fulfill can walk in public without being harassed, without being treated like public property that is open to comments from strangers, that is privilege. Being able to exist in public spaces without having to face verbal and physical harassment, a tactic meant to strip people of the idea that they deserve to exist in such places, that is a privilege.

Of course, not all forms of privilege apply to all men. Sexuality, gender expression, ethnicity, race, income, and other factors can have an effect on what one's privilege looks like, but these factors don't make male privilege disappear completely. And I am absolutely sick of hearing my white, heterosexual male friends complaining about how the world treats them so unfairly because of the very characteristics that elevate them to a level of privilege in American society that is so entrenched in their daily lives that they can't even seem to identify it.

Being able to deny your privilege in such an adamant way and to demand that your own situation deserves to be addressed (as some of my friends have done), is also a luxury of the very privilege you deny.


*Quotes from a conversation with a male friend that touched on this topic.

Why isn't violence against women a hate crime?

I was reading a book and came across stats on hate crimes in the United States, and began thinking about the various signifiers we consider protected under hate crime legislation. It led me to this thought:

Why isn't violence against women on the basis of their gender considered a hate crime?*

I don't necessarily have an answer to this and I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. However, gender (along with race, sexual orientation, disability, etc) is protected under the equal protection clause, so it's notable that it's not included. Protecting gender under hate crimes laws would change how street harassment, sexual violence and rape cases are viewed, in my opinion.

I can certainly think of many acts of violence done specifically against women and girls because they are women and girls.

*Edit - added "on the basis of their gender" added 2/26 at 11:30 EST for clarification reasons.

"Your Comments Here"

Some of you may remember the incident at the Yale Women's Center where male students stood outside the Center with a sign saying, "We love Yale sluts" while chanting "dick dick dick" - apparently something they meant as a joke. When the school found the group not guilty of intimation and harassment, I wrote about my own experience and the less blatant, yet still present, sexism at Yale Divinity School.

A group of feminists and graphic artists have taken all the comments left on Yale Daily News articles about the incident and made an incredibly powerful poster that they put up around campus last week:


Reading the comments on this poster brought me to tears. The virulent words, hate and general disrespect for the Women's Center and by proxy, all women, makes me sick to my stomach. The supposed anonymity of the internet brings out the worst in people - or maybe the truth in people, but that they're too ashamed to say to someone's face.

To those people who don't think that sexism is pervasive through our culture, read the poster.

Here's a larger image in case you want to fully experience the poster.

HollaBack CT!!!

If you live in the Connecticut area, take a look at HollaBack CT, from feministgal at Oh, You're a FEMINIST?!.

I seriously love HollaBacks - they empower people by giving them a means to react in a safe manner to their street harassment. In a harassment situation that's completely about power, someone may not be comfortable enough to say something, or it may not be safe to.

In May, Mildred Beaubrun ignored catcalls from a car of men at a gas station, and they shot her and her friends. She died. All because they wouldn't give out their phone numbers.

It's not safe anymore for women in public. HollaBack is a great, safe place for venting and alerting other people to the creepy people out there who think that women's bodies are public property.

So check HollaBack CT out, even if you don't live in Connecticut.

Father beaten for protecting daugther from sexual assault

Out of Minnesota:

The father of a 12-year-old girl who tried to keep a young man from groping his daughter at a popular Shakopee amusement park was seriously hurt late on July 4 after he was allegedly kicked and stomped by a group of men in an attack police called "brutal."

The attack on the unnamed man, which happened just outside Valleyfair Amusement Park, resulted in charges against at least six Twin Cities-area men. They were among several people the initial attacker called on his cell phone to summon them to join the assault.

The group beat up the father as his wife and daughter looked on, police said. The man was seriously injured and unconscious when police arrived.

"We see assaults, but that's brutal," Shakopee police Sgt. Jay Arras said.

Arras said the man and his family were leaving Valleyfair shortly before midnight on July 4 when a man "tried to grab the 12-year-old girl in a sexual manner" near the park exit, the father later told police.

They caught the attackers and six men and a 14 year old boy are being charged with third-degree felony assault charges. The father is recovering, but doctors aren't sure how extensive the damage is and are waiting until his swelling goes down.

I'm with Feministing - there are just too many horrific stories about sexual violence, harassment, racism and hatred today.

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)