I'm going to be upfront about something. I had no clue who the hell Josh Duggar was or why everyone was talking about him until there was so many different articles about what went down that I could no longer ignore it. The Learning Channel was something I stopped watching long before I gave up on cable television altogether so there is a lot that I've missed out on.
Or not, I suppose.
Combing through the various articles detailing the actions of Josh Duggar and the subsequent societal skewering of him, the family, the show, and TLC there's a major discussion that I feel is not being had.
Yes, Duggar's actions are not "mistakes."
Yes, Duggar's actions are criminal.
Yes, the fact that many rushed to his defense is a clear indicator of rape culture.
All of those discussions are good. However, there is a major problem in how his choices are being talked about and the category of offender that he's being lumped in to. For the record, I don't have a problem with him being labeled an 'offender' given that he's admitted to his behavior and the choices he made.
He also apologized and recognized how harmful they were...granted only in the context of how those actions could ruin his life, but I'll take anything I can get given the state of things.
The discussion that's not happening is that Josh Duggar is being placed into an 'offender' category, in addition to his religious background, that is starting to 'other' him in the sense that people are not feeling surprised at his actions. Any time we talk about someone who chooses to abuse children terms are brought in that villainize them, which is a product of the human desire to inflict harm on those that we think deserve it. The Duggar Family's bigotry makes the catharsis all the more sweet and makes it easier to think of Josh Duggar as a monster who deserves all the negativity we can muster.
However, by turning Josh Duggar into a Pariah we also turn his choices as well as the attitudes & beliefs that motivated them into a Pariah as well, removing them from our life experience. Once we've done that it's easier to think of Josh Duggar as sick and twisted and his actions are equally perverse and horrific, which allows us to distance them from ourselves and our own actions. I get the impulse, I share it, but this process is something we're going to have to get away from if we're ever going to start reducing the amount of sexualized violence in the world.
By distancing the attitudes & beliefs, including the behaviors they ultimately motivate, from ourselves we hinder our ability to figure out where they coming from and what is perpetuating them. Josh Duggar is not a monster from another realm, he is a human that grew up in Western society much like millions of other people. There is a case to be made for certain mental conditions that some people may have that mean they're attracted to children, but not all of these people choose to act on their desires. The molestation term is being used in conjunction with Josh Duggar's actions, but regardless of whether or not he has a psychological condition his choice to commit abuse against multiple people is not a product of being unable to control his desires. Josh Duggar felt that sexually abusing was a choice he was entitled to make; that the boundaries of another person were not worth respecting. This entitlement is not 'monstrous' it's, sadly, an everyday thing.
From Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" to the rampant sexual objectification in movies and video games to Sebastian Vettel being a little disappointed there were no Grid Girls, society tells men that women's bodies are for their enjoyment. Given Josh Duggar grew up in this world and grew up in a family who has traditionally divided gender roles that give more social standing to male identified people, his choice to sexually abuse five girls shouldn't seem that shocking.
Josh Duggar is an easy target: his family's bigoted views, his choice to sexually abuse young girls, and the fact he's part of a rather unorthodox family mean he's already 'othered' for a lot of people. Make no mistake, Duggar should be held legally accountable for his crimes, but society is not gaining anything by vilifying the actions of a person who admits that what they did was wrong. We don't get points for punishing the obvious. We need to look at the less obvious, the parts of society and ourselves that are the source of sexualized violence.
Until the public outcry is as unified regarding Josh Duggar as it is about Formula 1 Grid Girls (or other normalized sexual objectification), until people are not willing to let professional athletes get away with sexual assault, until the majority of society stops dismissing Feminism, until we start believing people who have experience sexualized violence and not imply that they somehow brought it on themselves, until we recognize that violence against women should not have become a normalized experience, until society really starts looking inward and in places that are personal we're not going to get anywhere.
Showing posts with label Abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abuse. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Silent communities perpetuate sexualized violence.
This story is already almost a week old and it didn't have the staying power that other issues of sexual violence being perpetrated by athletes usually has; I'm thinking of Steubenville, Ray Rice, and so on. I am not at all surprised by this, however, as Canada is still trying to navigate systemic normalized violence and doing this when the perpetrator is of a certain kind of fame. Moreover, when the offenders happen to be involved in hockey that falls within the stream that sends players to the NHL, people are even less likely to stick with the situations or take a stance that doesn't involve victim blaming.
I found this particular article to be interesting and indicative of how much of society still isn't ready to have greater conversations about sexualized violence and really grasp the fact that the source for this violence is much more complex than they might think. This article is a perfect example of how the social minds in Canada are trying to reconcile the idea that sexualized violence is bad with the idea that offenders don't fit a "typical" mold.
When I employ the term "typical" here in reference to perceptions of who an offender might be I am referring to the notion of offenders who commit instances of sexualized violence being: older, mentally ill, unkempt or otherwise visually unappealing, preferring to jump from the shadows or bushes, attacking random women, and so on. The list here is not comprehensive and it is not all of these specific things all at once, more a combination of a few of these traits that comprises what people expect an offender to hold. Part of the desire to do this falls into a "keeping myself safe" mentality wherein if I can convince myself that offenders are easily identifiable then I can be on the lookout for them and, as a result, avoid experiencing sexualized violence.
The reality, unfortunately, is much less pleasant.
While there are certainly instances of sexualized violence occurring in situations where the offender is not known to the victim/survivor, the numbers coming from reported instances tell us that offenders are much more likely to be people we know and the sexualized violence is more likely to occur in spaces where we might feel safe (homes, schools, dorms, etc). Considering how unpleasant it is to sit with this fact I can hardly fault people for turning to methods or mindsets that help them feel safer without actually making them safer.
The young men that committed the acts of sexualized violence covered in this article are everything put the "monster" society has taught us to expect in situations like this. Hockey is a celebrated sport and past-time within Canadian culture to the point where many families build lives around the sport; playing professionally, raising their children in the sport, and so on. Fandom around professional teams also plays a significant role in Canadian culture as it plays out from things like defining friendships to being the justification for riots after a major loss.
The players themselves, often coming from places of social or financial privilege, gain a special social status within our culture for their abilities and this is not to say that the players don't sacrifice when it comes to pursuing the dream of a professional career. However, one cannot ignore the red flags of creating a special social status within Canadian Culture for people that are already accustomed to higher levels of privilege. Male privilege sets up men to develop a strong, harmful sense of entitlement when it comes to how they view other people. It is also important to point out that while they hold many different privileges, people who are not part of the "hockey community" fall outside of their scope in terms of who is valuable. Once again, this makes a lot of sense as they devote a major portion of their lives to the sport which does reduce one's scope anyway.
When you consider a few of these facts: (1) That people are not willing to accept that offenders who commit sexualized violence can be people we know and trust, (2) Society creates special privileges for Hockey players, (3) Male hockey players get a double helping of privilege and entitlement, and that (4) women are seen as sex objects that bestow sex on men, you can begin to see some red flags popping up.
For this article, we can see a few things playing out.
First, there's the hesitancy to want to get to the real issue for these players and so the subject matter experts turn to a familiar theme: young boys growing up away from their family. While this certainly plays a part in why these young men decided to commit sexualized violence it would be naive to think this was the be-all reason for their behavior. Many offenders grow up in stable families, which, again, goes against the myth that sexualized violence offenders can be easily identified in that offenders had some kind of troubled family life. In fact, rigid adherence to the gender binary and the subsequent gender roles that come from the binary are more likely to be a factor when it comes to people gaining a sense of entitlement around sex. Even in cases where one or more of the parents are not present or involved I would look to this being even more relevant; again, if I don't have a parent around me as I grow up I'm going to learn about that absent parent from other sources or I'm going to learn about my gender roles from society.
Another aspect emerging from this article is the cognitive dissonance between a league that "has policies in place" and the fact that this kind of thing keeps coming up. A major flaw in how we view sexualized violence revolves around a lack of knowledge when it comes to understanding the connection to, what we see as, every day behaviors and the legal definition of sexual assault. Most people, when asked directly, would say that sexual harassment and sexual assault is wrong; however, the same people probably couldn't identify incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault beyond very obvious, often sensationalized, incidents; I'm thinking specifically of the stranger assaults mass media usually runs with or the way in which sexualized violence is portrayed in popular media (Crime Dramas, Movies, etc). So, on one hand, people understand and agree that sexualized violence is wrong but, on the other, there is a lack of understanding when it comes to recognizing it in their daily lives. Moreover, many behaviors that would fall under the umbrella of sexualized violence have become so normalized we no longer really identify them; behavior that gets people to bring the "boys will be boys" sentiment into discussion is the kind of behavior I'm talking about.
And, finally, the way in which the Hockey Community "keeps things in the family," so-to-speak, is also very apparent in this article; the subject matter expert clearly states that when she did attempt a study, she was blocked from getting relevant data by the teams. It's hard to trust that a league is actually doing something to combat the issue of entitlement and sexualized violence when they don't allow for proper studies/investigations to be conducted that could identify ways to change the culture. There is a problem, but until the community itself is willing to recognize that they're not going to be able to solve it themselves we're not going to see a change. More importantly, until they realize that they are partially to blame for this kind of behavior we're not going to be able to implement policies and programs to make a difference.
To be clear, I'm not saying that people within the Hockey Community are of ill intent, maliciously resisting a culture change; however, by not being willing to ask the tough questions they are allowing sexualized violence to continue within their own community. One need only look at how many people we're involved in covering up Sandusky's child sexual abuse or the sexual assault that was committed by the two football players in Steubenville. In both cases, sexualized violence was allowed to continue, covered up, and a culture of victim blaming was encouraged; all to protect people that the community thought "couldn't do such a horrible thing because they were good people" and didn't fit the stereotype of a sexualized violence offender.
I found this particular article to be interesting and indicative of how much of society still isn't ready to have greater conversations about sexualized violence and really grasp the fact that the source for this violence is much more complex than they might think. This article is a perfect example of how the social minds in Canada are trying to reconcile the idea that sexualized violence is bad with the idea that offenders don't fit a "typical" mold.
When I employ the term "typical" here in reference to perceptions of who an offender might be I am referring to the notion of offenders who commit instances of sexualized violence being: older, mentally ill, unkempt or otherwise visually unappealing, preferring to jump from the shadows or bushes, attacking random women, and so on. The list here is not comprehensive and it is not all of these specific things all at once, more a combination of a few of these traits that comprises what people expect an offender to hold. Part of the desire to do this falls into a "keeping myself safe" mentality wherein if I can convince myself that offenders are easily identifiable then I can be on the lookout for them and, as a result, avoid experiencing sexualized violence.
The reality, unfortunately, is much less pleasant.
While there are certainly instances of sexualized violence occurring in situations where the offender is not known to the victim/survivor, the numbers coming from reported instances tell us that offenders are much more likely to be people we know and the sexualized violence is more likely to occur in spaces where we might feel safe (homes, schools, dorms, etc). Considering how unpleasant it is to sit with this fact I can hardly fault people for turning to methods or mindsets that help them feel safer without actually making them safer.
The young men that committed the acts of sexualized violence covered in this article are everything put the "monster" society has taught us to expect in situations like this. Hockey is a celebrated sport and past-time within Canadian culture to the point where many families build lives around the sport; playing professionally, raising their children in the sport, and so on. Fandom around professional teams also plays a significant role in Canadian culture as it plays out from things like defining friendships to being the justification for riots after a major loss.
The players themselves, often coming from places of social or financial privilege, gain a special social status within our culture for their abilities and this is not to say that the players don't sacrifice when it comes to pursuing the dream of a professional career. However, one cannot ignore the red flags of creating a special social status within Canadian Culture for people that are already accustomed to higher levels of privilege. Male privilege sets up men to develop a strong, harmful sense of entitlement when it comes to how they view other people. It is also important to point out that while they hold many different privileges, people who are not part of the "hockey community" fall outside of their scope in terms of who is valuable. Once again, this makes a lot of sense as they devote a major portion of their lives to the sport which does reduce one's scope anyway.
When you consider a few of these facts: (1) That people are not willing to accept that offenders who commit sexualized violence can be people we know and trust, (2) Society creates special privileges for Hockey players, (3) Male hockey players get a double helping of privilege and entitlement, and that (4) women are seen as sex objects that bestow sex on men, you can begin to see some red flags popping up.
For this article, we can see a few things playing out.
First, there's the hesitancy to want to get to the real issue for these players and so the subject matter experts turn to a familiar theme: young boys growing up away from their family. While this certainly plays a part in why these young men decided to commit sexualized violence it would be naive to think this was the be-all reason for their behavior. Many offenders grow up in stable families, which, again, goes against the myth that sexualized violence offenders can be easily identified in that offenders had some kind of troubled family life. In fact, rigid adherence to the gender binary and the subsequent gender roles that come from the binary are more likely to be a factor when it comes to people gaining a sense of entitlement around sex. Even in cases where one or more of the parents are not present or involved I would look to this being even more relevant; again, if I don't have a parent around me as I grow up I'm going to learn about that absent parent from other sources or I'm going to learn about my gender roles from society.
Another aspect emerging from this article is the cognitive dissonance between a league that "has policies in place" and the fact that this kind of thing keeps coming up. A major flaw in how we view sexualized violence revolves around a lack of knowledge when it comes to understanding the connection to, what we see as, every day behaviors and the legal definition of sexual assault. Most people, when asked directly, would say that sexual harassment and sexual assault is wrong; however, the same people probably couldn't identify incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault beyond very obvious, often sensationalized, incidents; I'm thinking specifically of the stranger assaults mass media usually runs with or the way in which sexualized violence is portrayed in popular media (Crime Dramas, Movies, etc). So, on one hand, people understand and agree that sexualized violence is wrong but, on the other, there is a lack of understanding when it comes to recognizing it in their daily lives. Moreover, many behaviors that would fall under the umbrella of sexualized violence have become so normalized we no longer really identify them; behavior that gets people to bring the "boys will be boys" sentiment into discussion is the kind of behavior I'm talking about.
And, finally, the way in which the Hockey Community "keeps things in the family," so-to-speak, is also very apparent in this article; the subject matter expert clearly states that when she did attempt a study, she was blocked from getting relevant data by the teams. It's hard to trust that a league is actually doing something to combat the issue of entitlement and sexualized violence when they don't allow for proper studies/investigations to be conducted that could identify ways to change the culture. There is a problem, but until the community itself is willing to recognize that they're not going to be able to solve it themselves we're not going to see a change. More importantly, until they realize that they are partially to blame for this kind of behavior we're not going to be able to implement policies and programs to make a difference.
To be clear, I'm not saying that people within the Hockey Community are of ill intent, maliciously resisting a culture change; however, by not being willing to ask the tough questions they are allowing sexualized violence to continue within their own community. One need only look at how many people we're involved in covering up Sandusky's child sexual abuse or the sexual assault that was committed by the two football players in Steubenville. In both cases, sexualized violence was allowed to continue, covered up, and a culture of victim blaming was encouraged; all to protect people that the community thought "couldn't do such a horrible thing because they were good people" and didn't fit the stereotype of a sexualized violence offender.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Thoughts on Ghomeshi
(Edit: Wrote this several days ago)
Alright, I just have to get my bit in as this story is breaking and I’m already starting to see a bunch of victim blaming narratives develop, especially in the comment section of Jian Ghomeshi’s facebook post. While we don’t yet have all the information I would implore people to consider any survivors that might be involved in this particular story. Considering our current culture of putting survivors of sexual violence on trial, I would remind everyone that there is nothing to gain by disclosing instances of abuse apart from those in question beginning their own healing journeys.
I take issue with the story presented to us mainly because of the language used in said post because it raises several red flags for me. Narratives around “jilted ex-girlfriends” have been used, too often, as a justification and/or an excuse for abuse (something we see a lot with revenge porn and sharing of explicit photos) and as justification and/or an excuse for dismissal of claims. The narrative of “a campaign of vengeance” has also been used to dismiss legitimate feelings of survivors when it comes to having been violated. And finally, bringing in a novel such as “Fifty Shades of Grey” to defend one’s behavior is a very troubling decision as the book has been heavily criticized for it’s portrayal of the BDSM community and it’s contribution to the normalization and eroticization of sexual violence.
For those in the BDSM community, consent and communication regarding sex acts is paramount. Straying from agreed upon acts between consenting parties is a violation of the rules of consent. Continuing agreed upon sex acts when consent has been revoked is a violation of the rules of consent. Consent can be revoked and consent must be ongoing to be valid. The notion of “we agreed to do this” is not a defense when the other party revokes consent, for whatever reason.
Too often, society turns on the survivors, faster than normal, when there is a person of fame involved as it is less likely that people will believe they are capable of such a crime. The myth of the easily identifiable offender is too prevalent in society and it acts as a barrier to survivors recognizing that their own experience as sexual violence if their offender did not fit the socially accepted description of an offender. The greater the fame, the less likely it is that people will believe the survivor.
We lose nothing by supporting survivors in cases like this.
Alright, I just have to get my bit in as this story is breaking and I’m already starting to see a bunch of victim blaming narratives develop, especially in the comment section of Jian Ghomeshi’s facebook post. While we don’t yet have all the information I would implore people to consider any survivors that might be involved in this particular story. Considering our current culture of putting survivors of sexual violence on trial, I would remind everyone that there is nothing to gain by disclosing instances of abuse apart from those in question beginning their own healing journeys.
I take issue with the story presented to us mainly because of the language used in said post because it raises several red flags for me. Narratives around “jilted ex-girlfriends” have been used, too often, as a justification and/or an excuse for abuse (something we see a lot with revenge porn and sharing of explicit photos) and as justification and/or an excuse for dismissal of claims. The narrative of “a campaign of vengeance” has also been used to dismiss legitimate feelings of survivors when it comes to having been violated. And finally, bringing in a novel such as “Fifty Shades of Grey” to defend one’s behavior is a very troubling decision as the book has been heavily criticized for it’s portrayal of the BDSM community and it’s contribution to the normalization and eroticization of sexual violence.
For those in the BDSM community, consent and communication regarding sex acts is paramount. Straying from agreed upon acts between consenting parties is a violation of the rules of consent. Continuing agreed upon sex acts when consent has been revoked is a violation of the rules of consent. Consent can be revoked and consent must be ongoing to be valid. The notion of “we agreed to do this” is not a defense when the other party revokes consent, for whatever reason.
Too often, society turns on the survivors, faster than normal, when there is a person of fame involved as it is less likely that people will believe they are capable of such a crime. The myth of the easily identifiable offender is too prevalent in society and it acts as a barrier to survivors recognizing that their own experience as sexual violence if their offender did not fit the socially accepted description of an offender. The greater the fame, the less likely it is that people will believe the survivor.
We lose nothing by supporting survivors in cases like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)