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
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.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
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
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
Monday, March 2, 2015
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)