By now many of you may have heard about H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act". According to legislators, the purpose of this bill is only to make existing limits on abortion in federal code, such as the Hyde Amendment, permanent. However, the law goes further than permanently codifying these restrictions on women's privacy, and drastically limits the definition of both rape and incest.
The text of the bill lists that the only exceptions to the ban of federal funding for abortions include when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life and:
"[I]f the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest..."
Forcible rape? What does that even mean? One major reason for concern is that the term 'forcible rape' is not defined in the federal code, nor do many states have a definition. To me, the term 'forcible rape' sounds like the only time rape is really 'rape' is when your attacker has a gun or a knife to your head. It would be interesting to see how we decide whose rape qualifies and whose rape doesn't for a federally funded abortion.
The incest exception is also being drastically changed. Federally funded abortions would only be allowed if the victim of incest was under 18. Because that makes sense. (?!)
I was surprised to learn that this bill, introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ4), has bipartisan support. Nine 0f the 173 cosponsors are Democrats, including Daniel Lipinski (D-IL3) and Nick Rahall (D-WV3).
But to be clear, I wasn't surprised that some Democrats would support pro-life legislation. Rather, I was surprised they would support legislation that would only really accomplish demeaning women, restricting their rights, and perpetuating harmful myths about rape.
Today Gawker has a post about the alleged sexual assault of a Google employee at a tech conference by a Twitter engineer. Gawker's headline reads "Googler accuses Twitter engineer of sexual assault on her blog." Right there, we're off to a bad start. Because her blog post is not, really, at all about "accusing" someone of sexual assault, but rather stating the simple fact that she was assaulted (he put his hand down her pants after she turned down his advances), naming the person who did it, and saying rather eloquently that it's part of a broader problem of guys excusing their bad behavior based on the setting:
It’s not the first time something like this has happened to me, at all. It’s not the first time it’s happened to me at a tech conference. But it is the first time I’ve spoken out about it in this way, because I’m tired of the sense that some idiot can ruin my day and never have to answer for it. I’m tired of the fear. I’m tired of people who think I should wear something different. I’m tired of people who think I should avoid having a beer in case my vigilance lapses for a moment. I’m tired of people who say that guys can’t read me right and I have to read them, and avoid giving the wrong impression.
...It is not my job to avoid getting assaulted. It is everyone else’s job to avoid assaulting me. Dozens of guys succeeded at that job, across the week. In the pub, in the stairwell, on the MARTA, in my bedroom.
One guy failed, and it’s his fault.
The commenters make the bad start even worse, by (typically) questioning her behavior (which, in a move that makes me want to give her a medal, she bravely documented), attire, and decision to name her assaulter. The author of the Gawker article feels compelled to pull out the "Innocent until proven guilty" refrain, and laments that the victim in the case couldn't vent her trauma without naming the perp. But why should she? "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really apply to the victim in the case since, to her, there's already pretty clear-cut evidence that the person at hand is guilty. Remember, this happened to her. It's the legal system that's meant to reserve judgment. Moreover, if you think it was "tasteless" of her to name the guy, or some other BS the commenters are spewing, ask yourself whether you would not do the very same thing if a crime were committed against you: If your house was broken into by a neighbor, and you wanted to blog about it, wouldn't one of your purposes surely be to warn others that this neighbor isn't to be trusted? This is not a case of kiss and tell--it's a case of a victim, simply and without malice, documenting her assault.
The season premiere of Mad Men was yesterday. I watched it; I loved it; betterpeoplethan me have written recaps. I want to talk about Pete Campbell.
You remember Pete. Him and Peggy had a thing. He used to be somewhat of a smarmy ass. His dad died. Oh yeah, and he raped his neighbor's nanny. He had done her a favor by replacing a dress she'd borrowed and ruined, and tries to make a pass at her. When she declines, he shows up at her door drunk, demands to be let in, and then forces himself upon her. Apparently some people think this is a "gray area"? This video shows only part of the interaction, not the part where he demands she undress (by insisting she put on the dress he's replaced), blocks her exit from the bedroom, and kisses her despite her clear fear and discomfort, but I think you can get the idea:
I thought that scene would be a turning point for Pete Campbell's character, where he went from being a misguided schmo in the viewer's mind to being a really entitled asshole who deserves comeuppance. But that comeuppance never came. Instead, here we are in season four expected to laugh at Pete's antics, and the oh-so-cute dynamic between him and former flame Peggy. His character arc is, apparently, that he got more likable after raping his neighbor's nanny, and now we're supposed to accept him as one of the boys. It troubles me that after all the positive feminist ink Matthew Weiner and co got from portraying Joan's rape by her fiance and Pete's rape of the nanny--showing that rape isn't always the kicking, screaming, violent act we expect, but rather one where men trade on other power dynamics than merely physical superiority to coerce women into submission--they've failed to let Pete's character bear any of the moral consequences of his actions, or even paint them as reprehensible to the audience.
Weiner is trying to portray a time when women were less powerful, rape culture was perhaps stronger, and men frequently saw crossing the line as their entitlement. And yet, I still see space for defining the morality of individual character's actions within that time. If Weiner doesn't, that's a problem for me. Because then every frat boy who lives in an environment where women aren't respected gets to say he didn't know better. I think he does; and I think Pete Campbell did, too. And so, no, I can't laugh at his jokes, I can't smile at his character development, and I certainly can't root for him as an up-and-coming member of the new agency. He. Is. A. Rapist.
Even this article from Bitch magazine, while at least clearly defining Campbell as a rapist, seems to see him as a "product of his times" instead of someone making criminal, morally repugnant, and damaging decisions in the context of those times:
Pete Campbell is a rapist. I keep repeating it like that, keep saying it flat-out like that, not because I demand that you hate his character now. (In fact, I've always thought Vincent Kartheiser - who I hated on Angel - does an excellent job of making such a weasel character kind of sympathetic, human.) I keep saying he is a rapist because I think everyone would benefit from understanding that "rapists" are not monsters: they are human beings. They are human beings who have been taught, time and time again, by this culture, that they are entitled to sexually use other people. They are not outliers; they are not blips on the radar; they are not deviants. They are, often, just men who have gotten so caught up in themselves, so blinded by the ego they are told from birth they must develop as a symbol of virile masculinity, that they have utterly forgotten that woman are human beings. They have forgotten that women are not there for their sexual use.
In this interview, Pete's portrayer says he doesn't see his character as a villain, and doesn't think in terms of "good and bad." Apparently neither does Matthew Weiner. This is not about the "world of Mad Men," which is meant to be deeply flawed, and viewed through a critical lens. This is about the world we live in, where that critical lens settles only so briefly on a man's rape of a domestic servant, before moving on to admire his personal growth. Men who rape get to be oh-so-very complex and troubled. Women who get raped get to dry their tears alone.
Atlas Shrugged is at long last being made into a movie, on the cheap and with a largely unknown cast. As someone who was a big fan of, shall we say, large portions of the book (there are certain parts I think strongly reflect arrogance on Rand's part, and reflect a morality I'm uncomfortable with) in my teen years, I can't help being disappointed that an adaptation once rumored to be starring Angelina Jolie is being set up for mediocrity. Any fan of Rand knows that mediocrity is the ultimate sin.
But what is the ultimate virtue in her world? I would say "excellence," but Amanda Hess points out that it's an excellence tinged with an ugly sort of male dominance, one that translated into both Rand's personal life and her works of fiction. Two pivotal scenes in Ayn Rand's most famous works of fiction revolve around the "sexy rape" of the lead female characters. In The Fountainhead, it's Howard Roarke's rape of Dominique, with whom the sexual chemistry is so sizzling, he needs to break into her home and take her by force. From Amanda Hess's transcription:
She tried to tear herself away from him. The effort broke against his arms that had not felt it. Her fists beat against his shoulders, against his face. He moved one hand, took her two wrists and pinned them behind her, under his arm, wrenching her shoulder blades.…She fell back against the dressing table, she stood crouching, her hands clasping the edge behind her, her eyes wide, colorless, shapeless in terror. He was laughing. There was the movement of laughter on his face, but no sound.…Then he approached. He lifted her without effort. She let her teeth sink into his hand and felt blood on the tip of her tongue. He pulled her head back and he forced her mouth open against his.
Of this scene, Rand has said "if it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation," presumably because Dominique had flirted with Roarke beforehand. A lot. Rand also wrote in her letters,
One in four men in South Africa admit to raping a woman, many having done so multiple times. In America, one in four women will be sexually assaulted or abused in her lifetime, but at the hands of a relatively small number of perpetrators. The number of available perpetrators in South Africa make sexual assault a virtual certainty for women who live there. This is a developed country, with a functioning government and police force. It is not a war zone. It is not even a society with high gender inequality. This has got to stop.
One woman had an idea--a toothed condom-like device a woman could wear inside her vagina that would painfully stop a man from completing an act of rape, tagging the attacker as a rapist, and preventing her against STD infection simultaneously (important in a country with a 12% HIV infection rate). It's basically a modern-day chastity belt, and as Jezebel points out, it's not without it's problems. For one, it puts the responsibility for preventing rape on women, who are the potential victims. It also could create the unintended consequence of making additional violence more likely. Moreover, it can't actually stop rape, since penetration has to occur for it to work, and anal and oral rape could still take place unfettered. For my money, I doubt the device will actually work much in practice, but a few highly publicized cases of a man getting his penis shredded attempting rape might deter some would-be attackers--until they resolved to check for a device and remove it before attempting penetration.
But Jezebel also rightly points out that the critics of Rape-aXe are coming at it from the perspective of living in a society where rape is a relatively rare occurrence, and thus no one would consider leaving home with a vaginal insert to protect themselves. This, tragically, just isn't the case in South Africa:
[Rape-aXe creator] Ehlers isn't suggesting that British or American women run out and purchase this product - it was introduced in South Africa to address the terrifying frequency of sexual assault. South Africa has one of the highest levels of rape in the world; a 2006 study found that a woman is raped every 17 seconds. To make matters even worse, a 2009 Amnesty International report found that out of over 20,000 reports of rape, only 8% led to convictions.
This might not be the solution, but one is desperately needed. And at least this somewhat shocking device is getting the word out on an issue that deserves greater attention. So, what can South Africa do to protect rape victims? And, how can the World Cup, happening in South Africa this summer, be used as an opportunity to bring attention to this issue?
Mike Huckabee is homophobic, but you knew that already. (He compared gay marriage to incest and drug use, and said gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt because children aren't puppies.) In other terrible person news, Ben Roethlisberger...oh man. I really hope he is disciplined for his behavior by the NFL, and that his team and his sport support the ongoing criminal investigation.
Olivia Judson reports that laboratory animals are evolving in ways that could jeopardize experimental validity--in as little as ten generations! You hear that, people who love to speak of how there's no way evolution could come up with an eye? I love Judson, and her book Sex Advice to All Creation is a great, witty primer on the endless mysteries of evolution.
I Blame the Patriarchy says we can't be pretty and be feminists. It's an important thing to think about--the way focusing on physical attractiveness buys into norms about feminine-ness and appropriate female behavior, but I must say I respectfully disagree. I think the key thing is to be conscious of the way we pursue physical attractiveness and our reasons for doing so (i.e., not couching our gym obsession in "health"), and be judicious about how much time and effort to devote to these things. But to say that doing them is anti-feminist? That's both judgmental and unrealistic.
CNN has an uber-disturbing story about a Japanese rape-themed video game that was pulled from store shelves, only to go viral online. The game puts users in the crime driver seat, similar to Grand Theft Auto, only this time the crime is stalking, assaulting, and raping women--including teens. From CNN:
It is little wonder that the game, titled RapeLay, sparked international outrage from women's groups. Taina Bien-Aime helped yank the game off store shelves worldwide.
"This was a game that had absolutely no place on the market," said Taina Bien-Aime of women's rights organization Equality Now which has campaigned for the game to be taken off the shelves.
Unfortunately, the game is now available on the internet, with a wider audience than ever before. Some are calling for the government of Japan to take further action to ban the game, but I'm not sure to what extent I agree with that. I think you could go after the game online if you think it's actively promoting either child pornography or could directly lead to criminal conduct, but otherwise, the right answer to this seems to be OMG-education-please this is crazy! I'm sorry, I need to take a deep breath; I still cannot believe there is a rape video game.
I understand that rape fantasies might play a real role in both men's and women's sexual enjoyment, and while I recognize their existence is fraught with gender issues, I don't find anything essentially un-feminist about them or the people who have them. However, playing out fantasies of domination and submission in a mutually consensual, controlled, and reciprocally pleasurable environment is very different from a one-sided video game where the player gets to actually harm unwilling women-cum-objects for his enjoyment alone. I would have felt very differently about the game if it was an S&M fantasy world, where you first meet your willing counterpart outside of the fantasy setting, and then agree on a role to act out for both of your enjoyment.
The harm as entertainment aspect reminds me unsettlingly of the torture tourism depicted in Hostel and its sequel. The premise of that movie (which I have not seen, nor will I) seems to be that it is many people's deepest desire to harm others, if only no one would know. The premise of the video game is less sinister: it's the idea that people would like to experience harming others, both without anyone knowing and without anyone getting hurt. Unfortunately, I can't quite get on board with that, either. Why? Because it's impossible to hurt someone without them being hurt, and games like RapeLay allow that essential connection to be broken, for a single, pixelated moment.
So, what do we do now? These products, and moreso, the desires that generate demand for them, are out there, and it might be impossible to stamp them all out in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. So how do we both mitigate their harm while working to change the culture that created them? Your guess is as good as mine.
In NPR's continued coverage of campus sexual assault, they bust myth that student rapists are making a one-time bad decision that gives administrators a "teachable moment" to reform young minds. In this latest installment they report on psychologist David Lisak's work. He has found an entirely different picture of campus rape from the one administrators choose to believe:
What Lisak found was that students who commit rape on a college campus are pretty much like those rapists in prison. In both groups, many are serial rapists. On college campuses, repeat predators account for 9 out of every 10 rapes.
And these offenders on campuses — just like men in prison for rape — look for the most vulnerable women. Lisak says that on a college campus, the women most likely to be sexually assaulted are freshmen.
"It's quite well-known amongst college administrators that first-year students, freshman women, are particularly at risk for sexual assault," Lisak says. "The predators on campus know that women who are new to campus, they are younger, they're less experienced. They probably have less experience with alcohol, they want to be accepted. They will probably take more risks because they want to be accepted. So for all these reasons, the predators will look particularly for those women."
NPR's ongoing coverage has been a true eye-opener for me, and I hope more people tune in. I am left, unfortunately, with a cynicism for college administrators. It's possible that they are simply naive idealists, but I suspect they have known for a while about this situation. Universities are harboring criminals through their administrative disciplinary procedures, in which rapists are rarely even expelled, no less sent to jail where they belong, and it has got to end.
As I drove home Friday, NPR reported on the horrific inability of American universities to deal with sexual assaults on campus.
Margaux's story is fairly typical for the many women who are sexually assaulted on college campuses. And what's also common is the failure of even the best-intentioned colleges and universities to investigate a criminal matter like rape — and then punish it.
NPR's investigative team collaborated with journalists at the Center for Public Integrity to examine why colleges and universities fail to protect women from assault. The investigation found that even when a man has been found responsible for a sexual assault, he's rarely expelled. And women haven't been able to count on help from the government oversight agency, either.
Even worse, in Margaux's case there seems to be plenty of evidence (the rapist confessed in a school hearing!) but the police refuse to prosecute. This had me literally shouting at my radio. Why is there a special campus process for dealing with students raping students? Surely this is not the case for homicide or grand larceny? The punishment for a rapist shouldn't be expulsion, as this story suggests, but jail.
Mackenzie Phillips released her memoir High on Arrival in September 2009 and prompted confusion across the blogosphere when she described her sexual relationship with her father as ‘consensual’.
Jezebel was quick to ask the important question: ‘Is that even possible?”
Multimillionaire Jeffery Epstein is being sued by women alleging he paid them to give him massages (while nude) when they were as young as 14. Some of the women also reported being sexually assaulted by Epstein.
To defend his client's irreparable emotional damage to these ladies, Epstein's lawyer is digging through their painful memories and (better yet) their medical records. The judge on the case, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Donald Hafele, decided this was totally OK. He agreed that the lawyers could subpoena the women's abortion records... as long as the women had priorly been questioned about their abortion history.
This precedent could mean you have to wave goodbye to your right to privacy. Also, these lawyers are trying to win this case by arguing that if you have had a traumatic life event, you can't suffer further psychological damage from being sexually assaulted by an adult when you are 14. I have just one question: Why are the victims on trial here?
Feminism, economics, fashion, media, food, culture, controversy, and more... The women's magazine we wish existed.
Read about femonomics E-mail femonomics
.jpg)
