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.

Power & Control

When this crime made it's way around the world a few years ago I had trouble processing the level of violence.  Now, one of the offenders is being interviewed about that event and I am once again struck speechless as a different level of violence is being directed at the victim of the crime.

Make no mistake, victim blaming is an additional act of violence.

Advocates working to end violence against women often talk about sexual violence as not being about sex or desire, rather the crime comes out of the realm of a need for power and control as well as a sense of entitlement brought about by unearned social privilege.  To commit the initial crime the men, in this case, would need to already have significantly harmful views of women, have justifications already formed in their minds, and only needed one additional factor to finally choose to commit such a violent crime.  As it states in the interview these men believed their actions were justified because, in their view, she was violating a social norm being out past a time they, and society, had set for women to be home by.

The recently released interview further elaborates on how these men view their own actions, the views they have of women, and that they do not feel any degree of remorse for the violent crime that they committed.  

"A decent girl won't roam around at nine o'clock at night. A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy" - An attitude and/or belief about women.

"Housework and housekeeping is for girls, not roaming in discos and bars at night doing wrong things, wearing wrong clothes. About 20% of girls are good." - Another example of their attitudes and beliefs regarding women.

"had a right to teach them a lesson" - A justification.

"She was beggar girl. Her life was of no value." - A justification.

Attitudes and beliefs informing justifications, which are then used to inform the actions or behaviors.

It is important to point out that these kinds of attitudes and beliefs do not just manifest randomly and it is even more important to point out that the attitudes and beliefs that became justifications for actions are common in every community.  He very clearly draws a line between notions of "traditional" gender roles and the justifications he and the other men made for their actions.  Not every person out there who is invested in "traditional" gender roles is on the path to commit acts of sexual violence; however, it is important to point out that had these men been raised differently they might have not done what they did.

There is a similar parallel in all sexual violence cases: attitudes and beliefs informing justifications, which guide action.  Harmful views about women and gender roles established early on, reinforced in various ways as men and women grow up, and, if left unchallenged, can become justifications for actions later in life.  This why we need to challenge unassuming aspects of rape culture; narratives like "boys will be boys," pieces of media that normalize violence against women, aspects of culture that enforce traditional gender roles, and so on.

I'm sorry to end on a note that isn't exactly positive, but I don't think it would be appropriate.  In this case to sanitize the message avoids the issue.  We have a problem in our society, we cannot dismiss it as a "one-off" random event.  We need to face it head on.

Sources:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31698154

http://jezebel.com/delhi-bus-gang-rapist-mukesh-singh-blames-victim-for-fi-1688870998

Why this blog?

 head things tend to get a little stale up in there.  Ideas are important and it is good to get them down in more tangible forms to look back on or to share with others.  I'm not sure what direction this blog is going to take but for now I'll be using it as a container for the various things that I get around to putting down on paper (so to speak).

I've brought over a few posts from a former blog to give whomever reads this a glimpse as to the kinds of things I talk about.  The previous medium didn't really lend itself to long text posts and I kind of felt it was important to be a bit more deliberate with my writing.  The other benefit of having a more appropriate venue for my writing is that I'll get some of this out my system so I stop writing essays into comment sections on various other social media...hopefully...

So, what else?

Do feel free to comment and/or ask questions.  However, if you're of a particular group of people and feel an impulse to send "facts" about things "I might not have noticed before" so that I'll be able to "take the red pill and open my eyes" please don't bother.  I've encountered that kind of "help" before and I am not at all interested.

I think that's all for now.

Single Issue Politics

 As the country in which I live gradually slides down a slope of increasingly problematic systemic oppression, I can’t help but feel a growing bitterness towards the democratic process and the current state of it in this country.

With the recent passing of Bill C-36, the Canadian Government (aka The Harper Government, no narcissism there *eyeroll*) clearly stated to the entire country that the lives and safety of Sex Workers were not worth protecting.  While the bill was presented as something that only criminalizes the people seeking the service Sex Workers provide, the reality is that it makes it impossible to conduct Sex Work in a safe manner.  Sex Workers and their advocates repeatedly stated that the bill will create unsafe working conditions and constantly advocated for decriminalization, which would have given Sex Workers much more control over their own lives.

With that issue “settled” as far as the current government is concerned we are now seeing the rise of a new, equally oppressive bill just in time for a new election season.  This new bill, being marketed as an “anti-terror” bill, seeks to provide government security forces with unprecedented latitude when it comes to “preemptively silencing terrorist acts.”  However, initial details released about the bill are terrifyingly vague as to what qualifies as a “terrorist” act and horrifyingly versatile when it comes to which groups this bill could be applied to.  Under this new legislation, any group could easily be labeled as engaging in terrorist acts where peaceful protests and merely disagreeing with the government are the acts that will be used as evidence.  It as, in fact, already been applied before the bill has even been approved.

Now, as we approach election season, the media and politician’s respective propaganda machines are firing up and anointing Bill C-51 as this elections “hot issue.”

While I am moderately encouraged that at least one party is opposing the bill I am not at all enthused as to where I see us heading.  Bill C-51 will be the major deciding factor in this years election, whomever can convince the largest demographic that their position is right can take a significant number of votes.  This will happen because the media is already telling us that this is the most important issue for this coming election.  The depressing upshot of this change in the winds means that other desperate social issues will take a back seat in the politicians platforms and in the public’s mind.

This will happen because we have a capitalistic democracy that sees the people they serve as demographics and works to secure the largest demographic with the best marketing campaign.  An “Anti-Terror Bill” is as enticing as it is banal which acts as the perfect issue to guide how an election rolls out; it is something can always be used as a trump card for other issues because one can simply ask “don’t you care about the security of this country?” or “so you side with the terrorists then?”  It is, and will be, presented as a black and white issue whereby politicians cannot ignore addressing it.

Other issues will fall to the wayside because the subtle evil of a banal label of “Anti-Terror” appeals to the privileged majority who have not had to consider the suffering and oppression of others.  The need for an “Anti-Terror” bill is a completely manufactured fear that plays on the completely normal desire to remain unafraid, content, and comfortable that the privileged masses have become accustomed too.  They have not been made aware of other social issues and, when pressed, have deliberately remained ignorant and uninterested.  In addition to the apparent threat to privilege “terrorism” poses, this bill will also play on the latent racism, classism, and general bigotry that is lingering, just under the surface of the privileged masses.  The white, affluent masses have been trained and conditioned to fear people who are not like them, so any opportunity to embrace that fear is one that they take with great enthusiasm; one need only look at the response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting as evidence of this impulse.

I cannot help but see our current state of democracy as broken and until there is a radical shift in the public’s view and understanding of what a democratic government is supposed to look like, I do not see a change coming.

Star Trek: Deep Space 9 - Far Beyond the Stars & Whitewashing

Captain Sisko: “What if this, all of this, is the illusion?”

Mr. Sisko: “That’s a scary thought.”

I’m not sure Star Trek: Deep Space 9 ever really got the praise it should have considering it’s poignant social commentary that seemed to crop up periodically throughout the series.  This time around I was watching the series having seen what went down in Ferguson as well as all the unfortunate events that dotted the timeline that was 2014.  When it came to the end of the episode and the scene with Sisko and his father I couldn’t help but cry-laugh at the irony of the scene.

The episode involves Sisko being given visions of 1950s America and he experiences the world as Benny Russell, an African-American speculative fiction writer who must be absent on picture days because it would hurt the publication he wrote for if the public found out that he was a person of color.  Taken as a standalone short film, critiqued in a vacuum, it is poignant all by itself, but when you consider the broader cultural context, current and historical contexts, and the nature of metafiction, this episode stands out as a fantastic piece of writing and storytelling.

The fact that Star Trek is fiction and they are lamenting the past or, rather, recognizing how terrifying it would be to live in a period of time when systemic racism was so prevalent really stands out because the time in which we live is not so far removed from the 1950s reality presented in this episode.  Direct, overt, acts of racism like not showing up for staff photo day or rewriting your main character (as Benny is asked told to do) are not as wide spread, but the systemic racism in pop culture is still just as prevalent as it was in 1950s, it only manifests in much more subtle ways.  Consider the outrage that came out of white critics when Quvenzhané Wallis was cast as Annie in the 2014 remake of the film of the same name or the conservative nail-biting that popped up around the holidays when an example of a black santa claus was brought up.  What about the panic that was induced in white people when a rumor made it through the internet that Idris Elba was being considered as the next actor to play James Bond.

Meanwhile, Exodus: Gods and Kings is cast with principle characters all being Caucasian and the director of said film fervently defending his choice because he felt he couldn’t market a film that starred people of color.  Avatar: the Last Airbender, a beloved show that featured, and was celebrated for, a multi-racial cast of characters was rereleased as a feature length film with Caucasian actors being cast in all the main roles.  Finally, in recent weeks we’ve got word that Scarlett Johansson has signed on to star in a Hollywood version of Ghost in the Shell; a Japanese Anime/Manga that takes place in Japan, features a group of people who are all Japanese, and has critical political commentary on the United States (they are presented as the American Empire in the story).

Furthermore, you have to consider the fact that when it comes to POC telling their own stories they must be stories that match up to the current stereotypical views of POC; look no further than The Help and 12 Years a Slave. If POC are to tell their own stories they must do so in a way that does not make white people feel uncomfortable, guilty, or upset.

In each of the three examples of movies I’ve mentioned in this post there was a plethora of social commentary as fans of each story listed the various people of color that could have starred in each of the movies.  The critiques also explored why whitewashing was so damaging to the people who enjoyed the source material as well as why representation is so important.

Again, the racism presented in “Far Beyond the Stars” doesn’t manifest so bluntly in our modern times, but it is no less present and no less harmful. Our only notions of a world without violence come from a fictional universe, this is how much work is ahead of us.

Captain Sisko: “What if this, all of this, is the illusion?”

Mr. Sisko: “That’s a scary thought.”

It is the illusion, Captain, and it is a very scary thought Mr. Sisko.

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.

Business Hours

So I watched Cosmopolis. Decent enough film. Cronenberg films always sort of resonate me well beyond the viewing, which I think is a indication of the skill at play. There was a portion of it where the lead character is having a conversation with someone and she’s talking about the commodification or tracking of time; dividing it up into measurable portions so that we can assign meaning or measure things with it. Since the movie revolves around the nature of business and unimaginable wealth the conversation got me thinking about the whole notion of “Business Hours” and how that’s a product of the capitalistic structure of our society. The hours in question have been deemed “valuable” because they are the hours within which money can, and should, be made; a holdover from our days of working with the earth, can’t harvest in darkness. This has long since become irrelevant as the world has gradually become smaller and smaller; we have “Business Hours” in our own little pockets of the world, but it’s the people with the power that have found a way to manage the entirety of time and commodify all of it.

I’ll get to the people in power in a bit.

For now, I’m thinking about the nature of marking part of our day as “Business Hours.” It interests me because that is the part of the day that we’ve assigned meaning to and it is because that is the time of the day that money can be made. Hours outside of this, also known as “off hours” or “free time,” is not valuable because money isn’t necessarily made and tracked during this time. Yes, we buy things after we’re done work (groceries, medicine, alcohol, “entertainment”) but it is not tracked until the following “Business day” where people are paid to categorize, measure, and log what money changed hands and with whom. During our “valuable” time we must contribute to some greater goal in some form or another, it can be in large ways or small ways but we must “make good use of our time” after all, we’re being paid for it. Money makes things worth while. Money makes meaning. Money is meaning. Thus is capitalism.

Then there’s the notion of ideals. We’re supposed to find work that fits with our ideals, work towards some greater purpose as our own individuals minds determine that purpose; my mind likes numbers and money so accounting would give me purpose, for instance. We seek jobs and financial validation for whatever it is that our mind and who we are has identified as “important.” It’s all no more or no less important, there’s no inherent ranking, but in a world driven by money the ideals that lead to the most money are the ideals that our society holds as a priority. Our ideals drive our work, work must happen during “Business Hours” to count, our hours are commodified so our ideals have been commodified. Our ideals have a price tag. Our ideals have a bottom line. Some people seek validation and in our society that validation comes from financial sources; the best product gets the most financial support and financial validation. Many people aren’t looking for this top level validation and those at the top are fine with this because what fun is it to have “the most” if there are no others who you can see that you have more than. Having said that I think that a lot of people would like to have “the most” or receive more validation than they’re currently receiving; however, to get that “top level” one needs political maneuverings and that requires a personality type that is rather rare. We may have the ability to move, but if this movement does not result in greater financial gain for someone that they are not movements that count towards anything. Most are left wanting.

But capitalism has an answer for this.

Funny enough, the answer for people that are left wanting is the very notion of wanting itself. The best way to get people to buy something is to make them think that they want it and to make them think that it’ll be a solution. Much of our suffering revolves around the notion that we feel incomplete and we feel incomplete because we haven’t spent enough time figuring out what it is exactly we need out of life. Capitalism tells us that we need movie tickets, a car, or the latest “Thing X” and gets us to buy into the cycle of wanting. This distracts us from the greater, and more messy, practice of self-exploration to discover our own needs; incidentally it is also much hard to market to a person searching for their own needs. Want is simple. Want is profitable. As long as people are wanting things they’ll be too distracted to figure out what it is that they are needing. We spend a great portion of our life time wanting and lusting after different things and we’re always certain that whatever it is that we want, it is going to be the thing that fixes us. We don’t know what’s broken because we haven’t spent time looking at what’s going on; I would posit that there’s nothing wrong with us in the first place, humans are beautifully and wonderfully complex. Capitalism needs problems it can sell solutions to, so it reframes beautiful and wonderful human complexity as a simple problem with a simple solution. Oh, and the solution comes in the color of your choice. To reflect your “individuality.” We’re all special, unique individuals buying the same lies one way or another.

I mean just think. I know I “need” money because it will allow me to buy the things I “need” and the things I “want.” I know I need food, for instance, so I know that I need a job. But I also know that having food is not enough, I am presented with so many examples of people who are much happier than I am because they have “Thing X” so I, in turn, begin to want “Thing X.” As the days go on and I am being constantly exposed to all the people who are happier than I am, the want turns to need and I begin to work the financial considerations for “Thing X” into my personal budget. I no longer know or care about why I feel I need “Thing X” all I know is that the want feels very real. Acquiring “Thing X” solves nothing because the need for it wasn’t real in the first place, but because we’re inundated with the cycle of need we don’t notice. All that ends up happening is that I realize that “Thing X” wasn’t what I needed, it must be “Thing Y” over there because those people who have it are much happier. I avoid the scary, ugly truth: I am unhappy. So long as I’m pursuing a “solution” I don’t have to stop and think and sit with the fact that I am unhappy. We’re told on a regular basis that we should not every be unhappy, even though I would argue that being unhappy is a very healthy, human experience.

But again, in a world of “Business Hours” sitting with a feeling for a moment takes us out of the cycle of consumption; takes us off the easily traceable path that has been laid out for us by capitalism: buy toys until college, by college until “real world,” in the real world we must by a house and car, eventually we get married and have kids. All the while we must be spending money along the way. Sitting with ourselves and our thoughts is not easily traceable and trackable, so it is not in our best interest to do so. Days must be productive and meaningful, they are only meaningful and productive if we’ve made money.

I think this is all rather incoherent but I needed to get the thoughts down somewhere. Maybe I’ll write more later…