On Political Compromise and the 2016 Election

This topic has been bouncing around my head for a few days. First, I began to think about this deeply based on a discussion with some lovely friends over dinner the other day. We wandered down the path of the Democratic primary election, and I mentioned my fondness for Bernie Sanders. My friends both are leaning Hillary Clinton's direction and one of the reasons they cited is that she seems more likely, in their view, to be able to reach across the aisle and actually make bipartisan progress on issues with Republicans.

I'm not entirely sure I buy that take on Hillary, but that's not what I'm focusing on at the moment. It just made me more interested in the the mere idea of political compromise as a virtue.

I couldn't help but feel that if the three of us had been Republicans discussing those primary choices (gag), we wouldn't have been evaluating candidates on ability to compromise. I think I can say that most people are familiar with the recent trend for the Republican party to be the "party of no." Through the Obama presidency, their main objective, sometimes explicitly stated, has been to block legislation and progress.


Thinking about this after my dinner discussion with friends made me wonder, why do more left leaning folks in the US seem to feel that we bear the responsibility of compromise? Is this a real thing or is it just my perception?

Anti marriage equality folks are a' floundering

Have you ever seen someone more sadly cling to something than the folks who are against marriage equality in 2015? It's beyond embarrassing.

I, like most people, assume that nationwide marriage equality will be and SHOULD be achieved soon. There's just no logical argument against it...certainly not from a constitutional perspective. But, nevertheless, as conservatives are apt to do, some sad, floundering anti marriage equality folks try their damnedest to make a case.

The one I heard last week on NPR's On Point (and have heard before) was the whole, "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!" side to it where an ultra conservative argued that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples because they produce kids...and the state sanctioned marriage as a special thing for people who produce kids...and the government has an interest in ensuring that children are parented by their biological mother and father.

Yeah.

So many things wrong here, all of which highlight the ways that the anti marriage equality side is so ridiculously out of touch with reality that it's laughable. Let me touch on the biggest issues I see right off the bat...

1) So are they lobbying for heterosexual couples who can't or don't want to have kids to lose marriage rights? Of course they're not.

2) Um, all kinds of homosexual couples actually ARE parenting together...everywhere, all the time. Like it or not, lady.

3) Being someone's biological parent does NOT automatically make you the best person to raise children. As the many of us who survived abuse know. Also...something tells me these people would actually be just fine with a "nice, straight, white Christian couple" adopting....

3) There are SO many queer couples who can reproduce. I love this photo set from Tumblr that demonstrates as much. Not only are these anti marriage equality people showing how homophobic they are, they're also incredibly transphobic/exclusionary and have very little grasp of the basic concept of gender diversity...which isn't surprising but sure is fucked up nevertheless.

[Image text: Two women cartoon figures. One is saying, "I am a lesbian trans woman." The other, "I am a pansexual cis woman." With the caption, "We are a queer couple able to reproduce.]

I recognize that marriage equality shouldn't necessarily be the main focus of LGBT+ discourse (especially when so many trans youth are homeless and face violence, for example.) But since it has  reached a fever pitch in national politics anyway, we can at least all agree that anti marriage equality folks are bananas. Sad, strange bananas.



Please see the commenting policy before replying to this post.

When did we lose our understanding of "satire?"

When you run a public shaming blog, you run into all types of bigots and trolls. Perhaps the most boring to me are the ones who try to claim that everything is a joke. The increasingly more popular take on this is "it's satire therefore it is OK and you shouldn't be offended."

The Internet ain't your scapegoat, bro

[Content note: brief mentions of rape threats, death threats, suicide, harassment]

I recently caught a discussion hosted by Marty Moss-Coane on NPR's Radio Times about the extreme harassment women (in particular) face online with guests Amanda Hess and Danielle Citron. [If you'd like to hear the full thing you can here, but note that it does cover such potentially triggering topics as threats of violence and rape and other misogynistic attacks. (My apologies there isn't a transcript at the link, I usually try to link to both sound and text.)]

What I'd like to react to in particular is one of the comments a caller made. He shared a story about a time he sent a Facebook message and then later realized that he was being really strange and became this whole other person because of social media.

Sigh.

I'm tired of this line of thinking and I don't think that it was properly shut down on the program, so let me add my unsolicited 2 cents here. As I say over on the info section of FacebookSexism, "If you're a feminist, Facebook can be a minefield. If you're a sexist, it's your playground. But just so that we're clear, social media doesn't create misogyny, it merely reflects what is already there."

I mean this so firmly and so sincerely. We can't change the misogyny (and other bigotry) in our culture if we dismiss it by saying that "the Internet made me do it!" I understand that the nature of the Internet separates people from others' humanity and it increases the chance that they will say something shitty but it, in no way, creates those the slurs and hate that comes to the surface when someone is behind a screen. That hatred, that misogyny, that violent rhetoric was clearly already there.

It reminds me of the old trope about how "haha, person X becomes so racist when they're drunk." NO. They were always a racist, they only say that stuff when they're drunk because their inhibitions are lowered.

So, nah bro, the Internet didn't make you do it. (And it's interesting to me that the people who might make this excuse are probably the same folks who drone on and on about the super-duper importance of taking "personal responsibility" when it comes to abortion, welfare, etc.)

All of this feels particularly timely right now because I received my first "kill yourself" comment on Tumblr (ya know, the kind of comment I get here all the time.) I was really interested in the discussion shared between Moss-Coane, Hess, and Citron because it covered what recourse those of us who are harassed online have. But unfortunately, the law is years behind in this area, so for the meantime, we're going to have to deal with it.

Not cool.

Please see the commenting policy before replying to this post.

Looking Forward to Wadjda

Have you heard of Wadjda? It's the first movie made entirely in Saudi Arabia, and what's more, it was written and directed by a Saudi woman, Haifaa Al Mansour. I caught a bit of an interview that Michele Martin did with her on Tell Me More yesterday, and I was so intrigued.

As is well known, it's not easy to be a female film director, but the challenges are certainly multiplied when you are making your film in Saudi Arabia, a country that places many restrictions on women. For example, women are not able to drive there and they've only recently been allowed to bicycle in public. Here's what Al Mansour said about directing in Saudi Arabia:

...the country is very conservative, and sometimes when we go outside, we film all the outdoors activities because the country is segregated and woman and woman are not supposed to mix together. I had to film from a van, and I had a walkie-talkie and a monitor and I was always confined in that space.

As I've mentioned, my partner is a filmmaker and I've been on many of his sets. I can only imagine how frustrating it was to not be able to get as close to the action as you might like, but I'm glad that Al Monsour worked around that challenge. She also went on to share with Martin how she created the Wadjda character:

When I was writing "Wadjda," I based her a lot on one of my nieces who has a great sense of humor, who was a hustler. And she's always scheming to earn money somewhere. But my brother became conservative and she changed. And a lot of the girls I went to school with, and I went to public school, are like that. Like they - when they were kids, they had so much to offer to the world, but because the world is very - their families and the small society around them is very limiting. They gave up so much. And I wanted to make a film that tells them that they shouldn't. That they should be true to themselves and continue and embrace their potential. And they - those girls can change the world if they are given the chance and if they believe in themselves. 

That's certainly a film I want to see. I'll be keeping an eye out for it at my local art house cinema.

Please see the commenting policy before replying to this post.

Awesome Women: Teshima Walker

[Content note: fat stigma]

I love Teshima Walker...I didn't know it until this morning, but wow. I love her.

As I've mentioned a billionty times, I frequently listen to NPR's Tell Me More. Teshima Walker was their executive producer, and while I heard her name in the credits of each show, I didn't know much about her. Apparently, she just recently passed away after a long battle with colon cancer. On a recent show, host Michele Martin paid tribute to her and played on of Walker's on air clips, in which she was responding to the typical on screen representation of fat, black women. Walker said:

Michel, let me borrow your line right here. And can I just tell you that I'm a black woman with an extra, extra large behind, and if I had a dollar for every time I saw a character in a movie where a fat, black woman was an emotional victim, the center of a hurtful fat joke, the prayerful matron of all thin women and children, I'd buy my own dance studio and write movies about real, everyday fat woman. I'd write about fat women that love food and lick their fingers after eating a piece of chicken. I'd have modest fat girls and juicy, fat vixens that wear tight, short skirts with five-inch heels.

You can hear/read Martin's full tribute piece here and another from last week when the news was first announced.

I had tears running down my cheeks listening to Walker talk, so passionately, and experienced a ton of sadness in thinking about how she passed away at only 44 from the same disease that took my beloved grandmother. What an awesome woman she was. I hate that I had to come to this realization under these circumstances.

Please see the commenting policy before replying to this post.

No Justice. None.

It's been a rough past few days. Friday night, I watched the anti abortion omnibus bill pass the Texas State Senate. Saturday night we learned that George Zimmerman was acquitted of the murder of Trayvon Martin.

My heart is so heavy. Earlier today, I was listening to the rebroadcast of Friday's Tell Me More and their weekly barbershop segment. Everyone was making their predictions about the verdict. The consensus was that Zimmerman would at the very least be found guilty of manslaughter. Knowing how things actually went down, it was almost too painful to listen to.

From the very beginning, I have felt that George Zimmerman acted on racist impulse and that this whole thing is mired in racism. As I wrote in March of 2012, Zimmerman knew nothing about Trayvon Martin other than what he SAW in that moment. We know that Martin was unarmed and doing literally nothing wrong. We know that Zimmerman shot him point blank in the heart. But even if you can't see the racism in these facts, you should at least be able to see them in this verdict. We apparently value the life of a black teenage boy so lowly, that the man who admits he killed him... will do no time.

Even teens who text and drive and kill someone in a resulting car accident have done SOME time.

Some people have postulated, how would this have gone if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white? It's a valid question and I just don't think you can make the case that the results would be the same. In fact, what stands in greatest contrast to the Zimmerman trial outcome is the case of a black Florida woman, Marissa Alexander, who got 20 years for firing warning shots into the air at her abusive ex.

Read that again. Warning shots at her abusive ex...20 years. I want to puke when I think about it. How can we pretend that we have a "justice" system when this is what's happening?

A quote from bell hooks' "All About Love" has been floating around in the wake of this decision. It is an important quote in general, but especially poignant right now:

White supremacy has taught him that all people of color are threats irrespective of their behavior. Capitalism has taught him that, at all costs, his property can and must be protected. Patriarchy has taught him that his masculinity has to be proved by the willingness to conquer fear through aggression; that it would be unmanly to ask questions before taking action. Mass media then brings us the news of this in a newspeak manner that sounds almost jocular and celebratory, as though no tragedy has happened, as though the sacrifice of a young life was necessary to uphold property values and white patriarchal honor. Viewers are encouraged to feel sympathy for the white male home owner who made a mistake. The fact that this mistake led to the violent death of an innocent young man does not register; the narrative is worded in a manner that encourages viewers to identify with the one who made the mistake by doing what we are led to feel we might all do to “protect our property at all costs from any sense of perceived threat." This is what the worship of death looks like.

Trudy at Gradient Lair has an amazing piece up called "The Verdict Of 'Not Valuable' Was Delivered On Black Life. Again." I agree completely that this is what the verdict is saying. And it's what both this case and the anti abortion omnibus bill have in common. (Again, that bill will close the clinics in rural areas that serve almost exclusively women of color and present an undue burden to obtaining abortions for those people specifically. If/when it goes into effect, people WILL die from back alley procedures.)

Everywhere we turn, the measure of a life that matters is whiteness.

I have nothing else to say.


Related reading:
Alex Fraser's Facebook message for Zimmerman
Racialicious' compilation on the subject
Melissa McEwan on the verdict
The Public Shaming blog has a piece up showing the depths of our racist society (content note: racist slurs)
100 Black activists respond to Zimmerman's acquittal 




Please see the commenting policy before replying to this post.

Spring Breakers and Female Exploitation

[Content note: Possible spoilers]

So, this past weekend I saw Spring Breakers. Familiar with it? If not, check out the trailer here.



And here's how the film is described on IMDB, "Four college girls who land in jail after robbing a restaurant in order to fund their spring break vacation find themselves bailed out by a drug and arms dealer who wants them to do some dirty work."

Let me say from the outset: there is certainly a lot that a feminist blogger could tackle about this film. In particular, the race elements deserve a lot of attention and critique. However, I will leave it to Aisha Harris at Slate to give you a good run down of that.

What I am focused on is how I think that Spring Breakers is a perfect example of how male filmmakers exploit women in their storytelling.

Angelique Kidjo, Stockholm Syndrome, and Violence Awareness

[Content note: discussion of abuse, violence, and family dynamics of power]

I caught the tail end an interview on NPR's Tell Me More. It was with West African singer-songwriter Angelique Kidjo. (Listen or read it here.) Prior to this morning, I had never heard of her, but one of the bits that I caught really grabbed my attention and hit close to home.

Oh, Male Opinions...

I'm not a man hater. (This is the part where trolls will foam at the mouth because YER A FEMINIST, YES YOU DO HATE MENZ.) But seriously...anyone who actually reads what I write or knows me "IRL" can tell you that I am definitely not a man hater.

That aside, I'm not ashamed to say, I sure am getting tired of hearing white male opinions this week. And by week, I mean IN LIFE, but you know, this week particularly.

Let me just run through a few gems.

The DNC, Gay Rights, and Trailblazer Madeline Davis

I'll be honest...I'm still coming down off of a fan girl high from Bill Clinton's speech at the DNC last night. If you didn't catch it, I'm sure you at least heard about it. (And watch it here. Seriously...do it.) My Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook were all blowing up. Clinton said a lot of really important things--stuff that needed to be said and what Obama can't necessarily say as the actual candidate. (Have I mentioned you should watch it?!)

Overall, I've been fairly pleased with the events I've watched and heard about at the DNC. The party, while never as left leaning as I'd like, is clearly much more representative of my interests than the Republicans. And to be really blunt, I don't feel there's a lack of sincerity on our side. I do agree with many people on my Twitter feed last night who stated that there needs to new faces of reproductive rights. Sandra Fluke was amazing yesterday and had important messages--but why is the person who speaks on this issue always white, cis, able bodied, middle class, etc? It's certainly time that some reproductive justice activists take the stage. I'd like to hear from them.

I am, however, ecstatic that the DNC has added marriage equality to the national platform. When I think about the possibility of that happening even just 4 years ago, I can't imagine it. There is clearly progress in the works.

Support for gay rights and marriage equality (while certainly not totally widespread) do finally seem to be mainstream opinions. It can be very easy to take this current situation for granted so it's important to remember that people have been gay activists for a very long time. In listening to "Tell Me More" on NPR this morning, I heard a segment about Madeline Davis. I wasn't aware of Davis, because the American history I grew up learning was very stale, male, pale, and straight. As according to the program:

At the 1972 Democratic National Convention, Madeline Davis asked for something that had never been proposed at a major party convention. In a floor speech, the New York delegate asked her fellow Democrats to endorse platform language defending the civil rights of gay people. And now, 40 years later, marriage equality has been adopted as a plank in the 2012 Democratic Party platform.

In the segment, Davis talks with Michele Martin in detail about what it was like being the first out gay person to stand before a national party and talk about civil rights for homosexuals and how her party received her. You can read or listen to the segment here. I highly suggest you check it out. It's a great reflection of 1) how far we've come 2) how far we have to go and 3) that social change isn't easy or quick but so long as there's people working on it, progress can and will be made.

Unfortunately, I won't be home tonight to watch Obama accept the nomination for his second term. I will however be sure to catch a replay. I have no doubt that he will deliver.

The Kardashians and Birth Control: Proof that Everyone Does Something Right Once in a While

Ugh. Sex negativity is about to make me stand up for the Kardashians. Yeah. It's happening...

Context: Last month Kim Kardashian told Oprah that her mom, Kris, allowed Kim to go on birth control at 14, when she disclosed to Kris that she was going to have sex with her boyfriend. Cue the backlash. 

I had somehow missed this (probably because I couldn't care less about the Kardashians and their vapid empire of highly manufactured, pseudo-reality controversies.) But when I did hear about it, it was clouded in a discussion on NPR* of, "Would you put your daughter on birth control at 14 if she said this to you? Is it bad parenting?" type questions.

It's a Big Day in Mississippi

Edited to add: the decision has come down and the law continues to be blocked! YAAAAAY! Keep reading to see why I think that the judge has made the right decision.

An anti-abortion law is going before judges in Mississippi today. I'm really crossing my fingers on this one and hoping that anti-choice extremists are again put at bay by the more reasonable individuals in MS.

The law in question would require all abortion providers to be board certified OB-GYNs who have admitting privileges to a local hospital. If you don't know much about medical systems, this sounds pretty reasonable. If you dig a bit deeper you learn that this act would strategically result in the closure of MS's only abortion clinic, Jackson Women's Health Organization.

The Isolation of Boys (another "Sexism Hurts Everyone" Reminder)

(TW Sandusky Trial discussion)

I was listening to NPR this morning, as I am apt to do, and I caught a snippet of last Friday's "Barber Shop" segment on Tell Me More. Michele Martin and the guys were discussing the Jerry Sandusky trial. The coverage of the trial to this point has been disgustingly chock full o' rape apologism. But the discussion I caught on the "Barber Shop" brought up an interesting point. One of the men shared that he felt that part of how Sandusky got so far in preying on boys was the fact that society socializes men and boys to keep away from deep conversations. 

Military Moms and Breaking Patriarchy

So you've seen this picture, yes? I first heard about this story last week. Apparently, some people have a big issue with it. According to the Today show:

The debate over nursing in public got a new layer recently, when photos taken on an Air Force base began to circulate online. In the series of tasteful professional photos showing beaming moms as they nurse their kids, one jumps out: the photo of two servicewomen with their uniform shirts unbuttoned and hiked up to breast-feed. 

"A lot of people are saying it's a disgrace to the uniform. They're comparing it to urinating and defecating [while in uniform]," says Crystal Scott, a military spouse who started Mom2Mom in January as a breast-feeding support group for military moms and "anyone related to the base" at Fairchild AFB outside Spokane, Wash. "It's extremely upsetting. Defecating in public is illegal. Breast-feeding is not."

I saw it as another unnecessary blow up about breastfeeding. I shared it on Facebook saying, "If you have a problem with this picture, maybe you should examine what's wrong with you." A few friends affirmed my opinion and a military member or two even agreed that it wasn't a big deal. And then I moved on and promptly forgot about it.

What Has Fatphobia Done For Us Lately?

Have you heard about HBO's new documentary series "The Weight of the Nation?" I feel like I'm hearing about it every where this week. The marketing fairies are out in full force for this one.

Unfortunately, I don't have HBO so I didn't get to catch it (the four part series ran last night and today.) So far, however, I am deeply concerned about the marketing for the film, which displays it at yet another voice telling fat people we are the enemy.

Boys Will Be Boys? Huh?

My love of NPR is well documented and I like to listen to it in the morning, when I'm in my car. However, I moved extremely close to my job, so my only chance to catch a story is when I run to get coffee or other errands, here and there. As such, I can admit I'm falling a bit behind on my current issue awareness. Today, I caught a snippet of Michele Martin's Tell Me More (one of my favorites!) Martin replayed a clip from another NPR program Talk of the Nation in which they were discussing the scandal involving Secret Service agents and prostitution.

The man in the clip, said something to the effect of "boys will be boys."

I rolled my eyes so hard, I pulled a muscle. Listen, I'm not here to discuss the Secret Service scandal, because, as mentioned, I know too little to do so, but I would like to tackle this "boys will be boys" shit.

Jimi Izrael: Epic Disappointment

This post is a part of my “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column at The Progressive Playbook in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.

I love NPR's Tell Me More. I listen to it almost every day that I drive to work. I've written many times about the numerous interesting topics it has brought to my attention. I think Michel Martin is perhaps the most compelling interviewer on NPR's nationally broadcasted programs.

One of the show's regular Friday segments is the "barbershop" where Martin checks in with an ever rotating line up of diverse men. They chat about current news topics, politics, and sports. The regular leader of the pack is Jimi Izrael. I've always found Izrael's contributions to the discussions to be insightful. So I was, at first, pretty excited when I saw that a piece he wrote had been picked up on Jezebel today.

Izrael's piece is about a 14 year old girl, Amber Cole. Cole is making news because a video of her performing oral sex has gone viral. The story is a big deal, because it is obviously extremely disturbing. Izrael's narrative is told as the metaphorical father of the girl. The crushing reality hit me as I saw that Izrael's piece, while rightfully highlighting some of the racial implications of the tragedy, amounts to not much more than misogyny. Here are some excerpts:

She would listen to her mother, if her mother was not busy. Doing something, anything that is not parenting. I want her mother to spend less time being "empowered" and more time being aware and engaged with our daughter. I want her mother to be a better role model, not a BFF.
...
I am Amber Cole's father, and I am not raising a slut. White feminists can teach their own little girls to find empowerment through their crotches – my brown little girl cannot afford to be that carefree and cavalier with her life choices. Slutlife is the hard, lonely vocation of rich, educated, privileged white women who will fuck The World, contract social diseases and still, somehow find a husband. No black woman ever got far being a slut. I want to know what kind of women "slutwalk," while young impressionable girls of all kinds look on with wonder and admiration. I want to know why these same women run to protect Miley Cyrus but just shrugged, nonplussed for my little brown girl. I want to know what the fuck those dumb bunnies are thinking. Most of them do not have daughters. I want my daughter, the woman, to have healthy, vibrant sexuality. My little girl should have other priorities. I am her father. I will protect her and every woman in my life with my life.

Wow.

If you want a really great run down of the problem's with Izrael's piece, I suggest the comment section over at Jezebel, because the community there take down every line in his piece much better than I can. However, I would like to note a couple of things. First of all, this piece is written as the metaphorical father of Amber Cole and girls like her, but it squarely places the blame back on mothers (and later the media). It doesn't say very much about how fathers (or the absence thereof) can actually play such a critical role in the sexual values and self-esteem formation of young girls. Instead, his piece goes on to emphasize the fact that as a father, he was probably at work while this happened "doing the best I can."

So the mother is at fault because her absence is her being "empowered" but the dad is blameless because his absence is him "doing the best he can?" I just...I don't even know what to say. This idea is so deeply tied to traditional gender roles and sexism that it sickens me. It's the age old idea that mothers are ultimately responsible for kids. It's tired.

Secondly, I take his point that "sluttiness" has different implications for a white girl than it does a brown one. All too often, brown women's bodies are hypersexualized and behaviors/clothing choices seen as slutty to them are seen as acceptable to white women. This is a fair point and we can discuss this. We can also discuss how women of color have been traditionally excluded from the feminist movement, which has for too much of its history, been concerned about the issues which affect priviledged white women.

However, to place the blame for the situation with Amber Cole, who is the victim of child pornography and cyberbullying, on feminists is ludicrous. As is his slut-shaming. Izrael is obviously very uncomfortable with female owned sexuality. As commenter Gavagirl pointed out at Jezebel:

Of course little brown girls who get their freak on frequently and with gusto can't find husbands. Because only nice brown guys like Jimi Izrael want to get married to brown girls, and nice brown guys don't like filthy brown whores. And of course that's not due to any kind of fault on the part of the nice brown guys. It's up to the brown girls to make sure they've lived up to the expectations of the brown guys so that they shall be rewarded.

Lastly, to put the icing on the misogynistic cake, when the shitstorm of comment starts, Izrael jumped on Jezebel and left a gem of a reply including this:

It is easy for you to cosign some little black girl giving head, to suggest that little girls embrace the ideas behind a "Slutwalk" –which sounds too close to "Hoe Stroll" for my taste—when you are not a stake-holder. I have a daughter. I am a stakeholder, and this shit is real to me. It’s my every-day, my every-week. And it’s hard.

Now, surely this is just a joke. We, the women who find his assessment offensive, are not "stakeholders" because we do not have daughters? Your opinion of girls only counts if you are a father of a girl? Honestly, despite all the hateful stuff spewed above, this is the part I find most offensive. To suggest that the most important stakeholder in this case is the MALE relation of the girl is so absolutely mind-numbingly foolish that I can almost not even continue.

How are we, women who lived the very experience of growing up female, not stakeholders in the development of the next generation of young women?

Look, I get it. It's hard raising kids. I can appreciate that it is no easy task because all too often I could tell that my parents had no idea what they were doing. Additionally, I work in girl services. While I do not know the first hand experience of parenting, I do work with dozens of moms and dads raising girls who are the same age as Amber Cole.  I know that parents of both genders are always looking for resources to help them navigate raising daughters. But how dare he say that it's easy for childfree feminists to participate in SlutWalk because we are not "stakeholders" in the girl world. In the discussion of female sexuality, no perspective is more important than women's. (Never mind the fact that Izrael has totally missed the point behind SlutWalk.)

All around, I am deeply disappointed at Izrael's reaction to Amber Cole's story. I feel like he brought up a couple of really great things that the feminist blogosphere could have read, discussed, and learned from, but he put together a highly offensive anti-woman rant. As HeliosHyperion said, "How am I suppose to take him seriously, respect his opinion whether or not I agree with it, when he so obviously hates women?"

And selfishlessly, I'm disappointed that my Friday morning "Tell Me More" segments will come with a little more spite and a little less respect, on my part.

Myth #516

So as you might have heard by now if you follow me on Twitter--I'm having a shitty day. It's the first day without one of my favorite (now ex-) coworkers. Pandora can't stream. I messed up my calendar and carpooled w/ Ronald when I actually have a meeting that would have been when I was supposed to go pick him up. I pulled my back and it's throbbing on top of inexplicable pain in my ankle.

I know that whole rant is a whole lot of #firstworldproblems but to top it off, I've had to hear waaaay too much rape apologism and it's only 1pm.

I was innocently driving in my car and NPR was on, as it is apt to be. It was the Brian Lehrer show--not my favorite, but whatev. Not but two minutes into whatever they are talking about, I realized I'm listening to some straight up lies. The guest was making the point that that when multiple women come forward with rape allegations against one dude, it means there's probably just some piling on effect and it's just a media frenzy or something.

My blood was boiling. It IS boiling.

Rape Myth #516: If the guy is high profile and there are multiple accusers, then it's probably just a ploy to bring him down.

We have seen this Myth before...Julian Assange, Dov Charney, Ben Roethlisberger, etc. etc. Let me enlighten you, if you can't already see where I'm going. The fact of the matter is that many rapists are repeat rapists. If it seems like more and more women are coming out of the woodwork and claiming rape, it's probably because they were raped! When one survivor steps forward, I would imagine others are more likely to do so as well. You see, because of our rape culture, the social penalties for coming forward with rape allegations are steep--and even more so if the man in question is well known or powerful. If someone breaks the ice, his other victims likely feel more comfortable also speaking up.

None of this makes each individual rape any less real.

I don't know who the guy saying this was. I don't know where he was going with it. I don't know if Brian Leherer let him continue. I had to turn the station lest my blood pressure sky rocket and give me a heart attack. But I can safely assume that he was talking about this, since it's all over the news today.

Sometimes, it's really hard to see our rape culture for what it really is. You start to notice things all around you, and it makes facing our society all the more scary. Sometimes, it might be easier to live with my head in the sand.

Uck. I need to go do something productive and take my mind off of this bull.

Confusion about Consent: Bob Dvorchak on Ben Roethlisberger's Suspension

Disclaimer: I don't know the details of what happened in the sexual assault cases involving Ben Roethlisberger, I'm only commenting on what was discussed on Talk of the Nation by Bob Dvorchak.

Late last week I was listening to NPR as I've been prone to do lately. On Talk of the Nation, Neal Conan was talking to Bob Dvorchak about the recent 6 game suspension of Ben Roethlisberger.

For those of you who do not keep up with sports (like me) Ben (who I will refer to as Ben, since his last name is too damn long) has been formally accused of 2 sexual assault incidents and a third which was never legally pursued. In all cases, no formal charges were brought against Ben. However, despite this fact, the NFL found that there had been enough of an issue to suspend Ben for 6 games (4 for good behavior.) Of course sports goons without a care for women, cried out how this was ridiculous, while sensible people commended the punishment and the NFL.

I'd like to jump on this last bandwagon and mention that this has given me a smidgen of respect for the NFL and it's commissioner, Roger Goodell, who made the decision. Regardless of if no formal charges have been brought forward, there is a clear issue here and the NFL would be remiss not to address it.

Anyway, back to Talk of the Nation and Bob Dvorchak. Dvorchak is a sports writer in Pittsburgh and so he was included in the discussion on Talk of the Nation about this decision. That day, I had heard other people covering the story, but from different angles, as none of them were sports people. One discussion was about how if Ben had been black the punishment would have been harsher, and I found that to be a fair assessment.

I tuned in late to the discussion with Dvorchak, so I didn't catch how he felt about the actual suspension, but his participation in the discussion was EXTREMELY problematic and since no one called him on it on air, I will do it now. And I am paraphrasing because I was driving and didn't write down his exact words, but I took some notes the minute I got home because I was so infuriated. Specifically, I take issue with two points he made.

1) The sexual assault allegations fall into a gray area and are more of a case of he said/she said than an actual rape because the alleged victim was too inebriated at the time of the incident to make a statement about what happened.

Saying shit like this is a huge fucking problem and perpetuates our rape apologist society. Let me make this crystal clear: IF SOMEONE IS TOO INEBRIATED TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN A BATHROOM WITH SOMEONE AND WE KNOW SOMETHING SEXUAL HAPPENED, THEN THEY WERE TOO INEBRIATED TO GIVE CONSENT.
And no consent = RAPE!

It's not rocket science. It's extremely problematic that this concept is so hard for people to understand and is consistently used as an excuse for rape and victim blaming. I'm not talking about when two people get intoxicated and hook up. I'm talking about when one party is inebriated beyond control of their body and voice and they are taken advantage of. It's the same principal that a child is not capable of giving consent and why statutory rape laws exist. Someone who is extremely intoxicated is not capable of consent.

Case closed.

2) Dvorchak also claimed that Ben could basically get away with despicable behavior and still play in the NFL because a talent as big as him can't be passed up. (If the Steelers drop him, another team will pick him up.) The sad thing is that there is truth to what Dvorchak is saying here. However, Dvorchak as a sports reporter occupies a special place in society where he could critique this idea and call for sports fans to hold their "heroes" accountable for their behavior, instead of reinforcing the idea that sports rapists hold a get out of jail free pass.

Guess what? I'm sure Ben is a super-de-duper athlete. And he's among the elite in his sport. But there ARE other people as good as him who DON'T RAPE WOMEN.

We have got to stop holding sports players above the rest of society. Would you keep going to your dentist if you heard he had been named in three sexual assault cases? PROBABLY NOT! Even if he was the best damn dentist you'd ever been to!

We've also got to stop victim blaming and giving excuses for rape and sexual assault. It's as simple as that. We've got to promote the Yes Mean Yes mentality. And we've got to call people on their shit when they clearly don't understand what consent is. Bob Dvorchak doesn't fully understand consent, and he's writing columns and speaking on the radio, so I can safely assume he represents what a lot of people think...and that's so scary.