Rape Culture: Why We Do Have To Point Out The Obvious

From a current, popular YA novel I'm reading:

Twenty minutes later, [he] had wrestled [her] into his bedroom, padlocked the door, and vigorously launched into a nonstop drum solo.

He's done this because he's trying to force her to tell him something, a secret she (um, kind of obviously) doesn't want to share with him yet because she does not feel comfortable doing it. She hates when he plays the drums, mainly because of the extremely loud noise, which is why he bangs on the drums with her locked in the room.

An hour after that they ended up on the roof. [She] had distracted [him] just long enough to escape through his window, but he followed so swiftly that she panicked and scaled the ladder.
"Really? The roof is your getaway plan?" he said teasingly, balancing on the shingles. "Don't you watch horror movies?" He turned around and kicked the ladder away. It fell to the ground with a soft thump.

The author has a problem with exaggeratedly over-the-top use of hyperbole, which really does not help this scene at all. I know she's not trying to say what she's actually saying here. But she's saying it.

The guy wants the girl to do something. The girl doesn't want to do it. So it's okay -- humorous, even -- for him to use physical force to take the girl into his bedroom, PADLOCK the door, and do unpleasant and painful things to her until she does what he wants her to do.

She is so uncomfortable in this situation, she ESCAPES through the window. So he follows her, and knocks the ladder off the roof, trapping her. Here, she finally gives in and does what he wants her to do.

And this scene is supposed to be funny, or cute. There is nothing wrong with the guy doing any of this to the girl; nothing objectionable has happened, because she was going to tell him the thing eventually anyway, right?

Stuff like this is what feeds (or creates) rape culture.

(While I have you here... every time in books, movies, TV shows when the guy kisses the girl, and she looks or acts surprised or shocked or disgusted, but after a few seconds -- during which the guy holds the kiss, generally physically holding on to her and holding her to him, even though the girl is clearly not responding positively and in some cases she's even trying to get him off her -- she eventually "gives in" and kisses him back, yeah, that's rape culture. That's sending a strong message that, guys, if she doesn't immediately want you, you're just not trying hard enough. KEEP PUSHING YOURSELF ON HER!!)

"Oh, it's just a book! Lighten up!"

Books, TV shows, movies send us messages. They do. They model behavior for us, and we internalize those messages (subconsciously, which is why you don't realize it). What's described above is so effed up if you take a second to think about it. But it's been so normalized by the media we don't even think about it. The kiss scenario? It happened in Ratatouille. A kids' movie about a mouse that cooks. And the guy wasn't even really trying to kiss the girl -- the rat makes him kiss her to keep him from telling her the secret. Even when you don't even want to kiss the girl, it's okay to force yourself on her and kiss her against her will. (Ah, yes, The Little Mermaid's "Kiss the Girl"... ugh, do I have to spell that one out for you? Google the lyrics and read them, without the music or the funny crab's accent.)

If you see nothing wrong with the scene quoted above, then you see nothing wrong with physically trapping another person in a closed space and inflicting pain on that person until that person does what you want hir to do.

If you see nothing wrong with physically trapping another person and inflicting pain on that person until that person does what you want hir to do, then why would you think rape is wrong?

This is what we're talking about when we say we need to teach people not to rape. Before we can teach people that rape is wrong, we need to make sure they understand what rape is.

We're not talking about the mythical stranger in the dark alley waiting for the drunk girl with the short skirt and her hair in a long ponytail walking alone in a bad part of town alone late at night -- that guy knows what he's doing is wrong, he just doesn't care.

The good news is, very few rape cases involve the violent stranger in the dark alley (the guy who knows it's wrong but does it anyway, the guy who won't be deterred by prevention campaigns or laws or prison sentences). Most of them involve the dude at the bar, the guy who asked you out on a date, the uncle or older cousin you see once a year at the annual family reunion, your coworker, your boss, your teacher, the guy in your economics class who crashed your friend's party, your neighbor... you know, those guys. Guys who are "nice guys," who would never do something "bad," who would never "hurt" a girl... Wait, what? Lock her in a room with me until she agrees to do what I want her to do that she has clearly expressed she does not want to do? Well, yeah, I'd do that... but that's totally different!! Um, right?

No, it's not. And that's why we're talking about it. This is what we're talking about.

We're talking about the "nice guy" who tries for the third time tonight to rub his hands on his date's thigh, even though she has pushed his hand away every time and keeps inching away from him.

We're talking about the guy who tells himself she's just "playing hard to get" when she says no and pushes him away.

We're talking about the guy who thinks that because she didn't "affirmatively say no" (because she was too drunk to say anything), that's good enough and he can go ahead and have sex with her.

We're talking about the guy who looks at a girl who's passed out and thinks it's okay, that it's funny, to post photos and video of her online saying she's "so raped."

We're talking about the guy who thinks it's funny to make jokes about rape. And we're talking about all the guys who will jump in to defend that guy when he gets called out for saying, "Wouldn't it be funny if, like, five guys raped her right now?"

We're talking about explaining how all of these things create and perpetuate rape culture. How they excuse proto-rapist behavior. How they lead to rape scenarios, and to your bros encouraging you to act in rapey ways.

I'm sorry if it makes you "uncomfortable." I'm sorry if it bothers you if you see at least part of yourself in the descriptions above. Sometimes, that's exactly what we need in order to see clearly, to motivate us to make positive changes.

And I know you know better than to imply that your discomfort should in any way supersede or dismiss the pain and torture of being a victim of sexual assault... right?

Some thoughts on the Penn State thing: educators and administrators reporting abuse (or not)

I used to get my news via Twitter, but even that got too depressing. I've been taking a hiatus, enjoying that whole Mom thing, focusing my energies on that.

I still hear about crap that happens in the news. Like this whole Penn State thing.

When I taught (K-12, in Texas), every year we had to sit through at least one in-service meeting about reporting child abuse. If you see something, if you hear something, if you think there's abuse going on, you  have to report it. It's the law to report it. if you don't, you can be sued, go to jail, etc.

This, really, should all be a given.

But, as I hear more about the Penn State thing (a graduate assistant saw it, he reported it to his supervisor, nobody did anything), I remembered the addendum to the in-service that we were told at the elementary school where I worked.

The training said we HAD to report the abuse. They gave us the number to call. The administration, and the counselor, were there to help us, if we wanted someone to be there when we made the call to Child Protective Services (in case we were nervous about the questions they would ask, or intimidated, or whatever).

But, somehow, "the administration is there to help you make the report" somehow turned into "if you think there is something to report, you  have to go to the administration first, and they'll make the call for you." We were not allowed to call CPS directly -- we HAD to go to the administration, and/or the counselor, and they would make the call for us, I guess with us in the room. But the call had to be made by the person in authority, the school principal. Not the lowly teacher.

I was concerned about a student once, and I went to the principal. I can't remember the details, because this was years ago, but the gist is I was told not to call. The administration was familiar with the situation, they knew the family, and they were sure nothing "bad" was going on. They would "keep an eye on it," though, and if there was anything to be concerned about, they would call CPS.

Now, I went to them because I was concerned about some things the parent had said (one comment that still stands clear in my mind: "If child abuse were legal, I'm telling you, I would abuse her!", said because the girl was so "difficult" and headstrong... well, if you're saying crap like that, you're probably abusing her already, love...) and some things the girl said in class. I had no "evidence," and what I had could easily be dismissed as "parenting choice." I went to the counselor about it because she knew the family (the girl and her brothers, and the older half-sister who was now in junior high), and had known them for years. This was my first year at the school, and my first year working in elementary (which is quite different from high school).

And, yeah, calling CPS was a little intimidating. Especially when all you have to say is, "The mom is a b!tch and I don't like her. And the daughter dresses too sexy for her age, which I don't like either."

So I went to my supervisors. And they told me to not worry my pretty little head about it, just look the other way and go on about my business.

What happened at Penn State is not new. Nor is it unusual (erm, hello, Catholic Church, anyone?) It happened to be really big, and involving prominent players (fancy, well-known coach; popular football team). But, now that I think about it, the very same thing could have happened at the cozy little elementary school where I worked. Maybe it has happened, but since none of the people who work there are famous (and the parents and the district have enough money to cover it up, probably, or keep it relatively quiet), no one has found out about it.

What if a substitute teacher, or a teaching aide, or a first-year teacher actually witnessed abuse? The elementary school has students from kinder to sixth grade. What if a sixth-grader were molesting a kindergartner? The sub, or aide, or teacher would go to the administration, as she had been told. Plus, that's a pretty traumatic thing to witness, I would want to have someone "in control," someone to help me cope. Someone to hold my hand.

And then the principal does what he did to me. "Thanks for telling us. We'll take care of it."

Because they don't want to upset the parents (that was a pretty strong theme at that school). They don't want to risk a lawsuit, accusing someone of something that probably didn't happen. They don't want the negative publicity the school would get, if this got on the news. The sub/aide/teacher probably misinterpreted the situation, anyway...

So they don't call. Maybe they tell the sub/aide/teacher that they did call, maybe they tell her it's been "handled;" maybe they tell her to forget about it, or, if she asks again, even threaten her, telling her she needs to move on, forget about what she thinks she saw.

What's the policy where you work?

What's the policy where your children go to school?

What's the written, official policy, and what's the "informal" policy the administration tells the teachers?

Tweet

Birth Control Injection For Men

OK, I admit I did not read the WHOLE article (it's long, and I have a baby stirring in his basket, he's about to wake up and my Internetz time will be up); I saw something on Twitter or Facebook about this the other day, but that article seemed wonky, and I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not. This article has, like, sciency-talk in it and stuff.

If this is for real, then... DUDE.

If it IS 100% effective, and reversible, then... DAMN. MonkeyBoy will be strongly encouraged to get this injection when he's 13. He can reverse it when he's ready to have kids, if he and his partner choose to make babies.

And speaking of, he's awake. So I'll leave you with the article: The Revolutionary New Birth Control Method For Men. Go read, be amazed, get excited, and find that doctor in San Francisco who wants to bring this to the FDA. Let's make this happen! Soon!!

"About half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned. Come up with a better contraceptive and the likely results are all good: fewer unwanted kids, fewer single parents, and fewer abortions."

Switching to condoms...

You can see the rest of these here, but the best one by far is this one:

Tweet

formspring.me: "Do you think it is healthy for teenagers to view pornography? Why or why not?"

Do you think it is healthy for teenagers to view pornography? Why or why not?

Ooh... that's a tough one.

I think we need to remove the taboo from sex and sexuality, definitely. Teenagers are having sex and doing things their parents are ashamed to even think of, so we need to talk about these things, without shame or blame or fear or judgement, and provide teenagers (and adults) with the tools they need to particiapte in that behavior safely if that is what they choose to do, and the tools to know how to decline participation if that's what they choose to do.

We need to have this information out there.

Now, as to pornography... hmm. I'm a prude at heart, really. Also, from what I understand (I have viewed pornography, I'm not going to pretend I've never seen a magazine or a movie, but I also know there is tons of stuff, and genres and styles, out there that I have not seen) "most" or much of what's out there does not send positive or healthy messages to the role of the cis female in sex (I won't try to speak for trans or intersex people since I am wholly ignorant as to how they are represented in pornography, though I am willing to wager they are seen as a source of fetishes and not treated as real people/being with sexual desires of their own).

I guess before I could say yes, it is healthy for teenagers to view pornography, we'd have to change the industry and the material. I would want to make sure that lesbianism is not portrayed as a sexual fantasy for cis het men, and that women are not perpetually in the submissive role, only there to fulfill the fantasies of the males.

I do think porn has a place and a value, since, given our puritan, prudish society, teens can't get information about sex and sexuality and "alternative lifestyles" and non-cis, non-hetero sexuality any other way.

Ask me anything

What does TRUST WOMEN mean to you?

I don't even know how to start to answer this question. Is the answer not painfully obvious? Do we really need to spell it out for you??

Trust women. Trust us to know what we're doing. Trust us to know the consequences and effects of our actions. Trust us to know enough to make decisions for ourselves.

Trust that when we make a decision, we've thought about it. We've weighed all the options. And if this is what we decided, then there's a d@mn good reason for that.

Trust me -- I know better what's best for me than you do. Because I'm me, I live every day of my life as me. I know how I will react to the things that will happen to me -- okay, fine, I don't know the future, so I don't know exactly how I will react to something until it actually happens to me, but you know what? I know how I have reacted to everything in my life up to now... so maybe I can make a pretty darned good educated guess about how I will react to those unknowns in the future.

You, person who doesn't know me -- literally, we have never met (no, not you, people who regularly read this blog; I'm talking to the rabid antis) -- you, on the other hand, have no clue. And you know what else? You won't be there for all those unknowns; I will. So let me decide for myself what I need to have happen so that I can handle those things.

If I feel an abortion is the right choice for me, and for that potential child, then that is nobody's business other than mine and my doctor's. If you don't like it, for whatever reason, then... who cares? I don't. You know why? Because you are not involved in this.

I don't force you to do things my way -- see, I trust you to make your own decisions about yourself -- so why do you feel you have a right to force me to do things your way?

No other medical procedure has to put up with this. No, wait -- that's right. Silly me.

Did you know that if you're a cis woman, you can have all sorts of operations on your breasts, and even on your vagina, without anyone batting an eyelash? But if you happen to be a trans woman, and you want to have gender affirming surgery to make your body match your self... whoops! Sorry, now we need a note from a therapist. We need to know you've talked to someone about this "radical" move you're trying to make. Yes, you need to get permission from your doctor and your therapist to do this.

To go from a B-cup to a D-cup, just because you feel like it? Sure, go ahead! No, no note. No problem.

To treat gender dysphoria? Oh, no, we can't do that. That's... different. That's not what I would do!!! You must not know what you're doing -- we must stop you! Protect you from yourself! Do you really know what you're doing? Have you thought about it long enough? Maybe we should give you a mandatory waiting period. Here, talk to a therapist about it. Because I'm sure you have not thought this through well enough. Why? I don't trust you, because you are not like me!

Really, people.

Yes, I know we're talking about things that deal with the naughty bits. We're talking about -- shh! -- S-E-X. Oh noes!

Please note: things that make you more heterosexxxy are fine. Breast augmentation, vagina tightening, vagina dying... those are fine. Because, cis women, you are, after all, little more than a sex object. (Trans women, you can't even make babies. If you're of no use to us as an incubator, what use are you? Sheesh... Oh, wait -- we'll keep you around, for those of us with fetishes. Cool.)

I really meant to write an eloquent post for Blog for Choice day, but the whole idea that I'd need to explain what it means to trust women makes me too angry (maybe I'm still channeling the main character from my novel -- I've been working on the scene where she walks into the abortion clinic). So, instead, this post just turned into an angry rant. Yes, that's what you get from me today: angry wordvomit.

What does "trust women" mean to me? It means mind your own business. Trust me to mind mine, and to take care of what I need to, responsibly.

The Epic #AmazonFAIL of 2009

Yesterday (Easter Sunday) I was, indeed, hiding under a rock. Freddy and I went to church, then to his mom's house to do the Easter thing with the nieces and nephew. I was a good girl and did not take my laptop*. ALAS! I log on to Twitter this morning and find out I indeed missed quite a bit of brouhaha.

Quick run-down of the events: Why did gay books disappear from Amazon?

Why the "glitch" story doesn't really click: David Niall Wilson: Glimpses Into an Overactive Mind - Amazon Sales Rank and Some Reality

What to do about it: Smart Bitches - Amazon Rank and Dear Author - Amazon Rank

Or, if you're so inclined, here's something else you can do: Jackson Pearce's Amazon FAIL (or: Twilight Made Me Gay)

Other good posts (this list will be updated as I find more links. And find the ones I already read, but closed the window before I realized I needed to blog about it):

After Ellen - What Amazon's "Glitch" Says About American Pop Culture

Narcissistic Ramblings... - And ANOTHER Fail Sister: #amazonfail

Urban Dictionary: Amazon rank

[EDIT] Feministing.com - Amazon Fail: Certain "adult" books (like mine) are de-ranked

[EDIT 2] Neil Gaiman - Amazonfail Sunday

[***UPDATE***]

This guy claims he did it. I don't understand all that code-speak, so here's the explanation in layspeak (from Fiction Matters).

The guy quite clearly has an issue with gay people. I can't tell how much of his post is serious, and how much is him trying to be funny (I'm not going to waste time out of my life to find out). Was he just trying to pull some prank on the gay community? Was he out to target authors (gay and straight)? Did he really find Heather Has Two Mommies that offensive?

Did he choose which books people "flagged"? Or did people choose the books? If the guy chose the books, why are feminist books and books that deal with disabilities also being targeted?

And as I was writing this, FictionMatters updated the post, because this guy says the first guy is a liar (which is not entirely surprising to me). I started to read the post, but it speaks a language I do not understand. So I stopped, since I prefer not to pursue fruitless endeavors.

[***UPDATE***THE SEQUEL***]

And there's more! Jessica Valenti from Feministing (who's had two books de-ranked) has an update, after her editor spoke to an Amazon rep.

[***UPDATE***THE SEQUEL***PART DEUX***]

There seems to be an "unofficial official" response from Amazon. FictionMatters has a summary and links to the "unofficial official" explanations.

* I took my AlphaSmart, in case Script Frenzy inspiration hit me. (It didn't.) But I left all Internetzed devices at home.

Even more reasons why I hate the Catholic Church

Please understand that when I talk about the Catholic Church, I am referring to the leaders in the church. The people who choose to excommunicate doctors who had to make an unpleasant move in order to save a girl's life, but have not a word to say about the rapist who caused the situation.

Then the Pope goes and does something like this:

Feminist Daily News 3/18/2009: Vatican Defends Pope's Remarks on Condoms and the AIDS Crisis

And the idiots around him support him.

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi defended Benedict’s remarks by saying the pope was "maintaining the position of his predecessors," that abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage are the best ways to curb the AIDS crisis, according to Reuters. International backlash has ensued.

Uh, Mr. Lombardi, obviously "abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage" are NOT "the best ways to curb the AIDS crisis" BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WORKING.

Condoms, on the other hand, DO work. Please allow people to use them.

(Yes, I know I'm three days late on this news. STILL.)

Side effects of abstinence-only programs

I've linked to AmplifyYourVoice.org's "When Rape Culture meets abstinence-only sex ed" post in the last two (or three?) posts, but haven't actually written about it. First of all, because I didn't think I could calm down enough to write about it coherently. Second of all, because the post already says it so well.

Abstinence-only programs are stupid*. They have one thing to say: DO NOT HAVE SEX. By definition abstinence-only programs have to withhold information; since they do not have information to give out, they have to use scare tactics and misinformation.

From Planned Parenthood's site:

Comprehensive Sexuality Education	Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education
Teaches that sexuality is a natural, normal, healthy part of life	Teaches that sexual expression outside of marriage will have harmful social, psychological, and physical consequences

And don't tell me my source of info is biased, because we see abstinence-only programs outside of health class, and this is what they do. Their message is DO NOT HAVE SEX. Why? BECAUSE SEX IS BAD. PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEX ARE BAD, because SEX IS BAD.

Most of these "bad things" will happen to the girl: pregnancy, obviously, but also girls are more likely to get an STI from unprotected sex than guys. And we are all familiar with the popular double-standard: girls who have sex are sluts (thank you abstinence-only programs for promoting this thought process), guys who have sex are studs. We get this from the media, but abstinence-only programs reinforce the mindset that "if you have sex you are a slut" (and, from what I have seen, they do not do much to shift any of the guilt to the guy).

Nobody puts a scarlet "S" on your chest when you have sex, but you might as well wear it once you start showing. Sadly, the pregnancy only shows in the girl; the guy has no visible symptoms proving him guilty of impregnating a girl. So we blame the person we can point to, the girl.

And she is a whore, because she had sex.

And SEX IS BAD.

You know what else happens?

When you spend so much time drilling into a girl's head that SEX IS BAD (until marriage), the part of the message in parenthesis doesn't really get across. You can't turn it off. You've spent so much time telling these girls that SEX IS BAD and that if they have sex, well, then YOU ARE BAD, that by golly some of these girls are going to learn their lesson well. So the first time they have sex? They now feel "bad," dirty, whorish. Yes, because we need MORE ways to crush girls' -- and women's -- self-esteem and sense of worth.

I received comprehensive sex ed in school (at least in middle school; don't remember much from high school health class), but I grew up Catholic. So I got the SEX IS BAD message loud and clear.

This did not keep me from having sex before marriage; it simply made me feel like a whore when I eventually did have sex (before marriage). It also made me think, "Dammit, if I'm already a whore, might as well go all out, huh?" In for a penny, in for a pound!

I was already a BAD person for having had sex, regardless of how I felt about the guy, how he felt about me, or how long we'd been together. SEX IS BAD, period. Since it didn't matter, might as well go out and have one-night stands, since, as long as it was outside of marriage, it was all equally bad.

This mindset leads women to make some very stupid choices.

Even now, as a married woman -- when it's "okay" to have sex, because I have a little piece of paper that says so -- the message is still deeply ingrained in my head. Sex should be something natural, something intimate, special... no, it's just something BAD. You cannot undo the programming.


*And THEY DO NOT WORK.