As activism moves forward trying to raise awareness about sexualized violence you may have heard people talking about sexualized violence not being about sex or desire, but being about power & control as well as a sense of entitlement held by an offender. There have been a few metaphors or analogies that people have turned to in an attempt to make the concept more accessible to those who have not challenged themselves to think differently about sexualized violence. A popular one is making it's rounds on twitter and tumblr where the author suggests that if you hit someone with a spade you wouldn't say that the person was gardening. A similar analogy would be to make the point that if one person hits another with a baseball bat, you wouldn't say that they were playing baseball. In both analogies, you would say that the person who did the hitting committed an act of assault.
Sexualized violence can, and should, be viewed through the same lens in that what occurs when someone chooses to commit and act of sexualized violence they are committing violent assault, not having sex. The distinction is important because it reflects what is actually going on and it puts the focus on to the violence of the act. When acts of sexualized violence are framed in terms of sex and/or desire it minimizes the impact on those who experience it, sets up a situation where the survivor/victim can start to blame themselves, and creates a situation where the offender is less likely to be held accountable for their actions.
When someone chooses to commit an act of sexualized violence they are exerting their will (power & control) over another human being because they feel that it is their right or that the act is something that's owed to them by the person they've targeted (entitlement). This is not a decision that gets made randomly nor is it something that is as accidental as, say, stubbing your own toe. Part of the reason feminists and allies call out sexist media, which the uninformed public usually fails to see the importance of, is that they're trying to call attention to the fact that sexist media is one of the factors that influences the development of our attitudes and beliefs. When a rape joke goes unchallenged on a regular basis, or many different pieces of media make rape jokes, it becomes normalized and soon becomes something the majority of people mistakenly accept as something that is "just part of life."
Moreover, negative attitudes and beliefs about women have been long established in society, which means that by the time someone is exposed to a rape joke they may have already developed some negative views about women in the first place; usually these pre-established beliefs are instilled in the home by parents and other family members. So because people are growing up in a society that has accepted violence against women as normal and that when they engage with the world they see media that seems to reinforce this concept any negative attitudes and beliefs are further solidified.
Once something like this has been accepted as "fact" then it becomes part of their worldview and or own worldview is a major tool we use to move through our lives and helps us interact with the world. If a person has negative views about women, for instance (this process shows up in other areas as well: racism, homophobia, etc), and they've incorporated this into their world view then it gets much easier to engage in more overt negative behavior towards women. And, unfortunately, the easier it gets the easier it will be for the person in question to engage in the behavior more often and, the more often they engage in said behavior the easier it becomes. This is the point where entitlement starts to creep in.
Now, how this entitlement comes into play is a very complex and there is a great deal to unpack, but for the purposes of this article I want to focus on three specific factors:
1. No one has challenged the person's behavior
2. The person has had their attitudes & beliefs validated on a regular basis
3. For cis-males, their male privilege has further contributed to the entitlement as they've been raised under the "boys will be boys" framework of excusing violent behavior and not holding them responsible for it.
For those that don't know the framework of "boys will be boys" manifests as girls being told that "he pulled your hair or teased you because he likes you" or if boys fight it is written off as a right of passage and not addressed. While it doesn't directly manifest in sexual violence down the road, it does send the message to cis-males that their behavior towards women can be violent and that violent behavior, in general, is acceptable for them.
With negative attitudes and beliefs about women established and strong sense of entitlement in place, a person can more easily justify acts of sexualized violence, which may first start out as sexual harassment or it could include incidents of sexual assault, like groping. Once someone is at the point where they are engaging in acts of sexualized violence they have stopped seeing what they're doing as wrong, so when people challenge them on it or, in the case of Paul Nungesser, they choose to report his actions to an authority they are likely to see that only as an act of violence against them. In their eyes, or in the eyes of Paul, their actions were justified not only by their own attitudes and beliefs, but also by the greater society they`ve grown up in. Paul`s sense of entitlement contributed to his choice to commit acts of sexualized violence and Paul`s sense of entitlement contributed to his inability to reconcile how the community responded to him and his behavior.
For Paul Nungesser, he is the only victim in this entire situation. He was entitled to do what he did and he was entitled to not be held responsible for it.
Source
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Friday, April 24, 2015
So, I think I'm going with NDP and here's why...
First, let me say something about some biases I have going into this post.
I do not trust politicians.
I do not like the state of "Democracy" in North America.
I do not trust the system.
The spirit of what Democracy should be is that the people elect representatives because it is the best possible way to ensure that concerns of the people are addressed by the government; we need elected representatives because governing people is a full time job and a democracy cannot function without structure (in a practical sense, millions of people cannot each weigh-in on every issue and total consensus is not always possible). In theory, the people of any given community select a representative to participate in government who they feel best represents their interests and will do the best job of governing. A representative must have ideals, integrity, and interest to be a good candidate for this sort of thing as not everyone is capable of governing. The representative must always work in the best interest of the people that put them there, regardless of personal beliefs, opinions, or external influences.
That is a little about what we should have.
We don't.
Modern "democracy" has become a farce of banality and frustrating public relations spin where the people who are afforded the opportunity to participate come from the highest of privileges and who carry said privileges into office with them. The privileged few who have the opportunity to engage in politics have made democracy into a game about winning elections and not about how to best govern the people. Yes, a candidate who receives the most number of votes (or in our case has the most votes of anyone one party) technically "wins" the election; however, framing it in Win/Lose binary has more in common with games than it does with government.
I said earlier that I believe representatives in a democracy must posses ideals, integrity, and interest to be effective in governing people. Those ideals, I feel, must always be concerned with what is best for the people, above all else. Those ideals, I feel, should not be about towing the party line or keeping their privileged friends happy with subtle politicking behind closed doors. Having party platforms is one of the reasons democracy has been reduced to the mess it is today as it is the party ideals that have taken over as the primary influencing factor for how a representative governs the people. It is this notion that a Progressive Conservative (which is a contradiction of terms by the way) must always act as a Progressive Conservative in all things, the up shot being that the Progressive Conservative puts their party's ideals before the desires people that they are supposed to be governing; the same goes for Liberals, NDPs, and the Wildrose. Party representation means that the elected party governs the people who's party affiliation matches their own and, from what I've seen done in practice, elected parties tend to ignore the people who's affiliation differs.
Like I said at the outset, I have no faith in politicians nor the system in which they participate and I will hold this position until I see reason to believe otherwise.
The other source of my pessimism/realism (however you want to label it) comes from the realities of how the Obama Administration has played out in the United States, while we do have completely different political structures one of the major problems manifested in a very large and obvious way. Republican concerns about Obama were very clear before anyone was elected and this is fine, they are fully entitled to have an opinion as to whether or not they like the other side. However, what this manifested as was practically childlike obstinate behavior. To show their dislike the Republican side made sure that the Obama Administration was one of the least effective governments in recent history by refusing to participate, at all, in any decisions that the Administration was trying to make; they would even refuse to participate in concessions that the Obama Administration was willing to make to help them stop pouting for a minute and govern the country.
If a party is truly interested in governing the people in the best way possible then they must respect the will of the people even if that means respecting who they have chosen to represent them in government. When the Republicans of the United States made it their mission to refuse to participate in governing, they directly insulted the people who cast their vote. They demonstrated that they're only interested in respecting the democratic process if they are the beneficiaries.
Again, our governments are very different in a structural context, but, make no mistake, they are almost identical in terms of how the parties are behaving with each other. It is a game of winners and losers, a game where the privileged few fight over who has the power, and all the while the people, who selected these representatives, suffer and are ignored. The state of modern day "democracy" is dismal.
With that said, I saw a glimmer of hope with the public debate that was held recently.
NDP Party Leader Rachel Notley demonstrated, with a very simple phrase, what I feel to be a sign that there is reason to believe she and her party are interested in focusing on the concerns of the people over and above their own party ideals. The question posed to each candidate was around forming a coalition government in the event that a minority government is selected, however, it was how each party responded to the idea that prompted Notley to make the statement that I'm interested in.
Each of the other candidates remained rigid in their party ideals and plainly stated that they are not interested in working with anyone else, under any circumstances. This means we can infer that should they lose the election, they would follow in the footsteps of the Republicans under the Obama Administration and refuse to participate; doing everything in their power to make sure the elected government, whomever that ends up being, couldn't do their job and govern properly.
Notley was the only candidate who stated that they would respect the will of the people and ensure that they would work with the elected government, if it wasn't themselves, to be best of their ability with the hopes of making sure that Albertans have the best possible government.
It wasn't much and my lack of faith in the system and the politicians prevents me from getting overly optimistic, after all it could simply have been good politicking on her part. But, having said that, it's a subtle yet intriguing statement to make when every other candidate was rolling with the status quo in terms of party politics. When I consider her move, the underwhelming performances of the Liberal and Wildrose candidates, and the totally disrespectful behavior of Prentice over the past few months I can't help but be drawn to throwing some support behind one of the lesser evils.
Notley and the NDP could still turn out to validate my pessimism, but for the longest time I've been looking for one of the parties in our government to display single factor, aspect, or ideal that would separate them from the others. This small act, which just shows you how dismal things really at the moment, is enough...for now...
Video of the debate is here.
I do not trust politicians.
I do not like the state of "Democracy" in North America.
I do not trust the system.
The spirit of what Democracy should be is that the people elect representatives because it is the best possible way to ensure that concerns of the people are addressed by the government; we need elected representatives because governing people is a full time job and a democracy cannot function without structure (in a practical sense, millions of people cannot each weigh-in on every issue and total consensus is not always possible). In theory, the people of any given community select a representative to participate in government who they feel best represents their interests and will do the best job of governing. A representative must have ideals, integrity, and interest to be a good candidate for this sort of thing as not everyone is capable of governing. The representative must always work in the best interest of the people that put them there, regardless of personal beliefs, opinions, or external influences.
That is a little about what we should have.
We don't.
Modern "democracy" has become a farce of banality and frustrating public relations spin where the people who are afforded the opportunity to participate come from the highest of privileges and who carry said privileges into office with them. The privileged few who have the opportunity to engage in politics have made democracy into a game about winning elections and not about how to best govern the people. Yes, a candidate who receives the most number of votes (or in our case has the most votes of anyone one party) technically "wins" the election; however, framing it in Win/Lose binary has more in common with games than it does with government.
I said earlier that I believe representatives in a democracy must posses ideals, integrity, and interest to be effective in governing people. Those ideals, I feel, must always be concerned with what is best for the people, above all else. Those ideals, I feel, should not be about towing the party line or keeping their privileged friends happy with subtle politicking behind closed doors. Having party platforms is one of the reasons democracy has been reduced to the mess it is today as it is the party ideals that have taken over as the primary influencing factor for how a representative governs the people. It is this notion that a Progressive Conservative (which is a contradiction of terms by the way) must always act as a Progressive Conservative in all things, the up shot being that the Progressive Conservative puts their party's ideals before the desires people that they are supposed to be governing; the same goes for Liberals, NDPs, and the Wildrose. Party representation means that the elected party governs the people who's party affiliation matches their own and, from what I've seen done in practice, elected parties tend to ignore the people who's affiliation differs.
Like I said at the outset, I have no faith in politicians nor the system in which they participate and I will hold this position until I see reason to believe otherwise.
The other source of my pessimism/realism (however you want to label it) comes from the realities of how the Obama Administration has played out in the United States, while we do have completely different political structures one of the major problems manifested in a very large and obvious way. Republican concerns about Obama were very clear before anyone was elected and this is fine, they are fully entitled to have an opinion as to whether or not they like the other side. However, what this manifested as was practically childlike obstinate behavior. To show their dislike the Republican side made sure that the Obama Administration was one of the least effective governments in recent history by refusing to participate, at all, in any decisions that the Administration was trying to make; they would even refuse to participate in concessions that the Obama Administration was willing to make to help them stop pouting for a minute and govern the country.
If a party is truly interested in governing the people in the best way possible then they must respect the will of the people even if that means respecting who they have chosen to represent them in government. When the Republicans of the United States made it their mission to refuse to participate in governing, they directly insulted the people who cast their vote. They demonstrated that they're only interested in respecting the democratic process if they are the beneficiaries.
Again, our governments are very different in a structural context, but, make no mistake, they are almost identical in terms of how the parties are behaving with each other. It is a game of winners and losers, a game where the privileged few fight over who has the power, and all the while the people, who selected these representatives, suffer and are ignored. The state of modern day "democracy" is dismal.
With that said, I saw a glimmer of hope with the public debate that was held recently.
NDP Party Leader Rachel Notley demonstrated, with a very simple phrase, what I feel to be a sign that there is reason to believe she and her party are interested in focusing on the concerns of the people over and above their own party ideals. The question posed to each candidate was around forming a coalition government in the event that a minority government is selected, however, it was how each party responded to the idea that prompted Notley to make the statement that I'm interested in.
Each of the other candidates remained rigid in their party ideals and plainly stated that they are not interested in working with anyone else, under any circumstances. This means we can infer that should they lose the election, they would follow in the footsteps of the Republicans under the Obama Administration and refuse to participate; doing everything in their power to make sure the elected government, whomever that ends up being, couldn't do their job and govern properly.
Notley was the only candidate who stated that they would respect the will of the people and ensure that they would work with the elected government, if it wasn't themselves, to be best of their ability with the hopes of making sure that Albertans have the best possible government.
It wasn't much and my lack of faith in the system and the politicians prevents me from getting overly optimistic, after all it could simply have been good politicking on her part. But, having said that, it's a subtle yet intriguing statement to make when every other candidate was rolling with the status quo in terms of party politics. When I consider her move, the underwhelming performances of the Liberal and Wildrose candidates, and the totally disrespectful behavior of Prentice over the past few months I can't help but be drawn to throwing some support behind one of the lesser evils.
Notley and the NDP could still turn out to validate my pessimism, but for the longest time I've been looking for one of the parties in our government to display single factor, aspect, or ideal that would separate them from the others. This small act, which just shows you how dismal things really at the moment, is enough...for now...
Video of the debate is here.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Slut-shaming and faux-pologies, newest superpowers for the Avengers...
You know, I really thought that with Joss Whedon at the helm of a major, AAA property with a cavalcade of Hollywood talent that we would see action/superhero movies begin to move in a more progressive direction. At the very least I was hoping that some of what Whedon has been celebrated for saying in terms of his engagement with social justice issues would rub off a bit on some extremely privileged Hollywood actors.
I don't know why I thought this.
Naive optimism?
Probably.
I am legitimately disappointed but I'm not all surprised at the comments that were made by Jeremy Renner and Chris Evans about Black Widow; fictional or not, what they said was hurtful and the faux-pology did not help things.
For the record, I'm not the biggest superhero fan. I did watch the 90s Spiderman and X-Men as a kid, I thoroughly enjoyed the Nolan Batman Trilogy, and do turn to the marvel superhero movies now and then for a bit of brainless entertainment. I do like big, overarching, consistent stories and the movies that have come out of the marvel universe have certainly been intriguing in that respect. I was also very happy to hear that someone like Joss Whedon had been tapped to helm the movies that bring together several different stories and would appeal to a great number of people that probably were not part of the Whedonverse (Firefly, Buffy, Angel). Joss Whedon isn't without his faults as he's certainly had some questionable and problematic engagements with Feminism and social justice stuff (the whole "why I hate feminist" speech comes to mind), but he's thrown support behind Anita Sarkeesian with regards to bringing more awareness to the harassment she's experiencing. I also recognize that Whedon had much more flexibility with his own stuff than he does with something as long-established as marvel superheroes, but all of this amounts to nothing more than nice excuses for ignoring the lack of progress being shown.
Black Widow is the only Avenger in the current run of movies, apart from Hawkeye, to not have her own movie about her own adventures. Moreover, from weird contortions that magically display Black Widow's butt and cleavage simultaneously to extremely sexist questions about Scarlett Johansson's underwear and diet, movie posters, costuming, and panel interviews have revealed all manner of systemic sexism directed at both Scarlett Johansson and the character she plays; she's even being left off of the merchandise for the latest iteration of the Avengers-Marvelverse installment "Age of Ultron." And now we have some pretty standard slut-shamming coming from Johansson's costars to round it all out. Awesome...
The usual script for this sort of thing is playing out as I write this: feminists are calling out the comment, anti-feminists/anti-sjws are whining that feminists are too sensitive or just don't get the "satire," fence sitters are, well, sitting quietly on their fence, and mainstream media outlets are rolling with the article in a non-committal way because they know they'll get a couple extra clicks for the next few days or so. But here's why I'm writing something about this: representation matters.
For millions of girls and women who love comics the comic world, and greater geekdom, really sucks for representation; moreover, anyone trying to change it is subjected to a mob of hateful, ignorant people (who are mostly men, lets be honest here) who feel that sending rape and death threats to the change-makers is a good way to prove that there's not a culture of hatred and misogyny in the community. Any representation that the millions of girls and women do get within this community is fraught with problems involving body type, sexuality, sexual orientation, objectification/sexualization, racism, and, in many cases, are only incorporated to supplement the story-lines of the white, cis-het, male heroes. Finally, the representation is often an escape-hatch excuse for people that are actively resisting the efforts to improve representation in the greater geekdom. It usually shows up like, "the comic industry isn't sexist because [insert name of one of a small number of female led comics] has her own book."
When Renner and Evans make comments like the one they issued the faux-pology for they directly contribute to the problem that girls and women are facing in the greater geekdom. Their comments maintain the sexist status quo and validates the opinions of the hateful people sending the rape and death threats to those advocating for social change. For many, what they said probably doesn't seem that bad considering other incidents; however, the fact that something like this doesn't seem like a big deal is part of the problem.
So I was just about to post this when a link to an awesome new tumblr came across my dash and it's in direct response to the comments that have come to light. It's called #ProjectRomanoff and it's created by the Agent Romanoff fandom as a way to get some positivity going around the character they love, here's the first post:
"Okay all, so as I said last night, I think we need to get some positivity going in our fandom right now. Natasha Romanoff is a mutlifacted and complex character we have all come to love and I think, in light of what’s happened recently, we should spread that Natasha love. God knows I’m sure we all need it.
So I’m proposing #projectromanoff. Often times, female characters are sidelined as love interests, placed in male dominated spaces by their creators, and then blamed at their closeness with those male characters. For so many women, who find themselves in characters like Natasha, those criticisms are hurtful in the real world because so many of us have experienced them in our own lives. When characters like Natasha become the butt of sexist jokes, it can be exhausting for fans because those words hit so closed to home. So lets spread some love, not only for our fav ex soviet assassin but for each other. Tag your works as #projectromanoff, meta, art, fic, playlists, photosets, edits, anything you want, anything Natasha centric, and fill each other’s dashes with Natasha love! "
Sources:
http://www.themarysue.com/grossvengers-age-of-dolton/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/chris-evans-jeremy-renner-apologize-791013
I don't know why I thought this.
Naive optimism?
Probably.
I am legitimately disappointed but I'm not all surprised at the comments that were made by Jeremy Renner and Chris Evans about Black Widow; fictional or not, what they said was hurtful and the faux-pology did not help things.
For the record, I'm not the biggest superhero fan. I did watch the 90s Spiderman and X-Men as a kid, I thoroughly enjoyed the Nolan Batman Trilogy, and do turn to the marvel superhero movies now and then for a bit of brainless entertainment. I do like big, overarching, consistent stories and the movies that have come out of the marvel universe have certainly been intriguing in that respect. I was also very happy to hear that someone like Joss Whedon had been tapped to helm the movies that bring together several different stories and would appeal to a great number of people that probably were not part of the Whedonverse (Firefly, Buffy, Angel). Joss Whedon isn't without his faults as he's certainly had some questionable and problematic engagements with Feminism and social justice stuff (the whole "why I hate feminist" speech comes to mind), but he's thrown support behind Anita Sarkeesian with regards to bringing more awareness to the harassment she's experiencing. I also recognize that Whedon had much more flexibility with his own stuff than he does with something as long-established as marvel superheroes, but all of this amounts to nothing more than nice excuses for ignoring the lack of progress being shown.
Black Widow is the only Avenger in the current run of movies, apart from Hawkeye, to not have her own movie about her own adventures. Moreover, from weird contortions that magically display Black Widow's butt and cleavage simultaneously to extremely sexist questions about Scarlett Johansson's underwear and diet, movie posters, costuming, and panel interviews have revealed all manner of systemic sexism directed at both Scarlett Johansson and the character she plays; she's even being left off of the merchandise for the latest iteration of the Avengers-Marvelverse installment "Age of Ultron." And now we have some pretty standard slut-shamming coming from Johansson's costars to round it all out. Awesome...
The usual script for this sort of thing is playing out as I write this: feminists are calling out the comment, anti-feminists/anti-sjws are whining that feminists are too sensitive or just don't get the "satire," fence sitters are, well, sitting quietly on their fence, and mainstream media outlets are rolling with the article in a non-committal way because they know they'll get a couple extra clicks for the next few days or so. But here's why I'm writing something about this: representation matters.
For millions of girls and women who love comics the comic world, and greater geekdom, really sucks for representation; moreover, anyone trying to change it is subjected to a mob of hateful, ignorant people (who are mostly men, lets be honest here) who feel that sending rape and death threats to the change-makers is a good way to prove that there's not a culture of hatred and misogyny in the community. Any representation that the millions of girls and women do get within this community is fraught with problems involving body type, sexuality, sexual orientation, objectification/sexualization, racism, and, in many cases, are only incorporated to supplement the story-lines of the white, cis-het, male heroes. Finally, the representation is often an escape-hatch excuse for people that are actively resisting the efforts to improve representation in the greater geekdom. It usually shows up like, "the comic industry isn't sexist because [insert name of one of a small number of female led comics] has her own book."
When Renner and Evans make comments like the one they issued the faux-pology for they directly contribute to the problem that girls and women are facing in the greater geekdom. Their comments maintain the sexist status quo and validates the opinions of the hateful people sending the rape and death threats to those advocating for social change. For many, what they said probably doesn't seem that bad considering other incidents; however, the fact that something like this doesn't seem like a big deal is part of the problem.
So I was just about to post this when a link to an awesome new tumblr came across my dash and it's in direct response to the comments that have come to light. It's called #ProjectRomanoff and it's created by the Agent Romanoff fandom as a way to get some positivity going around the character they love, here's the first post:
"Okay all, so as I said last night, I think we need to get some positivity going in our fandom right now. Natasha Romanoff is a mutlifacted and complex character we have all come to love and I think, in light of what’s happened recently, we should spread that Natasha love. God knows I’m sure we all need it.
So I’m proposing #projectromanoff. Often times, female characters are sidelined as love interests, placed in male dominated spaces by their creators, and then blamed at their closeness with those male characters. For so many women, who find themselves in characters like Natasha, those criticisms are hurtful in the real world because so many of us have experienced them in our own lives. When characters like Natasha become the butt of sexist jokes, it can be exhausting for fans because those words hit so closed to home. So lets spread some love, not only for our fav ex soviet assassin but for each other. Tag your works as #projectromanoff, meta, art, fic, playlists, photosets, edits, anything you want, anything Natasha centric, and fill each other’s dashes with Natasha love! "
Sources:
http://www.themarysue.com/grossvengers-age-of-dolton/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/chris-evans-jeremy-renner-apologize-791013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)